Articles Posted in Copyright Litigation

Los Angeles, CA – The late Evel Knievel was a motorcycle daredevil whose crashes made him more famous than his successful jumps. And now, less than two years after his death, lawsuits continue regarding ownership of the copyrights in his pictures and film clips and infringement thereof. In 2005, Gary Schreiber sued Knievel in Nevada District Court for a declaration of validity of a 1982 written transfer of copyrights to pictures and films made by Knievel (story about the suit is here). While the Nevada lawsuit is still pending, Schreiber has now filed a copyright infringement suit, in the Central District Of California (Los Angeles Division), against American Broadcasting Company, ABC Television Network, Inc. and ESPN, Inc.

Plaintiff alleges that when Evel was in need to capital to resurrect interest in his career, Plaintiff purchased the rights to the film and the films themselves in 1982 via written agreement executed by Knievel. Plaintiff then produced two compilation films entitled “Evel Knievel’s Specacular Jumps” and “The Last of the Gladiators.” Schreiber alleges that at some time, Knievel once again sold or licensed the same rights – previously granted to Schreiber – to Defendants. Schreiber alleges that Defendant ABC used the copyrighted work in “David Blaine’s Drowned Alive” television show and Defendant ESPN used the copyrighted work during the “Impossible Jump by Mike Metzger” television show. The Defendants are accused of intentional and willful infringement because Defendants’ parent, The Walt Disney Company, has previously paid Schreiber to use the copyrighted Evel Knievel works. The case is Raymond Gary Schreiber v. American Broadcasting Company et al., CV09-03205 AHM (C.D. Cal. 2009).

Los Angeles, CA – Harkham Industries, Inc. filed a copyright infringement lawsuit, in the Central District Of California (Los Angeles Division), against Bizz, Inc. and Modcloth, Inc. Harkham designs and manufactures women’s apparel and its art department creates prints and designs which are applied to fabrics. In April of 2006, Plaintiff allegedly created an original work of art which it titled the “Shadow Fern” design. Plaintiff immediately registered its design with the US Copyright Office. Plaintiff applied the design to two dresses and tops, which are sold at high end retailers for approximately $200.00 a piece.

In March of 2009, Plaintiff discovered that Modcloth was selling an allegedly infringing garment under the name “After the Rain Dress” pictured herein. Plaintiff’s lawyer sent a cease and desist letter to Modcloth and was informed that the source of the garment was Bizz, dba Ark & Co. Plaintiff’s lawyer sent two letters to Bizz, but allegedly received no response. Thus, Plaintiff filed suit and now seeks either actual or statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504, in addition to its costs of the lawsuit and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. The case is Harkham Industries, Inc. v. Bizz, Inc. et al., CV09-02970 VBF (C.D. Cal. 2009).

Los Angeles, CA – Fun With Phonics, Inc. filed a copyright infringement lawsuit at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles over alleged infringing sales of phonetic language teaching tools by Leapfrog. Plaintiff’s predecessor, William O’Connor, created materials to aid in learning to read English by phonetic methods of instruction, including anthropomorphizing letters of the alphabet so that each letter would assume a character and engage in activities that children would associate with the letter. “For example, Mr. O’Connor drew the letter ‘I’ with sticky green liquid dripping from it and gave it the character of ‘Icky I.’ This characterization helped students remember that the letter ‘I’ makes the short vowel sound with which the word ‘icky’ begins.” These characters were used and sold in various media, including flash cards, audiotapes, and CD-Roms. Plaintiff then acquired the rights from Mr. O’Connor and filed copyright applications with the U.S. Copyright Office.

Leapfrog allegedly began marketing phonetic instructional materials infringing upon Plaintiff’s copyrighted materials in 2003. “Leapfrog’s materials presented anthropomorphized letters with visual representations giving each letter a character connected with the phonetic sounds associated with that letter.” Leapfrog is accused of copying the “Icky I” character from Plaintiff’s work, down to the sickly green liquid dripping from the letter. Plaintiff states that its damages cannot yet be determined and may elect between the profits generated by the Leapfrog or statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504. Plaintiff also requests that the damages be enhanced because the Defendant’s alleged infringement is willful and intentional. Plaintiff also requests that their attorneys’ fees and other costs in connection with the prosecution of its claims be paid by defendant pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. The case is titled Fun With Phonics, LLC v. Leapfrog, Inc., CV09-0916 CT (C.D. Cal. 2009).