Ultraflo Corporation manufactures butterfly valves for use in the transportation industry. Ultraflo redesigned its Model 390 butterfly valve with the help of employee Thomas Mueller. Mueller left Ultraflo to work for Pelican Tank Parts, one of Ultraflo’s competitors. Pelican then produced a valve Ultraflo claimed was strikingly similar to Ultraflo’s own butterfly valve.
Ultraflo pursued its legal remedies, eventually suing Pelican and Mueller in federal court for state tort claims and copyright infringement. At trial, the jury rejected both Ultraflo’s trade secret and copyright claims. Ultraflo appealed the district court’s pretrial dismissal on preemption grounds of Ultraflo’s unfair competition by misappropriation claim. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling.
Continue reading “State Law Can’t Protect Butterfly Valve from the Copyright Preemption Net”
We close 2016 with the latest on the Flo & Eddie v. Sirius XM saga. My previous posts on this topic include Unhappy Turtles Take a Bite Out of Sirius XM for Unauthorized Public Performance, Flo and Eddie Goes for the Two Coast Punch Against Sirius XM and Supreme Court of Florida to Weigh in on Common Law Sound Recording Rights.
Sirius XM Radio, a satellite digital radio service, broadcasts pre-1972 sound recordings without licenses and without paying the copyright owners of those sound recordings. Flo & Eddie, Inc., which owns the rights to The Turtles pre-1972 sound recordings, sued Sirius XM in multiple federal courts. Flo & Eddie claimed that Sirius XM’s actions infringe Flo & Eddie’s common law copyrights. Although U.S. copyright law has protected rights to musical compositions since 1831, federal copyright law did not protect rights to sound recordings until 1972, albeit offering limited protection. In 1995, federal copyright law began providing owners of post-1972 sound recordings a right to control public performance of sound recordings for digital audio transmission performances only. The right does not apply to AM/FM radio stations. Flo & Eddie argue that state common law copyrights protect their pre-1972 sound recordings from Sirius XM’s unauthorized satellite digital public performances.
After the federal district court for the Southern District of New York ruled in favor of Flo & Eddie on ownership of the public performance right, Sirius XM appealed. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals asked the New York State Court of Appeals, New York State’s highest court, to authoritatively answer this question:
Is there a right of public performance for creators of sound recordings under New York law and, if so, what is the nature and scope of that right?
The New York Court of Appeals ruled that New York common law copyright does not recognize a right of public performance for creators of sound recordings. I think the dissent presents the more persuasive argument. The majority passed the buck and declined to exercise its common law authority.
Continue reading “No New York Common Law Public Performance Right for Sound Recording Creators”
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) shields online service providers from liability for copyright infringement for information uploaded to their networks by users, the “safe harbor,” if the online service providers meet certain requirements. To benefit from the DMCA safe harbor, the online service provider must designate an agent to receive copyright infringement notices. The online service provider must also file the designated agent contact information with the Register of Copyrights. The DMCA requires the Register of Copyrights to maintain a current directory of the designated agents.
Until now, online service providers could comply with the DMCA designated agent filing requirement by filing with the Register of Copyright just once. The U.S. Copyright Office instituted a new rule entitled “Designation of Agent To Receive Notification of Claimed Infringement,” effective December 1, 2016. Beginning December 1, 2016, online service providers must use the Copyright Office’s new online system to provide the required designated agent information. The Copyright Office will no longer accept paper forms. To ensure the accuracy of the designated agent directory, the Copyright Office now states “all service providers seeking to comply with 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(2), including those that have previously designated an agent using the paper process under the Office’s interim regulations, are required to submit new designations through the electronic system by December 31, 2017.” In addition, the online service provider’s agent designation will expire and become invalid after three years unless the online service provider renews the agent designation. Some copyright thought leaders argue that the Copyright Office’s rule changes create a trap for unwary website owners who currently benefit from the DMCA safe harbor. Eric Goldman explains his objections to the new rule in Copyright Office Gratuitously Kills the DMCA Safe Harbor for Thousands of Websites.
Continue reading “No More One and Done for DMCA Agent Designation Filing”
Robin Antonick developed the computer code for the original John Madden Football game for Apple II (Apple II Madden), released by Electronic Arts (EA) in 1988. Antonick also developed Madden games for IBM-compatible computers. Antonick began work on Nintendo and Sega Genesis games, but EA told him to stop work on games for those platforms. EA then hired Park Place Productions to develop Madden games for the Sega Genesis and Super Nintendo platforms. EA agreed in its 1986 contract with Antonick to pay royalties on derivative works of the Apple II Madden game. EA did not pay Antonick royalties on the games Park Place developed and informed Antonick that those games were not derivative works.
Antonick sued EA for breach of contract in 2011 for EA’s refusal to pay Antonick royalties on the Madden games Park Place developed. At trial, neither the source code for the Apple II Madden game nor the source code for the allegedly infringing Park Place Madden games was introduced into evidence. Likewise, no images of the games were introduced into evidence. At the end of the jury trial, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law to EA. The district court determined that Antonick did not provide sufficient evidence of copyright infringement because Antonick did not introduce into evidence either the source code for the Apple II Madden game or the source code for the Sega Madden game developed by Park Place. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The jury found that the statute of limitations did not bar Antonick’s claims, but that issue was not appealed and therefore the Ninth Circuit did not discuss it.
Continue reading “Source Code Evidence Required to Establish Computer Game Copyright Infringement”
Palmer/Kane LLC sued Gareth Stevens Publishing (Stevens) for infringing the copyrights on a number of photograph copyrights owned by Palmer/Kane. After substantially completing discovery, Stevens informed the district court that it intended to contest the validity of the copyright registration certificate for four photos. Stevens asked the district court to request the advice of the Register of Copyrights on whether it would have refused to register the copyrights due to inaccurate registration.
The district court denied Stevens’ request. On a motion for reconsideration, the district court again denied Stevens’ request. The district court ruled that it could not decide from the facts before it the question of whether Palmer/Kane knowingly provided inaccurate information to the Copyright Office in the registration application.
Continue reading “Factual Decisions Required Before Querying Register of Copyrights”
Abbott and Costello’s successors-in-interest sued the author and producers of the play Hand to God for copyright infringement. The play used a little over a minute of the Abbott and Costello “Who’s on First?” routine almost verbatim without authorization. The district court ruled that the use of the “Who’s on First?” routine in the play Hand to God was a fair use and not copyright infringement. My post Who’s on First? Copyright Infringement Question as Tangled as the Routine discusses the district court’s ruling.
On appeal, the Second Circuit held that the district court erred in ruling that the use of the routine in the play was a fair use. Nevertheless, the Second Circuit upheld the district court’s ruling in favor of the play’s author and producers on the alternative ground that Abbott and Costello’s successors-in-interest failed to plead a valid copyright interest. Since the play’s creators did not cross appeal the district court’s ruling that the Abbott and Costello successors-in-interest owned a valid copyright, the only issue on appeal was whether the district court correctly ruled that the use of the routine in the play was a fair use. The Second Circuit was obligated to rule on the fair use question before considering whether to uphold the district court’s ruling on an alternative theory. Had the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s fair use analysis, the Second Circuit would not have considered the copyright validity question.
The Second Circuit did not discuss whether it was even appropriate for the district court to consider fair use on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Fair use is an affirmative defense and is the defendant’s burden to prove, not the plaintiff’s. Fair use should not be decided on a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim.
Continue reading “Lack of Valid Copyright Throws Out “Who’s on First?” Copyright Claim”
Louis K. Smith wrote The Hardscrabble Zone, a book that he marketed through online ebook distributor Smashwords, Inc. Smith’s agreement with Smashwords allowed Smashwords to distribute samples of Smith’s book. One customer stored a sample of Smith’s book in the customer’s Barnes & Noble digital locker system. Barnes & Noble’s digital locker system operates as an online bookshelf that a customer with an account can populate with that customer’s ebook purchases and free samples.
Smith terminated his agreement with Smashwords, but the sample of his book remained in the customer’s Barnes & Noble digital locker. The customer accessed the sample twice after Smith terminated his agreement with Smashwords. Smith’s widow sued Barnes & Noble for copyright infringement, arguing that Barnes & Noble was not allowed to provide customer access to the sample after Smith terminated his agreement with Smashwords. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Barnes & Noble. The Second Circuit affirmed.
Continue reading “Not Copyright Infringement to Provide Perpetual Access to Sample”
Electronic Arts (EA) creates a variety of online games, including The Sims. The Sims game includes a gem-shaped icon called a “PlumbBob.” To promote a Collector’s Edition of The Sims, EA contracted with Lithomania to produce a USB flash drive shaped like a PlumbBob. Lithomania contracted with Direct Technologies (DT) to produce a PlumbBob-shaped flash drive prototype. EA approved the prototype created by DT, but Lithomania shipped DT’s prototype to a company in China to make the same flash drives for $0.50 less per drive than DT’s quoted price. Even though DT signed an agreement with Lithomania to produce the flash drives, Lithomania never informed DT that DT lost the deal. DT settled its lawsuit against Lithomania.
DT sued EA for violating the Copyright Act. The district court ruled that DT’s flash drive was not sufficiently original when compared to the PlumbBob icon to qualify for copyright protection and granted EA’s motion for summary judgment. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the district court erred by concluding as a matter of law that the flash drive was not copyrightable.
Continue reading “PlumbBob Flash Drive Design May Be Protected by Copyright”
Jesus Muhammad-Ali painted a portrait of Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam, in 1984. Ali sued The Final Call for copyright infringement in 2013. The Final Call is a newspaper that considers itself the “propagation arm of the Nation of Islam.” Although The Final Call admitted to selling over one hundred copies of Ali’s portrait of Farrakhan, the district court ruled in favor of The Final Call.
On appeal to the Seventh Circuit, Ali argued that “the district court misstated the elements of a prima facie copyright infringement claim and erroneously shifted to him the burden of proving that the copies were unauthorized. Ali is correct, and The Final Call proved no defense. We therefore reverse. (Opinion pdf page 2).
Continue reading “Alleged Infringer Bears the Burden of Proving Authorized Copying”
This case applies the Copyright Act of 1909 version of “work made for hire.” Why are we still talking about the 1909 Act when the Copyright Act of 1976 became effective on January 1, 1978? Since the 1909 Act applies to all copyrights secured before 1/1/1978 and the first term for pre-1/1/1978 copyrights is 28 years, followed by a second term of 67 years (28 + 67 = 95), some portions of the 1909 Act remain relevant until 2072. (1977 + 95 = 2072). Those portions of the Copyright Act of 1909 will remain relevant throughout the careers of Millennial attorneys, and then some. I say some portions, because the 1976 Act did away with many of the 1909 Act’s draconian requirements.
Composer and music producer Jack Urbont wrote the Iron Man theme song in 1966. Urbont wrote theme music for a variety of other Marvel television characters. In 2000, without Urbont’s permission, Dennis Coles (aka Ghostface Killah), Sony and Razor Sharp Records produced and released Supreme Clientele, an album spotlighting the Iron Man theme song on two tracks. Urbont became aware of the album around early 2010 and sued Sony, Coles and Razor Sharp Records for copyright infringement in 2011. Sony and Razor Sharp argued that the Iron Man theme was a work made for hire for Marvel and that Urbont did not own the copyright. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Sony and Razor Sharp. On appeal, the Second Circuit held that Urbont raised issues of material fact regarding his copyright ownership and vacated the district court’s summary judgment ruling.
Continue reading “Different Work Made for Hire Test Under the Copyright Act of 1909”