Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Bit Parts
Failure to Geoblock User Uploads of Movies Isn't Ground for Establishing Personal Jurisdiction Over Web Company
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a novel personal-jurisdiction ruling in a copyright infringement lawsuit brought against the Chinese Internet video-viewing website Youku. Triple Up Ltd. v. Youku Tudou Inc., 16-159. Triple Up claims it owns the exclusive Internet performance rights to three Taiwanese movies that one of its lawyers in the District of Columbia was able to stream from Youku's website. Youku claims: it licensed the right to stream the movies in China; used geoblocking to bar access to the films in the United States; nevertheless removed them from Youku's Chinese website a year ago; and that the movies must have been uploaded by its users. (Youku doesn't use geoblocking to prevent such uploading.) Dismissing the case for lack of specific personal jurisdiction over Youku, District Judge Randolph D. Moss observed: “Because geoblocking technology exists, Triple Up says, it is no longer the case that making a website accessible in the United States is 'an unavoidable side-effect of modern internet technology,' or that basing personal jurisdiction on website accessibility would 'almost always' expose the defendant to suit 'in any forum in the country.' To be sure, the proposition that a website's affirmative geoblocking efforts should weigh against the exercise of personal jurisdiction is unobjectionable. But Triple Up's proposed rule — which equates a failure to geoblock with purposeful availment — would effectively mandate geoblocking for any website operator wishing to avoid suit in the United States … and, indeed, could limit U.S. residents' access to what is appropriately called the World Wide Web. Perhaps, in the future, geoblocking will become sufficiently widespread that a failure to use it will be considered 'purposeful' and assigned jurisdictional significance. But Triple Up provides no factual basis for the [c]ourt to conclude that this is the case now ….” Judge Moss added: “The [c]ourt is unaware of any authority suggesting that a failure to act might constitute purposeful availment.”
*****
Letter of Intent For Production of Film Wasn't Binding
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia decided that a letter of intent between a Georgia-based film production company and a Kenyan university wasn't a binding agreement. XL Squad Entertainment LLC v. Mount Kenya University (MKU), 1:16-CV-962. XL and MKU entered into a letter of intent early in 2015 for the making of the proposed film The Last Result. The beginning of the document stated it was “non-binding,” but further down noted: “Each Party hereby reaffirms its intention that this [letter of intent] as a whole, and is intended to constitute, a legal and binding obligation, contract, or agreement between the Parties, and is intended to be relied on by any Party as constituting such.” MKU later withdrew from the deal by claiming XL made misrepresentations about it. XL in turn sued MKU for breach of contract, among other things. Granting summary judgment in favor of MKU, District Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. found: “In this case, the parties seem to have anticipated some sort of Final Agreement that would be signed between them. They also provided for either party to unilaterally withdraw from the deal 'at any time' and 'for any or no reason.' The presence of these clauses seems to indicate that the parties did not mean to be bound by the terms of the proposed deal beyond their good faith efforts to negotiate. Rather, the Letter of Intent simply stood as an outline for a future final agreement. The Plaintiffs argue that the parties only had the right to withdraw until January 23, 2015. But the sentence the Plaintiffs seem to be citing only lists out certain consequences if a party decides to withdraw by that date.”
*****
Use of Catcalling Footage in Ad Doesn't Result in Viable False Endorsement Claim by Actress
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York decided the public wouldn't be misled into believing that a TGI Friday's ad, depicting walking food appetizers getting catcalls from men on New York City streets, was endorsed by actress Shoshana Roberts. Roberts v. Bliss, 15-CV-10167. Roberts had appeared in the viral video “10 Hours Walking in NYC as a Woman” in which she receives numerous catcalls. The film's creator Rob Bliss licensed the footage to the restaurant, which in its ad superimposed depictions of life-sized appetizers over Roberts' image. Roberts' federal claim alleged false endorsement under §43(a) of the Lanham Act. Dismissing the claim, District Judge Ronnie Abrams noted: “Because of the superimposition of the giant appetizers, Roberts is not pictured or represented in the ad at all. Whether or not the ad evokes Roberts in some way, it is insufficient to state a Lanham Act claim ….” Judge Abrams added that the life-sized appetizers “are now the subject of the men's desire. That, together with the play on words between 'appcalling' and 'catcalling,' is what makes [the TGI Friday's ad] a parody. And because the parody is obvious, the 'risk of consumer confusion is at its lowest.'”
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
How Secure Is the AI System Your Law Firm Is Using?
In a profession where confidentiality is paramount, failing to address AI security concerns could have disastrous consequences. It is vital that law firms and those in related industries ask the right questions about AI security to protect their clients and their reputation.
Fifth Circuit Rejects Majority 'Independent Economic Value' Test for Infringement Damages
Most of the federal circuit courts that have addressed what qualifies either as a "compilation" or as a single creative work apply an "independent economic value" analysis that looks at the market worth of the single creation as of the time when an infringement occurs. But in a recent ruling of first impression, the Fifth Circuit rejected the "independent economic value" test in determining which individual sound recordings are eligible for their own statutory awards and which are part of compilation.
The Power of Your Inner Circle: Turning Friends and Social Contacts Into Business Allies
Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.
AI Governance In Practice
Regardless of how a company proceeds with identifying AI governance challenges, and folds appropriate mitigation solution into a risk management framework, it is critical to begin with an AI governance program.