Copyright law, fine art and navigating the courts. Author Copyright Litigation Handbook (Thomson Reuters Westlaw 2019-2020)
Monday, January 17, 2011
Fair Use Doctrine in Copyright Law: Producer's Use of Clip in Jersey Boys is Fair Use
In Sofa Entertainment Inc. v. Dodger Productions, Inc., 2010 WL 4228343 (C.D. Cal. July 12, 2010), a seven-second video clip from The Ed Sullivan Show was used in the play Jersey Boys without permission. Jersey Boys is the story of The Four Seasons, a rock bank led by Frankie Vallie. The Jersey Boys got a critical boost from playing numerous times on The Ed Sullivan Show.
It was undisputed that the clip depicted an important moment in the career of the Four Seasons.
Copyright law's fair use doctrine is embedded in 17 USC 107, which provides:
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A [a copyright owner's exclusive rights to publish and distribute copyrighted works] , the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Factor 1. Purpose and character of use. In the Jersey Boys case, the parties disputed whether the work was a fictionalized account or a biography of the Four Seasons, since this would have an effect on the first factor. The court found that Jersey Boys was meant to entertain, whether or not it was biographical. This factor weighed in Plaintiff's favor.
Factor 2. Transformative use. The court found a transformative use because the clip was used merely as an historical reference point in a play. It did not serve the same entertainment purpose as the original Ed Sullivan Show appearance of the Four Seasons. This factor weighed in Defendant's favor.
Factor 1. Commercial use. Although the court found the use to be commercial, the transformative use and the very short amount borrowed rendered the commercial use slight and not to be accorded great weight.
Factor 3. Amount and substantiality of portion used. The court found that Jersey Boys did not borrow the "heart" of the original work: The Four Seasons' performance, but merely borrowed Ed Sullivan's introduction, which was not the heart of the underlying work. The court found the performances by featured talent to be the "heart" of these shows.
Factor 4. The court found that there was no evidence of a market for the clip and that use of the clip, which did not contain the original Four Seasons' performance, was not a commercial substitute for the underlying work, which contained the Four Seasons' performance. Given the lack of market evidence, this factor weighted against the Plaintiff.
Weighing and balancing the factors, the court found that use of the clip was "fair use". On Sept. 29 2010, an appeal was filed before the Ninth Circuit that is still pending.
More on the fair use doctrine here
Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook 2010 by Raymond J. Dowd from West here
Labels:
17 usc 107,
copyright infringement,
copyright law,
fair use doctrine,
frankie valli,
jersey boys,
licensing law,
licensing litigation,
the ed sullivan show,
the four seasons
Copyright Infringement: Attorneys Fees Denied for Prevailing Party in Roger Miller Case
Roger Miller Music Inc. v. SONY/ATV Publishing LLC, 2010 WL 4180814 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 19, 2010).
Although it is often said that there is a presumption that attorneys fees are awarded to the prevailing party, obtaining attorneys fees is tricky. Just because you won the case doesn't mean that your time entries can be submitted willy-nilly for every effort made in the case. Because there are so many minefields, I devoted a whole chapter of Copyright Litigation Handbook to the topic.
In Roger Miller Music, the plaintiff prevailed, but didn't recover fees. But the fee application did not argue the Fogerty factors:
1. whether the non-prevailing party's claims were frivolous;
2. the non-prevailing party's motivation;
3. the factual and legal unreasonableness of the non-prevailing party's position;
4. the need to advance considerations of compensation and deterrence.
From Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994). The takeaway:
1 fee applications should address the Fogerty factors;
2. fee applications should distinguish between time spent on successful and unsuccessful efforts;
3. fee applications should not ask for fees related to unsuccessful efforts.
4. fee applications should argue the "big picture" questions of policy and deterrence.
In Roger Miller, plaintiffs unsuccessfully appealed one of the trial court determinations, then failed to break out the time expended on that appeal. The trial court found that plaintiff's failure to submit evidence that the Fogerty factors were satisfied warranted denial of attorneys fees.
More on attorneys fees here.
In sum, simply winning isn't enough to recoup your attorneys fees.
Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook 2010 by Raymond J. Dowd from West here
Labels:
attorneys fee applications,
attorneys fees,
copyright infringement,
copyright law,
Fogerty factors,
prevailing party,
Roger Miller,
sony music
Copyright Litigation: Defamation Claim Based on Copyright Registration Filing Survives Summary Judgment
In Morris v. Atchity, 2010 WL 4181452 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2010), the court declined to grant a summary judgment motion dismissing a claim for defamation based on statements made in a copyright registration. This is an unusual claim, but the decision does not explain what the allegedly defamatory statement made was.
Any slander of title-type of claim would appear to be preempted by the Copyright Act: anyone can file a competing claim, this is the point of the copyright registration process. I didn't dig into the docket sheet to figure out what possible statement might be defamatory.
In Morris v. Atchity, Plaintiff Margaret Morris alleged that her work "Jesus Augustus: From Imperial Cult to Christianity" was infringed by a novel based on the work "The Ashes of Christ/The August God".
Plaintiff alleged that she submitted the work to defendant and had an implied contract. The court declined summary judgment on the implied contract, finding that material questions of fact precluded a dismissal based on preemption.
Defendants argued that the works share only a similar historical theory. In denying the motion, the court found that "reasonable minds might differ as to whether there are substantial similarities between the two works with respect to the protected expression of ideas contained in Plaintiff's literary work."
Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook 2010 by Raymond J. Dowd from West here
Labels:
copyright law,
copyright registration,
defamation,
implied contract,
preemption,
slander of title
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
How To Testify Before Congress: It's a Whole New World - January 13
Samuel L. Clemens - Mark Twain - Congressional Gadfly
Image Courtesy Wikipedia
Please join us this Thursday to get Bill LaForge's great new book: How To Testify Before Congress.
The book features Samuel Clemens (p/k/a Mark Twain)'s testimony before Congress on copyright, which is a big hoot.
Thursday, January 13, 2011, 6:00 PM – 9:00 PM
3 MCLE Credits: 1.5 Skills; 1.5 Professional Practice
New York County Lawyers' Association http://www.nycla.org/
Testifying before Congress is different from giving testimony in any other forum – including courts of law – because the rules are different and the deck is stacked. This CLE will cover preparation and delivery of
congressional testimony from A to Z: the
• context and climate of the committee hearings process;
• how hearings are organized and staged;
• who should testify and how to get invited;
• the types of hearings and committee hearing players;
• preparation of a stellar written statement;
• rehearsal of the witness;
• key ingredients to superbly delivered oral testimony;
• how to respond to committee questions, including handling hostile inquiries and interrogators;
• how to excel as a witness with adequate preparation; and,
• strategies to maximize (or minimize) testimony impact and how to mitigate potential communication crisis.
This program provides a must have tutorial on preparing and delivering testimony before Congress and in Congressional hearings for use by lawyers, agencies, associations, corporations, military personnel, NGO’s
and state and local officials.
Attendees at the program will receive a copy of Testifying Before Congress, by William N. LaForge, The Capital.Net, Inc. ©2010.
Program Co-Sponsor: Southern District of New York Chapter of the Federal Bar Association
Program Chair and Moderator: Raymond Dowd, Dunnington, Bartholow & Miller LLP
Faculty: William N. LaForge, Winstead PC, author of Testifying Before Congress
Luke McGrath, Dunnington, Bartholow & Miller LLP
Jeff Richardson, Starkman Associates
Link to flyer with full information here:
http://www.scribd.com/full/46680881?access_key=key-1ckb9vquh4vg3kxalu24
Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook 2010 by Raymond J. Dowd from West here
Labels:
1909 copyright act,
copyright law,
copyright legislation,
federal bar assocation,
mark twain,
new york county lawyers' association,
samuel clemens,
testifying before Congress,
witness preparation
Monday, December 27, 2010
Happy Holidays From Ray Dowd
Attending the Federal Bar Association annual conference in Hawaii this December, I spotted Santa.... so much for all of those reindeer and North Pole myths!
Wishing everyone healthy and happy holidays and a prosperous 2011. Ray
Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook 2010 by Raymond J. Dowd from West here
Wishing everyone healthy and happy holidays and a prosperous 2011. Ray
Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook 2010 by Raymond J. Dowd from West here
Labels:
continuing legal education,
copyright litigation handbook,
federal bar association,
hawaiian santa
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


