Bit Parts

Film Director Isn't Author of Movie

In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit addressed the question: “May a contributor to a creative work whose contributions are inseparable from, and integrated into, the work maintain a copyright interest in his or her contributions alone?” The appeals court answered no under the fact pattern presented in a film production company's declaratory suit against film director Alex Merkin over the movie Heads Up. Casa Duse LLC v. Merkin, 13-3865. Merkin, who claimed sole (rather than joint) authorship, hadn't signed a work-for-hire agreement. But the appeals court decided that “a director's contribution to an integrated 'work of authorship' such as a film is not itself a 'work of authorship' subject to its own copyright protection.” The appeals court added: “A conclusion other than the one we adopt would grant contributors like Merkin greater rights than joint authors, who, as we have noted, have no right to interfere with a co-author's use of the copyrighted work.” As to the Heads Up raw footage, the Second Circuit found: “The record does not reflect any developments that occurred between the creation of the raw film footage and Casa Duse's attempts to create a finished product that would alter [our] analysis as to the raw footage. We thus conclude that Casa Duse, not Merkin, owns the copyright in the finished film and its prior versions, including the disputed 'raw film footage.'”

'Grupo Miramar' Trademark Infringement Claim Prevails, But Not Claims for Counterfeiting or Intentional Interference

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted a default judgment in favor of Enrique Cari'o, founder of the Latino music group Grupo Miramar, in a trademark infringement action against the band El Internacional Grupo Miramar. Cari'o v. Hilario, 14-07930. But Central District Judge Dolly M. Gee tossed Cari'o's claims alleging trademark counterfeiting and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Judge Gee noted of the counterfeit claim: “Although Cari'o attaches copies of ads and flyers in connection with his motion for default judgment that show examples of copying of his mark, Cari'o does not allege facts in his Complaint that suggest that Defendants imitated the mark in its appearance so as to deceive customers into thinking they were obtaining the services of Cari'o's Grupo Miramar. In fact, in several of the advertisements, Defendants included their own pictures and an unstylized depiction of the 'Grupo Miramar' name.” As to the latter claim, Cari'o alleged that “[m]any times promoters have threatened to cancel or have cancelled a booking for [his] group because the [defendant] Hilarios have booked another performance in the same area using [] GRUPO MIRAMAR.” But the district judge observed: “Cari'o, however, has not alleged that Defendants knew of the economic relationships between these promoters and Cari'o and that Defendants acted intentionally to disrupt these relationships.”

Stan Soocher is Editor-in-Chief of Entertainment Law & Finance. His new book, Baby You're a Rich Man: Suing the Beatles for Fun & Profit (ForeEdge/University Press of New England), will be published in September 2015. For more information, visit www.stansoocher.com.

Film Director Isn't Author of Movie

In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit addressed the question: “May a contributor to a creative work whose contributions are inseparable from, and integrated into, the work maintain a copyright interest in his or her contributions alone?” The appeals court answered no under the fact pattern presented in a film production company's declaratory suit against film director Alex Merkin over the movie Heads Up. Casa Duse LLC v. Merkin, 13-3865. Merkin, who claimed sole (rather than joint) authorship, hadn't signed a work-for-hire agreement. But the appeals court decided that “a director's contribution to an integrated 'work of authorship' such as a film is not itself a 'work of authorship' subject to its own copyright protection.” The appeals court added: “A conclusion other than the one we adopt would grant contributors like Merkin greater rights than joint authors, who, as we have noted, have no right to interfere with a co-author's use of the copyrighted work.” As to the Heads Up raw footage, the Second Circuit found: “The record does not reflect any developments that occurred between the creation of the raw film footage and Casa Duse's attempts to create a finished product that would alter [our] analysis as to the raw footage. We thus conclude that Casa Duse, not Merkin, owns the copyright in the finished film and its prior versions, including the disputed 'raw film footage.'”

'Grupo Miramar' Trademark Infringement Claim Prevails, But Not Claims for Counterfeiting or Intentional Interference

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted a default judgment in favor of Enrique Cari'o, founder of the Latino music group Grupo Miramar, in a trademark infringement action against the band El Internacional Grupo Miramar. Cari'o v. Hilario, 14-07930. But Central District Judge Dolly M. Gee tossed Cari'o's claims alleging trademark counterfeiting and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Judge Gee noted of the counterfeit claim: “Although Cari'o attaches copies of ads and flyers in connection with his motion for default judgment that show examples of copying of his mark, Cari'o does not allege facts in his Complaint that suggest that Defendants imitated the mark in its appearance so as to deceive customers into thinking they were obtaining the services of Cari'o's Grupo Miramar. In fact, in several of the advertisements, Defendants included their own pictures and an unstylized depiction of the 'Grupo Miramar' name.” As to the latter claim, Cari'o alleged that “[m]any times promoters have threatened to cancel or have cancelled a booking for [his] group because the [defendant] Hilarios have booked another performance in the same area using [] GRUPO MIRAMAR.” But the district judge observed: “Cari'o, however, has not alleged that Defendants knew of the economic relationships between these promoters and Cari'o and that Defendants acted intentionally to disrupt these relationships.”

Stan Soocher is Editor-in-Chief of Entertainment Law & Finance. His new book, Baby You're a Rich Man: Suing the Beatles for Fun & Profit (ForeEdge/University Press of New England), will be published in September 2015. For more information, visit www.stansoocher.com.