I was recently tasked to search for a few podcasts that focused with Entertainment Law. During my search I subscribed to two podcast and found a wealth of information regarding a few cases that peaked my interest. One case I heard about briefly and two others that made my jaw drop.
The first podcast was done by two guys by the name of Jonathan Arnold, Esq and James Harrell. The name of the Episode was called, "Don't sign that! Standup Comedy". In this podcast they discussed copyright on jokes and standup routines or acts. Jonathan explained that the copyright protects the expression not the idea. As Jonathan explained more in detail, it can be difficult to copyright a joke a comedian tells. For example, one comedian can tell a joke about flying. Then another comedian can tell a joke about flying as well and that can't be protected. If a comedian has a routine sketch or act, then it can be copyright. Whoopi Goldberg does a standup act as Fontaine. Fontaine is a junky and tells her story and adventures to the audience. Whoopi has become this character and can copyright Fontaine and her story. I found this to be very informative. I've heard comedians get annoyed about other comedians stealing their jokes and passing them off as their own. Jonathan suggested the advice he gives his clients, and that is to record your shows that you do, to help protect yourself from theft of joke or act stealers. This can be a good way to copyright your act.
http://www.dontsignthatpodcast.com/
Another podcast I listened to was Entertainment update. I listened to a few episodes that really caught my attention. Gordon P. Firemark, Esq hosts a entertainment law update once a month where he discusses recent copyright and trademark infringement cases in the entertainment industry. In Episode 23, he talked about the case Warner Bros V. X One X Productions lawsuit over the Wizard of Oz. The Wizard of Oz was written by Frank Baum in 1900. The book is public domain since it was written in 1900. X One X productions was taking old posters from the movie version of the Wizard of Oz and making lunch box,s wallets etc. When the company was brought to court over the copyright infringement by Warner Bros, their defense was that the characters from the Wizard of Oz were public domain. However, the court showed favor to Warner bros as they currently hold the copyright to the movie version which X one X productions were using the movie poster images to make their product. This made my jaw drop, as I never thought about WB owning the rights to Wizard of OZ the movie. With so many new remakes coming out and the use of these characters, it will be interesting to see how the copyright would play for these future release.
Episode 23: Http://www.entertainmentlawupdate.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/podcast-logo.png
The next episode that I enjoyed and took note on was episode27. This was a year in review of 2011. I recently watched the movie Hangover 2 and enjoyed laughing at some of the sick tactics this movie showed. In one scene one of the characters wake up in Bangkok with a tattoo on his face. It wasn't until later in the movie when Mike Tyson appeared that I realized it was like the exact copy of his tattoo on his face. I didn't think anything of it until I was reading Entertainment magazine that WB was being sued by the original tattoo artist who did Mike Tyson's tattoo.
As Gordon explained the case, he stated that S. Victor Whitmill brought a lawsuit against WB stating that this was his work of art that they copied and he wasn't given any credit or paid for using his art. However, it is clear that the tattoo was a replica of the one on Tyson's face. As part of Whitmill lawsuit against WB he wanted to stop the release of the movie until the lawsuit was settled. The judge did allow the case to go forward, but did not stop the injunction of the films release. WB stated that they would digitize the design out of the movie when it was released on dvd. However, in June 2011, WB settled with Whitmall. The terms of the lawsuit was never made public.
Episode 27: Http://www.entertainmentlawupdate.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/podcast-logo.png
Universal Orlando
Monday, February 27, 2012
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Apple's Liabilities
Since the release of Apple Inc. Iphone and Ipad, Apple has faced a lot of legal battles over patents. One big battle Apple is involved with is Samsung. Apple has been in court and legal battles over Samsung’s Galaxy Tablet 10.1. Apple states that Samsung has duplicated their Ipad 2 platform and has asked that Samsung halt selling and releasing the tablet. So far Apple has won the battle in Australia and at the time has stopped production of the tablet. These rulings are hurting Samsung’s tablet sales and the company was worried it would not be able to sale their tablet during the holidays. Already banned to sell their tablet in Australia and Germany, Samsung decided to release the tablet a little different and change the outer shell of the tablet. This was called the Galaxy tablet 10.1N. Apple then tried to ban this unit, still in germany. However, the german courts ruled that the change was significant change to rule against Apple. This allowed Samsung to release the tablet for the holidays. A Minor win for Samsung. However, the battle still continues all over the world as Apple continues to Ban the Tablet in other countries. In South Korea, the battle continues to heat up and not looking good for Apple.
In My opinion, this battle should have ended long ago when Samsung offered to pay Apple patent and licensing fees to end this war. Apple is still trying to protect it’s patent and is appealing the german courts ruling. As an Apple Employee, I really didn’t see the big difference but wished this war would end soon.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2012/02/01/samsung-finally-wins-patent-battle-against-apple/
Another Legal battle Apple was involved in was with HTC. The case against HTC was regarding 20 odd patents. Some of the patents were the unlocking of the screen, Touch base screen, and multi-tasking. I’ll have to admit reading some of the patents that are listed in this case I had no idea was patented. During this battle it was speculated that Apple was after HTC to take down Android which was rumored that Apple was at war with. So, with the battle going on Apple the ITC allowed only 4 to hold up in court. Out of these four rulings, apple had a victory of one of them. This ban from their phones will start on April 19, 2012. So, what was the patent ruled against? It was Patent 647, which relates to the technology when a user clicks on a phone number in an e-mail and or text it calls the individual.
So this battle went from 20 to 4, and apple only won 1. HTC said they will take that design out of it’s phones and considers it not a big deal. Once again, in my opnion, it wasn’t a big victory in Apple’s favor, but hey sometimes it’s always good to protect your gold.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/world/6169441/Apple-in-narrow-win-in-suit-vs-HTC
The last battle Apple is going through now is Motorola. Currently apple lost this legal battle over patent infringement in Germany. The ban circles around 3G patent related. This has caused Apple to remove the sale of the Iphone 3G, All Ipad 3g models and Iphone 4. With the win on the 3G patent, Motorola has filed suit again seeking an injunction against the Iphone 4S and the ICloud. The lawsuit cites six patents which Motorola used against other Apple devices in the same court. Because of the time frame of the release, Motorola could not include it in it’s first suit.
This is lawsuit is bad news. The ban of 3G model phones and IPads will hurt Apple’s sales for sure. Now Apple can redesign it’s phone to match or pay fees to Motorola to continue the sale of it’s product. At the current time Apple is appealing the ban but it could end up paying out. In my Opinion, pay out Apple!
http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/12/09/motorola.gets.german.win.blocking.iphone.3g.ipads/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)