Posts in Copyright Litigation

These issues of fairness and fair use are played out in the recent Oracle v. Google decision. In a convoluted case that has gone up to the Supreme Court once and will again, the Federal Circuit finally was able to make a ruling that the blatant, verbatim copying of computer code is not a fair use. At issue were the copying of 37 Oracle programs or apps, constituting over 11,500 lines of code, by Google for their use in the Android operating system for smart phones and other uses… In the Federal Circuit’s final analysis of the four factors, they again noted that Google could have written their own code or properly licensed with Oracle, but instead chose to copy. “There is nothing fair about taking a copyrighted work verbatim and using it for the same purpose and function as the original in a competing platform.” Accordingly, the Federal Circuit held that Google’s use of the Oracle code was not a fair use.

Artist Matt Furie, the creator of the Pepe the Frog anthropomorphic frog character that has gained notoriety for its use in Internet memes, filed a complaint for copyright infringement in the Central District of California. The suit targets a pair of companies managed by far-right conservative radio show host Alex Jones over the use of the Pepe character over the sale of a poster including a likeness of Pepe alongside political figures from the alt-right and the 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump.

The Federal Circuit found Google’s use of Java API packages in it’s Android operating system was not a fair use as a matter of law, resurrecting a multi-billion dollar copyright case brought by Oracle Corp against Google. With copyrightability and fair use now decided, unless the Supreme Court intervenes (which seems unlikely) this case will head back to the district court for a damages trial with the sole question being how much money Google owes Oracle America. “This is a hugely important development in the law of copyright and fair use. If it stands, there are numerous implications,” said J. Michael Keyes is a partner at the international law firm Dorsey & Whitney.

The case is interesting, however, not just because it involved famous subjects – a “renowned photographer” (as the Plaintiff was described in the court’s first sentence), a famous brand (Nike) and one its most well-known logos (“Jumpman”), and a photo of one of the most famous people in the world (Michael Jordan) – although these items alone perhaps merit some attention. But for lawyers and those who deal with copyright protection in the business world, perhaps more interesting is the court’s explication of the classic copyright concept of the idea-expression dichotomy, as well as its holding that the photograph at issue, while not infringed, was entitled to broad protection.

On Wednesday, March 21, 2018, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the song Blurred Lines infringed the copyright in Marvin Gaye’s song Got To Give It Up. See Williams v. Gaye, No. 15-56880. Affirming most of the decision of the district court, the Ninth Circuit also held that the award of actual damages and infringers’ profits, and a running royalty, were all proper. The panel did, however, reverse a piece of the district court ruling, finding that the district court erred in overturning the jury’s general verdict in favor of certain parties because the defendants waived any challenge to the consistency of the jury’s general verdicts.

Attorneys representing Jamaican songwriter Michael May filed a suit for copyright infringement in the Southern District of New York. At issue in the case are musical elements from a 1988 song written by May which were allegedly copied by songwriters for Miley Cyrus 2013 single We Can’t Stop. Although the song lyrics are the only musical element which have been allegedly infringed, the complaint makes plenty of mention of cultural elements which have also been appropriated by Cyrus during the course of her career.

On February 15, 2018 a New York district court judge – in Goldman v. Breitbart News Network – challenged the reasoning of Perfect 10, and she concluded that one who embeds content may be engaged in a public display, thus making the practice far more risky… In Goldman v Breitbart News, Judge Katherine Forrest ruled that the Ninth Circuit was wrong to rely on the Server Test, and that a website thus can face direct liability, under particular circumstances, for making a display by embedding a copyrighted work in a website. The case involved a copyrighted image of Tom Brady, Danny Ainge and others that was first posted by the photographer as a Snapchat Story, but was soon copied by several individuals on Twitter with accompanying tweets.

So uncreative did Judge Michael Fitzgerald find Taylor Swift’s 2014 hit Shake It Off, he dismissed a copyright infringement case filed against her. In his opinion Judge Michael Fitzgerald explained the allegedly infringing lyrics used by Swift lacked even the modest level of creativity required for copyright protection… “The concept of actors acting in accordance with their essential nature is not at all creative; it is banal,” Fitzgerald worte. “In the early 2000s, popular culture was adequately suffused with the concepts of players and haters to render the phrases ‘playas … gonna play’ or ‘haters … gonna hate,’ standing on their own, no more creative than ‘runners gonna run,’ ‘drummers gonna drum,’ or ‘swimmers gonna swim.’”

If our legal system worked properly, it would be easy enough for her to file for copyright infringement. But under our current claims system, high litigation costs make it almost impossible for authors, writers and artists to protect their livelihoods in court. Independent creators are frequent victims of piracy and other forms of copyright infringement. But without the resources of a record company or publisher, pursuing small claims is financially impossible… Fortunately, there’s a bipartisan policy fix pending in Congress. It’s called the CASE Act (H.R. 3945), and it creates a system that makes pursuing small claims financially and logistically feasible.

The lawsuit is the latest example of content creators chasing down a third party that does not directly infringe content but rather facilitates infringement through a combination of its own hardware and third-party software… Currently, the increasingly proposed solution for safeguarding digital information is blockchain technology. Blockchain is being implemented in various industries to solve inefficiencies in areas from identity protection to supply chain management… To understand blockchain technology as a potential solution to the problems posed in the digital rights management space, one must first understand what the technology is and how it operates.

The world’s biggest music streaming service, Spotify, has recently been sued by Wixen Music Publishing for allegedly using thousands of songs without a license and compensation to the publisher. Filed in the United States Federal District Court for the Central District of California, this is a major lawsuit that is only the latest in a string of legal actions that Spotify has faced in the past year. Benjamin Semel, partner at Pryor Cashman LLP, sat down with IPWatchdog to discuss the lawsuit in detail. He told us that this lawsuit speaks to the risk for music services like Spotify of a strategy to seek forgiveness rather than permission. Currently, copyright law gives music services the ability to compel songwriters and publishers to license their songs, but a specific process must be followed.

The suit, filed in the Western District of Texas, alleges that the mega retailer has been infringing on its IP related to trade dress covering aspects of YETI beverage holders in violation of a settlement agreement stemming from previous litigation activity which had played out between the two companies… The allegedly infringing products include 20- and 30-ounce beverage holders and a “Koozie” beverage container which are the same size and shape as the YETI trade dress. These products had previously been the subject of patent and trademark litigation played out between YETI and Wal-Mart

Like other opinions in the IP arena, the Supreme Court’s decision in Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands has created a new legal rule with limited practical guidance that will inevitably lead to less predictability in an already-murky area of copyright law.  Its new “imaginative separability” test for copyright eligibility for useful articles, such as footwear, clothing, and furniture, may be so easy that few designs will fail to qualify.  Yet, ultimately, Star Athletica may have the unimagined consequence of making copyright protection less desirable for qualifying designs. For those who seek the benefits of the Court’s undeniable expansion of potential copyright protection for useful designs, a bit of caution may be the appropriate response.

One of the interesting theories posed by the case is Character for Hire’s claimed right to use Disney characters, which derive from Norse mythology or centuries-old fairy tales. In its response to Disney’s motion for summary judgment, Characters for Hire argues that many of the Plaintiffs’ copyrights are based on prior works that have been in the public domain for hundreds of years such as Cinderella, Snow White, Rapunzel, Sleeping Beauty, Aladdin, Princess Aurora, Beauty and the Beast, the Little Mermaid, Thor and Loki. “It will be interesting to see how the Court delineates between established fairy tale characters and the original expression added to them by Disney,” Furey said.

On November 20th, both Peter Gene Hernandez, the American singer-songwriter-producer who goes by the professional name Bruno Mars, and New York City-based Warner Music Inc. were named as defendants in a copyright case filed in the Southern District of New York by Burbank, CA-based photographer Catherine McGann. The lawsuit targets Mars’ social media use of a photograph of himself taken by McGann when Mars was performing as an Elvis impersonator as a child.