Can you afford to be entertained?

What do you fill your silence with?

According to some recent studies, 93% of the US spend 25 hours or more a week listening to music. A week! With over a day dedicated to humming along to the latest hits, seems like America relies on music to be their top form of entertainment.

Why music?

Because it’s everywhere! You can take it in the car, hum along to it while you’re charging out that 25 page paper, or give a little whistle while you’re cleaning up.

Where do you get your music from?

The radio, obviously. It can follow you into the car, be plugged into your wall, or be downloaded through a phone app. Sure, iTunes and Spotify help put your favorite songs into easy access, along with Youtube and Pandora, but it seems like the radio is the most effective way to get music nowadays. Where do you listen to music?

What if your music wasn’t free?

As a college student, my budget is about as tight as my book-stuffed bag. So, do I still spend money on things that keep me entertained? You’re darn right tootin’ I do! Let’s take a look at who’s cutting back, and what they’re cutting back on.

Looks like people my age want to spend their money on something they can actually touch. Access over ownership: house, boats and cars seem to be coming in last on their checklist of hot items. This generation, my generation, knows the importance of an experience, but kind of forgets the importance of a possession.

What does this have to do with music?

People are always going to want entertainment. Back in the day, the Nickelodeon movie theaters still had patrons even though the US was going through a great depression. Even when budgets are tight, people are going to look for the luxury of entertainment to boost up their morals. Seems like people are moving towards entertainment, tangible or not, over actually buying and keeping things.

But it’s my toy!

Sharing is Caring

When you buy a new toy, or anything really, you expect it to be yours. I mean, that makes sense, right? You buy a doll, you play with her til she’s too raggedy. You buy a video game, you play with it til you accidentally spill your beer and it skips more than it plays. You buy a Wii U, you expect to use it in whatever it has been programmed to play with. Right? Wrong.

Nintendo Begs to Differ

So what in the world is Nintendo doing to make us rethink what we really own? Their end-user license agreement for the Wii U forces players to agree to be bound by the new legal terms before the Wii U will continue functioning. We all ignore software updates; my Mac is reminding me daily that I haven’t updated it in the past year. I figure that means I may not be able to download certain material or visit certain sites.

Nintendo decided to take that update to a different level. You can’t decline to update your Wii U. The user agreement blocks you from accessing your games or any information you’ve saved on the consul. Want to play the game? You need to click accept.

Why not just update?

A while back, PS3 (yes, yes. Not the same as Nintendo. Bare with me.) released their update for their software. It was more of a downgrade than an upgrade, and the users didn’t want to update. And they had that option.

Wii U offers no option. You either accept the terms, or forfeit the toy.

I don’t play, why should you care?

Because, this isn’t only Nintendo.

Ever used an auto loan to help you get that trendy new flashy car you’re using to get back and forth to work? Some cars are now coming with a ‘starter interrupter’ that will shut down your car if your payments late. So much for using that car to drive to work to pay for that car.

A car seems a little more important than the Wii U, right?

It’s the same law

As long as your product, be it car or be it game, come with a license, you may be at risk of losing it if you don’t accept any of the company’s terms. Agree, or you’re out.

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?

Mmm, that’s so good, what’s your recipe? No way! It’s a secret!

Mmm, that’s so good, what’s your recipe? No way! It’s a secret!

We all know which pizza has the better sauce, the fluffier crusts and the tastier toppings. But, can you trademark that flavor?

Judge Gregg Costa in Texas recently denied the ability to protect the trademark of a pizza flavor.

New York Pizzeria, the plaintiff, decided to fight for its bite when the president left the company and was going to create a knockoff restaurant using the same delicious treats he had left behind. They argued that the ingredients and the way the pizza was prepared were specific the the flavor, and that means they should have trademark protection of their yum yums.

So, what’s a trademark?

Something that’s capable of carrying out the meaning and be distinctive. This doesn’t apply to colors (sorry Rainbow), and now, it doesn’t apply to flavor either. The Judge says, “As with colors, it is unlikely that flavors can ever be inherently distinctive, because they do not automatically suggest a product’s source.” Plus, you can’t trademark a functional product.

If you can’t trademark the flavor, how do you protect a task treat from treachery?

If you’re plating your food in a non-funtional, but inherently distinctive way, you might be able to protect the trademark of it. Signature dishes, which meet a higher standard, are prepared in a way that pleases the eye before it pleases the palette. This, the Judge says, could have a claim for trademark protection.

The Commodores

The Mystics, which later became known as The Commodores, were facing a trademark infringement suit in the District Court of Orlando, Florida earlier this year when former guitarist McClary started up a new band playing Commodores original compositions.

Who are The Commodores?

Thomas McClary and Lionel Richie co-founded the musical group The Commodores back in 1968. The band became a big hit after touring with The Jackson 5 and signing with Motown Records.

Flash forward to 2014, and McClary is trying to continue using The Commodores to perform. Commodores Entertainment Corp. brought this suit under a federal trademark infringement complaint for “misleading advertisements and marketing efforts” for the Commodore trademark they had obtained in 2001. U.S. District Judge Roy Dalton Jr. initially agreed that an infringement could harm the Corporation, but also stated that there was no evidence of imminent or immediate harm.

What’s the issue?

The Corporation is worried that McClary has been leaving a false impression on consumers that he is still affiliated with The Commodores, even though he broke out of the band as a solo artist 30 years ago.

The Commodores quickly became well know for hit songs, like “Brick House”, and decided to form the Commodores Entertainment Corp. to protect their sound recordings. Throughout the years, McClary and Richie both left the group, but The Commodores continued to perform, and went on the win their only Grammy.

So, how does the Court see it?

There was no imminent or immediate harm coming from McClary continuing to associate himself with the Commodores. The case was promptly dismissed by US District Judge Dalton.

One Suit Ends…Another Begins

Avatar has been renowned for not only the majestic characters, the notable actors and actresses, a highly effective script, but for the amount of copyright infringement suits brought against director James Cameron.

What’s the problem?

Artist William Roger Dean filed a copyright infringement suit in the District Court of New York against Avatar for infringing on 14 of his paintings to create the planet of Pandora.

The above picture is a painting by artist Dean, one of many, that he claims Cameron used to create the planet of Pandora, pictured below.

So, did Cameron do it?

The Court found that Dean’s claim was unwarranted, and dismissed the case. US District Court Judge Furman stated that many of the images Dean claims were infringing his work weren’t even from the multi-billion dollar blockbuster hit, but from books about the film.

The Court felt that there were substantial differences, more than any similarities that Dean was claiming.

Seems like Cameron has been incredibly lucky with the suits brought against him in the past couple of years. Hopefully, this victory will dissuade others from bringing more frivolous charges against Avatar.

It’s Time for Isabella to Let It Go

Two sisters grew up shut away from the world in a castle to hide one of their powers to shoot ice from her hands. I’ll ask you: does this seem like a Disney movie? Or like the life of a woman in New Jersey?

Did Disney steal this story, the way Anna and Elsa stole your hearts?

Peruvian author Isabella Tanikumi filed a civil lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Disney for infringing on her life story to produce Frozen. Think Disney infringed? Keep in mind, Frozen includes Princess sisters who grew up in a castle. One sister runs away to build her snow castle after being caught by her kingdom at her coronation ceremony, so her sister engages the help of a reindeer and a snowman to find her sister and bring her back.

Where’d the story come from then?

Isabella doesn’t quite claim that she made friends with a talkative snowman, but she does site 18 specific examples of when or how Disney infringed on her life story, like the claim that Disney stole the idea of betrayal from a loved one. Disney states that Frozen is loosely based off the Hans Christian Andersen fair tale, The Snow Queen, but firmly opposes any sort of borrowing from a New Jersey author’s autobiography.

Let It Go!

Hey Isabella? Think it’s time to Let It Go.

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.