Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Children Book Versions of Classic Novels Not Fair Use
In 2016, Frederik Colting and Melisa Medina planned to launch a series of 50 children's books, each book summarizing a great novel. They began by publishing versions of Truman Capote's Breakfast at Tiffany's, Ernest Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea, Jack Kerouac's On the Road and Arthur C. Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey. They called their colorfully illustrated summaries KinderGuides. The front covers of the books prominently displayed the titles of the novels, the names of the authors, the word KinderGuides and, in much smaller print, “Early Learning Guides to Culture Classics.”
The four guides shared the same format: featured illustrations, one-line quotations by the authors of the novels, an illustration of the underlying novel's author, and “Story Summary,” “Main Characters,” “Key Words,” “Quiz Questions” and “Analysis” sections. In January 2017, the owners of the copyrights to the novels filed a copyright infringement suit against Colting and Medina in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case is a useful tale for lawyers who advise publishers on either side of such a dispute. Penguin Random House LLC v. Colting, 17-cv-386.
The complaint alleged two counts for each of the four KinderGuides: a general infringement claim and violation of the right to make derivative works. The complaint's ninth count alleged infringement in the character of Holly Golightly from Breakfast at Tiffany's. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on liability and willfulness. The defendants filed their own motion for summary judgment on the issues of liability and on a fair use defense.
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?