Here’s Looking At You, Kid

A little bit of history

Alright, not way back in history, but let’s go back to the Clint Eastwood staring 2012 film Trouble With the Curve. Gold Glove Productions filed a copyright infringement a suit in the United States District Court against big-time Warner Brothers and Clint Eastwood for making a film way too similar to their screenplay Omaha. GGP claims that their writer, Handfield, handed down the script through the agency system during an argument, and it was adapted into the 2012 Warner Bros film.

The complaint

GGP claimed that the Hollywood industry was degenerating, and that this copyright claim would serve to help get rid of this sort of corruption. The case turned into a ‘he said’ ‘he said’ argument and gained more media attention than these cases tend to do. Presiding Judge Fischer did not find the scripts overly similar and she didn’t find GGP to be overly convincing either: a father-daughter story about baseball cannot be copyrighted. The characters were different, the ideas weren’t the same, and dialogue didn’t overlap. GGP lost their copyright claim, but were allowed to bring back their other tortious complaints.

So, what’s going on now?

GGP’s back again, filing a $5 million suit against the film Trouble With the Curve. Originally, the suit was brought against Warner Bros and Cling Eastwood. This time around, GGP’s bringing the same suit, different name: Handfield. Instead of going against some of the strongest names in Hollywood, GGP decided to crack down on the man who wrote the original script in question. Was the confidentiality clause in the contract breached? GGP sure thinks so.

GGP contends that Brown, the author of the films script, was just some musician and couldn’t have written this without stealing the idea from Handsfield.

What are your thoughts?

Was Handsfield at fault? Why or why not?

“As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be a gangster.” Not a Simpson!

You talking to me?

Frank Sivero is best known for his ability to portray mobsters in movies and on screen television series, like The Godfather Part II and Goodfellas.

So, why is he being a wise guy and suing Fox Television Studios for $250 million? Well, because of the wise guy in the Simpsons show of course.

Keep Your Friends Close, But Keep Those Neighbors Off Your Lawn

Jump back 25 years, when the writers of The Simpsons were Mr. Sivero’s next door neighbors. The writers, says Sivero, knew about the development of Frankie Carbone, and that the personality of the character was created by by Sivero.

The Simpsons decided to introduce Louie, the second in command to Fat Tony, in 15 episode, running around mob-like in Springfield. Louie seems to be quite a bit like Sivero. So, does this infringe California’s publicity rights law? Sivero filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California to find out.

How do we fix it?

Sivero is asking for $50 million for actual damages because The Simpsons damaged his characters by stealing his likeness. He also asks for a generous $100 million for improper interference, and another $50 million for actual confidential idea damages.

We’ll see how this one plays out.

What do you think?

Does Louie overwhelmingly remind you of Frankie?

Are You Turtle-y Enough for The Turtles?

They used to be ‘so happy together’.

The Turtles seemed “so happy together”, so what could possibly make them a party to a suit in the District Court of California? Throughout their careers, Kaylan and Volman, the founding members of the band, controlled a company Flo & Eddie to distribute and market their band. And this company was the only place that had that exclusive right.

What happens to oldies in modern times?

Seems that Sirius missed that memo. If you haven’t had the Sirius experience, they’re a satellite radio company with different channels streaming different sorts of music, like oldies. Specifically, pre-1972 recording oldies, 15 of which were owned by Flo & Eddie. Six years after hearing Sirius play a Turtles song, Flo &Eddie decided to bring suit, even though other radio stations had been playing unlicensed recordings of the same musical compositions.

So, what do Flo & Eddie think Sirius has been up to?

1. Publicly performing the sound recordings to consumers and secondary partners and 2. Reproducing the sound recordings.

Pre-1972 Sound Recording

There’s a lot more to it, but basically, a pre-1972 sound recording comes with a slightly different bundle of rights than a post-72 recording does. And that’s what Sirius was relying on to win their defense. The biggest thing that sets aside a pre-1972 recording is the fact that the recordings are governed by state law, California in this case.

So, why did the Court find in favor of Flo & Eddie?

According to the Honorable United States District Court Judge Gutierrez, because they owned the exclusive rights to publicly perform their songs.

Why should you care if you aren’t a radio satellite?

Because apps like Spotify and Pandora may need to charge you more now for that rockin’ classic song you love so much.

Love-laced Lawsuit

Everyone and his brother has heard of, or probably watched Deep Throat: a pornographic film starring Miss Linda Lovelace. While Miss Lovelace is the star of a long history of controversy, a film depicting her biography may be stealing some of that limelight.

The latest point of controversy concerning Lovelace is a copyright infringement suit in the District Court of New York filed by Arrow Productions, the production company that owns the rights to the pornographic film Deep Throat. The production company claims the new biopic Lovelace by the Weinstein Company violates their 1972 copyright.

If the idea of the lawsuit wasn’t intriguing enough, the complaint itself should take the cake. The suit? Three scenes from the original Deep Throat had their dialogue reproduced in the biography, including the positioning of the actors. The defense relies on a fair use argument.

To accept a fair use argument, United States District Court Judge Griesa must consider a four factor test. The primary factor is whether the new film is transformative, or if it “adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning or message.” The courts finding, and the logical finding is yes: Deep Throat is a pornographic film with explicit sex scenes. Lovelace is a biography that captures the life of Linda Lovelace, and her struggle with the pornography industry, including the filming of Deep Throat. The court further holds that the reproduction of the infamous medical consultation scene was recreated to show Lovelace’s inexperience in the industry, not to reproduce a sexual scene for the pleasure of the viewing audience.

The court does explain that Arrow Productions proves the second factor in claiming the nature of the copyrighted work, which is a creative film.

The third factor in the fair use test is whether the scenes reproduced in the biography were substantial, and since the scenes only amount to 4 minutes of the 61-minute film, the court found that this did not meet the test of substantiality.

Last, Arrow Productions does not prove their trademark claim because a pornographic film and a biography cannot reasonable be confused with one another.

In the end, Weinstein was triumphant in proving that his film did not infringe on the copyrighted film Deep Throat.