Top Banner
Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09
37

Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.

Dec 17, 2015

Download

Documents

Magdalene Logan
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.

Copyright Infringement II

Intro to IP – Prof Merges

2.23.09

Page 2: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.

Nichols V. Universal Pictures (2d Cir. 1930)

• Did the film “The Cohens and the Kellys” infringe the play “Abie’s Irish Rose”?

Page 3: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.
Page 4: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.
Page 5: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.
Page 6: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.

NY TimesAbie's Irish Rose: Review

Published: May 24, 1922

The play has its little sermon that earned one of the heartiest bits of applause last night. Priest and rabbi, it appeared, also had met "over there." "I gave the last rites to many Jewish boys," said the fighting chaplain. "And I to many of your Catholic lads," the Jewish chaplain replied. "We're all on the same road, I guess, even though we do travel by different trains."

Page 7: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.

Judge Hand Opinion

• “It is of course essential to any protection of literary property, whether at common law or under the statute, that the right cannot be limited literally to the text, else a plagiarist would escape by immaterial variations.”

• -- p. 484

Page 8: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.

Types of infringement

• “block in situ” (in whole), vs.

• “an abstract of the whole”

Page 9: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.

Nichols : Abstractions test

“Upon any work, and especially upon a play, a great number of patterns of increasing generality will fit equally well, as more and more of the incident is left out…there is a point in this series of abstractions where they are no longer protected.” [since they are idea]

Page 10: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.

Abstraction Test

• Abie’s Irish Rose– I. Jewish and Irish families

– One wealthy, one not

– Strangers to each other

– A. Son and daughter marry

– Twins born

• Cohens and Kellys– I. Jewish and Irish families

– Both poor (at start)

– Long-time enemies

– A. Son and daughter marry

– Single child born

Page 11: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.

Nichols Abstraction Test

I. A. 1. a. b. c. i. B. 1. 2. a. b. i. ii. II.

I. A. 1. B. 1. 2. II.

Page 12: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.

Nichols Abstraction Test

I. A. 1. a. b. c. i. B. 1. 2. a. b. i. ii. II.

I. II.

Page 13: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.

Story - Main Idea

Plot Outline

Subplots

General Characters and Scenes

Text

Specific Character Elements

Levels Of Abstraction

Page 14: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.

Why are “high level” abstractions of plot not copyrightable?

• Ideas, not expression

• Theory of relativity, or evolution: basic ideas, too general to be protected

• Similar to section 101 of Patent Act . . .

Page 15: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.

“Character test”

• Can a character, standing independent from plot, be copyrighted?

• If so, how? And how far would that copyright reach?

Page 16: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.

“Stock Characters”

• Low-comedy ethnic characters

• Example of “scenes-a-faire” – standard “setups” or scenes

• Drunken Irishman, nosy neighbor, irritating mother in law, comic sidekick, etc etc

Page 17: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.

Play it Again, Sam

Page 18: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.

Ideas cannot be protected

• “[Plaintiff’s] copyright did not cover everything that might be drawn from her play; its content went to some extent into the public domain . . .”

• P. 486

Page 19: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.

SHELDON V. MGM (1936)

• Does the motion picture “Letty Lynton”infringe the play “Dishonored Lady”?

• How would you distinguish this case from Nichols?

• Note the judge is the same: Learned Hand

Page 20: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.

20

Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp.

Factual Story Play(P) Book Movie(D)

MadeleineL’AngelierG-Man+20

MorenoFarnborough

Brennan

McLeanEkebon

G-Man+20

RenaulDarrow

PublicDomain

Copyrightedwork

Owned by D AllegedInfringing

Work

Access

SubstantialSimilarityProng One

Access

Prongs Oneand Two

Owned by D

Prongs Oneand Two

Page 21: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.

Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures, Inc.

• New Yorker cover, movie poster

Page 22: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.
Page 23: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.
Page 24: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.
Page 25: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.
Page 26: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.

Elements

• Ownership

• Copying

– Access

– Improper Appropriation

Page 27: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.

Analysis

• Lay Observer

• Common sense’ side-by-side comparison

Page 28: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.
Page 29: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.

Similarities and Differences

• 4 block view

• Details of distant city?

Page 30: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.

What do you compare?

• The whole of the copied portions of the Plaintiff’s work, including individually uncopyrightable elements like ideas and scenes a faire?

• OR only the copied portions that are copyrightable?

Page 31: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.

Sampling

• Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 410 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2005).

Page 32: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.

Bridgeport Music

Page 33: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.

George Clinton: The Funkadelics

Page 34: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.

NWA

Page 35: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.
Page 36: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.
Page 37: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.

The letters may have been taken more as a means of capitalizing on the interest in Salinger than in providing a critical study of the author. (Salinger v. Random House, 811 F.2d 90 (2d Cir. 1987).