Articles Posted in Copyright Litigation

Los Angeles, CA – MGM’s copyright attorneys filed a copyright declaratory judgment of non-infringement lawsuit, under 28 U.S.C. § 2201, at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles. MGM is the successor in interest and owner of the copyrights in the 1987 live-action motion picture Snow White, which was registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. MGM asserts that defendant, Arik Rudich, is an individual now residing in Israel, who composed certain music and/or songs included in the picture, which picture MGM’s predecessor distributed to the home video market beginning in 1988 and MGM has continued such distribution.

The complaint alleges that almost twenty years after the picture’s first distribution, Rudich’s counsel sent a cease and desist letter to MGM accusing it of copyright infringement in music and demanding payment of publishing royalties. On May 9, 2008, defendant or his counsel issued a press release repeating claims against MGM and referencing another lawsuit filed against MGM by the same counsel. On June 5, 2008, defendant’s counsel once against sent a letter to MGM threatening a lawsuit if a response was not received. Thus, MGM filed the declaratory judgment lawsuit seeking declarations from the Court concerning, among other things, the following:

• Whether defendant wrote the songs as a work-for-hire or assigned all rights therein;

Los Angeles, CA – Mark Gable’s copyright attorneys filed a lawsuit at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles accusing NBC’s “My Name Is Earl” television show of copyright infringement. Gable alleges that he authored a wholly original screenplay entitled “Karma” in 1995 and registered it with the Writers Guild of America (“WGA”) and – over nine years later – it was registered with the U.S. Copyright Office on September 20, 2004. In 1995, Gable alleges that he “distributed and circulated the screenplay to several literary agents and production companies, including, but not limited to, International Creative Management, William Morris, Creative Artist Agency, The Gersh Agency, United Talent Agency, and Alice Fries Agency,” which agencies are also believed to represent the producers named in the lawsuit, thus providing a scenario for access to Gable’s screenplay.

In August of 2005, Gable allegedly discovered that “NBC was airing a new television series entitled, “My Name is Earl” containing the same, somewhat unusual, literary theme as the Screenplay; i.e. turning bad Karma into good Karma by righting past wrongs/making amends. After viewing several episodes of the Television Series, Gable formed the belief that the Television Series was very similar to the screenplay, incorporating wholly original elements therefrom.” Gable hired a third-party to make extensive comparisons between the screenplay and the television series, including the theme, plot, dialog, setting/place, mood, and characters (some of whom have the same names). The results of the comparison led Gable to believe that his screenplay was copied and the lawsuit was filed. The case is titled: Mark Gable v. National Broadcasting Company (“NBC”) and Gregory Thomas Garcia, CV08-04013 SVW (C.D. Cal. 2008).

PRACTICE NOTE: I am often asked by writers whether it is sufficient to register a screenplay with the WGA or SAG, and my answer is always a resounding NO. The most important place to register a screenplay or script is with the U.S. Copyright Office. In order to file a lawsuit to prevent the copying of a work, you MUST have registered the work with the U.S. Copyright Office. In order to recover statutory damages and attorneys’ fees from infringers, the work must have been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office before the commencement of the infringement or within three months from the date of publication. 17 U.S.C. § 412. In order to obtain prima facie evidence of ownership in the screenplay/script, the work must have been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. I cannot emphasize the importance of filing your work of authorship with the U.S. Copyright Office first, in addition to registering it with the WGA or SGA. In fact, if you can only afford to register the work with one entity, it should be the U.S. Copyright Office in order to avail yourself to the advantages afforded by a copyright registration certificate.

Los Angeles, CA – Copyright attorneys for furniture company, C & C Imports, Inc., filed a copyright infringement lawsuit at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles, in an attempt to protect its bed, chest and wall hanging designs from being copied. Plaintiff manufactures and sells high-end furniture and in 1994 it manufactured a chest, headboard, and bed bearing the rainwater design. Plaintiff alleges that the rainwater design “is capable of being identified separately from and existing independently of, any useful article (such as a bed or chest) to which it may be applied. As the complaint states, however, the U.S. Copyright Office has disagreed with Plaintiff, and refused to register the copyright applications. The wall hanging application is still pending and being processed by the Copyright Office.

The complaint continues that “since approximately 2000, Defendants have been marketing and selling a bed under their ‘OMNI collection’ called the ‘Wave Bed’ [pictured herein], which bears an unauthorized reproduction of Plaintiff’s Rainwater Design, in violation of Plaintiff’s exclusive right to reproduce, display, create derivative works from and distribute its Rainwater Design.”

Before reaching the infringement issue, the Court must decided whether the U.S. Copyright Office’s refusal to register was improper and the work is subject to copyright protection, “Plaintiff seeks a determination that the Rainwater Design is protectable under the Copyright Laws of the United States and that Defendants have infringed that copyright…” The case is titled C & C Imports, Inc., dba Nancy Corzine v. Century Furniture Industries, Inc., CV08-03818 GAF (C.D. Cal. 2008).

Los Angeles, CA – Copyright attorneys for Activision filed a copyright infringement lawsuit at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles to protect its video game copyrights and to stop sales of unauthorized copies. Activision is the copyright owner or licensee of exclusive rights in Call Of Duty 3, which game is the subject of two copyright registrations – one for the Xbox 360 version and one for the Nintendo Wii Version – duly issued by the Register of Copyrights. The complaint alleges that, “among the exclusive rights granted to Plaintiff under the Copyright Act are the exclusive rights to reproduce the Copyrighted Video Games, to make or create derivative works from the Copyrighted Video Games, and to distribute the Copyrighted Video Games to the public.”

Plaintiff alleges that “Defendant, without the permission or consent of Plaintiff, has copied the Copyrighted Video Games and distributed the Copyrighted Video Games to the public. In doing so, Defendant has violated Plaintiff’s exclusive rights of reproduction and distribution. Defendants’ actions constitute infringement of Plaintiff’s copyrights and exclusive rights under copyright.” Plaintiff believes that Defendant may have sold other copyrighted video games and reserves the right to add additional copyright causes of action after discovery is conducted. Activision requests statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1), of not more than $ 30,000.00 and not less than $ 750.00 for each copyrighted work and requests the court order the defendant to pay the costs of the lawsuit and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. The case is titled Activision Publishing, Inc. v. Guse, CV08-03756 FMS (C.D. Cal. 2008).

Glendale, CA – Copyright attorneys representing Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. filed a copyright infringement lawsuit at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles over alleged infringing sales of each company’s movies. The complaint itemizes each company’s motion pictures which have been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. The Plaintiffs allege that the defendant does business on the Internet, under the iOffer username “Neighborhood-Blockbusters” and has “copied, reproduced, distributed, advertised and/or sold and continue to copy, reproduce, distribute, advertise and/or sell unauthorized copies of motion pictures owned by Plaintiffs,” which copies are allegedly counterfeit.

Plaintiffs have purchased copies of the movies sold by the Defendant and have determined that the “packaging fails to conform with packaging characteristic of Plaintiffs’ home video product and the disk does not contain the file structure characteristic of legitimate product.” Plaintiffs state that their damages cannot yet be determined and they may elect between the profits generated by the defendants or statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504. Plaintiffs also request that the damages be enhanced because the Defendant’s alleged infringement is willful and intentional. Plaintiffs also request 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 Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Cox, CV08-03151 SJO (C.D. Cal. 2008).

A Brea, CA restaurant/bar was sued for copyright infringement in Federal District Court in Los Angeles by copyright attorneys for several recording companies for publicly playing copyrighted music at the restaurant without a license from ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC. The complaint alleges that on January 11, 2008, presumably when their investigator was at Bar 330 in Brea, the three copyrighted musical compositions were publicly played and performed. Plaintiffs assert that the Brea Bar 330 will continue to publicly play and perform these songs unless they are enjoined by the Court.

The complaint alleges that ASCAP, on behalf of the copyright owners, warned the defendants that a copyright license was needed in order to publicly perform the copyrighted music at the restaurant/bar. The defendants, however, allegedly refused to pay for the license and continued to play the songs at issue. Plaintiffs request statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1), of not more than $ 30,000.00 and not less than $ 750.00 for each copyrighted song. Plaintiffs also request that the court order the defendants to pay the costs of the lawsuit and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. The case is titled: WB Music Corp., v. Corner Pockets, Inc. , CV08-01955 SVW (C.D. Cal. 2008).

PRACTICE NOTE: 17 U.S.C. 504(c)(2) provides an increase in the statutory damages to $150,000.00 per infringement if it is deemed to be intentional. Also, if a restaurant or public establishment unreasonably believed that it was exempt from licensing requirements under 17 U.S.C. § 110(5), the copyright plaintiff, in addition to other damages under section 504, will be entitled to two times the license fee which it should have paid for the preceding period of up to 3 years. Because of the varying affiliations between record companies and the licensing society, a license from each of the following licensing societies must be obtained to cover the music owned by the various recording companies:

Los Angeles, CA – Copyright attorneys for Illume Candles, Inc. filed a copyright declaratory relief of no infringement lawsuit, under 28 U.S.C. § 2201, in Federal District Court in Los Angeles, seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement on Angela Adams Licensing, LLC’s copyrighted work. On March 31, 2008, Angela Adams’ attorneys sent a letter to Illume accusing copyright infringement of two copyrighted works registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. The accused infringing products are three of Illume’s candle packaging that have a link and chain graphic design. Illume denied that its packaging infringes on Angela Adams’ copyrighted works because it was independently developed and “the accused works lacked the requisite degree of similarity to the registered works to establish a claim of copyright infringement.” Angela Adams was dissatisfied with Illume’s response and enclosed a recent court decision that was favorable to Adams, which led Illume to believe that Adams would enforce its copyrights against Illume. As such, an actual controversy existed between the parties and Illume seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the copyrights.

The case is titled Starlume, Inc. v. Angela Adams Licensing, LLC, et al., CV 08-02489 PA (C.D. Cal. 2008)