Entertainment Law Matters

- False authorship lawsuit hits West Publishing in the pocket parts.  Recently, two law professors successfully sued West Publishing (Thomson Reuters Legal) for defamation after the publisher falsely attributed to them authorship of a pocket part treatise update.  While Professors David Rudovsky and Leonard Sosnov had in fact authored the treatise and several annual updates after that, they had refused to write the update in question because West had reduced their compensation.  After a jury trial, the plaintiffs each received $90,000 in damages and $2.5 million in punitive damages.  A Pennsylvania district court subsequently denied West’s motion notwithstanding the verdict, but did reduce the punitive damages award to $110,000 each because there was no jury finding that West acted with malice.  The court order requires West to choose between either accepting the revised award, or pursuing its motion for a new trial, but not both.

- ASCAP appeals to Supremes for review of “public performance” decision.  The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (“ASCAP”) petitioned the Supreme Court to review the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that downloading musical works over the Internet does not constitute public performance under the Copyright Act.  The Second Circuit concluded that the Act’s “public performance” factor requires “contemporaneous perceptibility” of the work, such as Yo-Yo Ma “draw[ing] the bow across his cello,” while downloading a song is merely transmitting music to a potential listener.  The court drew a distinction between a download and a streaming transmission over the Internet, explaining that the latter is a public performance because the user perceives the song simultaneously with the transmission.  Further, the download itself does not play the file and the user must take additional action to experience the work.  In its petition for cert., ASCAP argues that downloading a music file amounts to public performance for which the author is entitled to additional compensation (artists already collect royalties for copies created by the download).  ASCAP maintains that the Second Circuit’s interpretation of the Act was inaccurate because a public performance can occur even if listeners receive it “at different times” and that the Circuit court had created an “unworkable and inequitable statutory scheme that fails to account for emerging technologies.”

- BMG faces class action lawsuit over digital royalties.  Rob Zombie, Whitesnake, and other music performers are leading a federal class action lawsuit against UMG Recordings, Inc., claiming the world’s largest record company is shortchanging them on royalties from digital downloads and cell phone ringtones.  The musicians estimate they have been underpaid by tens of millions of dollars per year and seek restitution and declaratory relief entitling them to future royalties.  According to the complaint, UMG arbitrarily labels digital music downloads from online music providers like iTunes as a “sale” rather than a license and pays the artists a lesser royalty than the standard 50% payable in connection with a license to a third party.  The class action follows a Ninth Circuit ruling that UMG underpaid Eminem and other performers for digital music download royalties.  Rob Zombie’s lawsuit is based on the same grounds, which tips the scales in the musicians’ favor, especially after the Supreme Court refused to review the Eminem decision.  As the New York Times predicted in the wake of that ruling, its implications may indeed prove life changing for many aging musicians.

- Polo wears Ralph Lauren.  The United States Polo Association (“USPA”) will not be able to place the word “Polo” next to its Double Horsemen logo on a new line of perfume for men because a New York court ruled that such use infringes on Polo Ralph Lauren’s (“PRL”) trademark.  Federal Judge Robert Sweet found that USPA’s logo featuring two men on horses swinging polo sticks (PRL’s features one player in a similar posture) used in conjunction with the word “Polo” is likely to cause consumer confusion with the clothing designer’s perfumes.  USPA initially filed the suit in 2009 seeking a declaratory judgment that its logo does not infringe PRLs’ trademark.    The court denied USPA’s request and instead granted PRL a permanent injunction against USPA’s use of the logo.  In its ruling, the court relied on PRL’s consumer survey showing confusion in 27.8% of the participants.  The court also determined that PRL’s trademark is inherently distinctive and said that the USPA’s choice of colors and wording on the product suggested that they “intended to capitalize on PRL’s reputation and goodwill-instead of building their own.”  

- Gergana Miteva

Yet another “appropriation artist” has come under fire for alleged copyright infringement.  In 2007, Sarah Morris – an internationally recognized painter and filmmaker – debuted her “Origami Series,” which consists of almost 40 paintings.  She has publicly stated that they are based on origami diagrams, or “crease patterns,” which represent the folds needed to create three-dimensional origami sculptures. 

Recently, six origami artists filed suit against Sarah Morris in the Northern District of California for copyright infringement.  The complaint identifies 24 of Morris’s paintings that are allegedly “strikingly similar” to plaintiffs’ crease patterns.  Continue reading »

- Righthaven’s Death-Ray lawsuit moves forward.  Last year, Las Vegas Review-Journal’s copyright enforcement partner, Righthaven LLC, sued Pak.org and its owner Azkar Choudhry for publishing a smaller version of the journal’s copyrighted image without authorization.  The graphic in question is an illustration of how the Vdara Hotel heats its swimming pool with reflected sun rays – and how the sun rays may have burned a tourist’s hair.  Choudhry moved to dismiss, arguing that his website never copied the image because it was using an “in-line link” to redirect visitors to the newspaper’s copy of the graphic and thus had not stored it on his computers.  He further argued the redirection was accomplished via an automated RSS feed, and was therefore not volitional.  Righthaven also moved to dismiss or strike defendants’ counterclaim.  The court denied both parties’ motions for early determination of the case.  The court held that the in-line linking issue could not be determined as a matter of law at this stage in the litigation.  The court also held that disputed issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on defendants’ fair use defense.  Notably, the court took a rather unorthodox approach in determining that the defendants’ use of the article was transformative: although the journal used the article for news-reporting, Righthaven’s use as the current copyright owner was “merely litigation driven.”  By contrast, defendants’ use of the article was to educate the public.  Whether the defendants’ website was commercial or non-commercial was an issue of material fact, on which the court ordered further discovery.

- Dish Network sued for serving free content.  Disney and Starz Entertainment are suing the second largest satellite TV provider for copyright infringement and breach of contract over a free content promotion that runs through January 2012. The plaintiffs claim Dish ignored their request to distribute movies only to premium subscribers. Disney further contends Dish’s actions undermine its “windowing” strategy – that is, to maximize profits from its movies by controlling the time and media through which viewers may access them.  Dish refuses to discontinue the promotion, which goes to its 14 million subscribers.  Among the movies listed in Disney’s complaint are box office hits Alice in Wonderland, Toy Story 3 and Up.

- Ke$ha in court over TikTok wristband.  Wimo Labs, a design and development company, manufactures glittery rubber wristbands to hold MP3 players. The trademark for the wristbands is TikTok, which bears some resemblance to Ke$ha’s 2009 platinum-selling song TiK ToK– enough so that Ke$sha sent Wimo a cease-and-desist letter to stop using it. Wimo responded with a lawsuitin Illinois federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that its TikTok does not infringe Ke$ha’s TikTok. In their letter to Wimo, Ke$ha’s lawyers characterized the wristband name as a “flagrant and conscious disregard” of the pop-singer’s rights.

- Gergana Miteva

- Katie Holmes Settles with Star Magazine. Katie Holmes has settled a $50 million defamation lawsuit she filed in March against Star Magazine – arising from the tabloid’s “KATIE DRUG SHOCKER” and “ADDICTION NIGHTMARE” headlines.  The magazine publicly apologized to Holmes on the cover of its latest issue and promised to make “a substantial donation” on her behalf to the Dizzy Feet Foundation, a charity dedicated to helping underprivileged children to become professional dancers. The actress has reportedly accepted the apology and expressed her satisfaction that the dispute was “resolved amicably.”

- Tolkien Estate Reportedly Will Permit Publication of Book Featuring Tolkien as Character. This short-lived legal battle began in late January when J.R.R. Tolkien’s Estate, administered by the writer’s son, sent a cease-and-desist letter to Steve Hillard, the self-published author of Mirkwood: A Novel About J.R.R. Tolkien.  The Estate accused Hillard of commercially exploiting Tolkien’s name and likeness and of “trivializ[ing]… the personality and reputation of the late professor.” The letter demanded that all copies of the book be destroyed.  Hillard responded by asking a Texas federal court  for a ruling that the book does not infringe on the Estate’s intellectual property rights. As described in the complaint, the book is “both a work of fiction and a critical analysis of the works of J.R.R. Tolkien” where the author plays a central role in a young woman’s quest to find her grandfather.  Hollywood Reporter reports that the settlement permits publication of the book — with a prominent disclaimer of any association with Tolkien’s Estate and publisher.

- NBA star sues Basketball Wives reality show. Miami Heat star Chris Bosh has filed an eleven-count federal complaint against his ex-wife, Allison Mathis, and Basketball Wives producer, Shed Media.  Among other things, the athlete alleges trademark dilution, misappropriation of his name and likeness, false endorsement, and public disclosure of private facts about his life.  Bosh says the show and his ex-wife are getting a free ride on his celebrity status and are robbing him of his “life right” to tell his own story. The reality series Basketball Wives, created by Shaquille O’Neal’s ex-wife, Shaunie O’Neal, depicts the lives of women who have been romantically involved with professional NBA players. 

- Trademark battle: Universal CityWalk v I-Walk Orlando. Universal City Studios, owner of trademarks “CityWalk”, “Universal CityWalk”, and “Universal CityWalk Orlando” is suing Unicorp USA, owner of “I-Walk” and “I-Walk Orlando” for trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition — seeking injunctive relief and money damages. Universal complains that Florida-based Unicorp is using the trademarks to promote soon-to-be-constructed retail stores, restaurants and bars – all of which would be located approximately three miles from the Universal Orlando Resort. The plaintiffs fear the use of “I-Walk” and “I-Walk Orlando” marks would be likely to confuse and deceive consumers, and that Unicorp has intentionally employed “deceptively similar” trademarks in order to associate itself with plaintiff’s “high quality services” and to benefit from local goodwill established over eighteen years. Who knew walk-related marks would be so popular in a place where almost everyone drives?

- Gergana Miteva

- Happy Days cast sues CBS.  Several cast members of the iconic sitcom filed a complaint in a Los Angeles state court against CBS seeking a cut of the network’s merchandising revenue from licensing the actors’ videos, images and voices for products ranging from slot machines to lunch boxes.  The plaintiffs accuse CBS of employing a “don’t ask, don’t pay” policy to their contractual obligation to share merchandising profits with the actors and of intentionally withholding financial information from them.  Reportedly, CBS admits it owes the actors a percentage from the merchandising proceeds, but disagrees about the amount.  The network’s tally comes out between $8,500 and $9,000 per actor for the last four years, while the cast members claim they are owed millions of dollars.

 - Contestants sued for revealing reality show outcome in court filing.  Producers of reality TV show Ultimate Women’s Challenge, about 16 female mixed martial arts fighters, sued the show’s contestants and their lawyers for revealing its ending in court documents.  The producers seek $1 million in damages from each defendant for misappropriation of trade secrets and $500,000 as liquidated damages from each contestant for breach of a confidentiality agreement each contestant executed before appearing on the show.  The leak appeared in earlier court filings by the contestants, seeking payment for their participation.  Producers claim the contestants breached their confidentiality agreements by divulging the winners in individual competitions as well as the ultimate show winner and thus “destroyed the commercial value” of the series.

- OK to publish entire copyrighted essay in court filings.  The Second Circuit has issued a “summary order” decision affirming a lower court ruling that it is “fair use” to publish copyrighted essays in a judicial proceeding.  In this case, the author of several unpublished essays claimed that the defendant infringed his copyrights by reproducing his entire compositions in court documents.  Applying the “fair use” doctrine, the court concluded that the defendant’s purpose in publishing the works was to win the lawsuit, rather than to profit commercially, and that the market for the essays was not harmed because it would be unlikely for potential readers to seek a copy from the court’s files. 

- Gergana Miteva

- When life serves you LimeWire…  The record industry may finally be enjoying some lemonade after a Manhattan federal court decidedthat damages may be awarded per infringed song in its lawsuit against peer-to-peer file sharing software LimeWire.  In 2006, thirteen record companies sued LimeWire for hosting as many as 11,000 of their copyrighted sound recordings.  Last year, the labels scored their first major win in the case when the judge agreed that LimeWire indirectly infringed on their copyrights by inducing users to download pirated content.  While the actual award will be determined by a jury next month, the ruling that both albums and single songs constitute infringed “works” threatens to bump up the damages to billions of dollars.

- Viacom/YouTube lawsuit.  The Hollywood Reporter is reporting that the two giant media companies have exchanged appellate briefs. Viacom is appealing from a ruling that YouTube postings of copyrighted Viacom content qualified for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s “safe-harbor” exception.  This holding places the burden on copyright owners to police YouTube for infringing material.  A New York federal court had ruled that YouTube could invoke the “safe harbor” because it had no way of knowing whether a video is licensed by the owner or that the owner objects to its posting.  In its brief, Viacom argues that placing the duty on copyright holders frustrates anti-pirating efforts because it allows newsworthy videos to be up long enough to satisfy viewers’ interest and compete with Viacom’s own content providers.  The media conglomerate further maintains that YouTube’s business model is based on actively attracting infringing content and “intentionally blind[ing] itself” by disabling its monitoring software.  YouTube counters that its service is entirely based on “legitimate origins,” providing a platform for aspiring artists, human rights causes, political information, etc., and that only Viacom is in a position to distinguish between clips that it uploaded itself for promotional purposes and pirated videos, claiming that even some clips in Viacom’s complaint were posted by Viacom itself or its agents. 

- Reality show Catch 22: To pitch or not to pitch? A Manhattan federal court recently handed down an opinion which is likely to make aspiring reality show producers think twice before pitching their ideas to a network.  In Castorina v. Spike Cable Networks, Inc., the plaintiffs sued Spike TV, claiming that its 2006 reality show Pros vs. Joes ripped-off their show Two Left Feet, which they unsuccessfully pitched to the network in 2004.  The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that while both shows pit professional athletes and amateurs against each other, the similarities end there.  The court deemed most ideas for Two Left Feet to be “stock elements” that flow naturally from the very concept of amateur versus professional sports competitions in basketball, hockey, baseball, and football: “Indeed, it is difficult to fathom a sports reality program designed for the American television market that, instead of featuring these sports, would instead pit amateur Americans against professional camel jockeys, cricketers, and haggis hurlers.”  The judge acknowledged that the Two Left Feet concept could not have been too detailed because the reality show genre leaves specifics to the participants.  But under established law, only unique, particularized expressions of an idea can be copyrighted, leaving open the question whether reality show content enjoys less copyright law protection.

- “Muppet Workshop” in royalties squabble.  Former executive producer for Married with Children, Russel Marcus, is suing Disney, Jim Henson Co. and The Muppets Studio, claiming he is owed royalties for coming up with the idea for in-store customer-designed Muppets.  Marcus says that in 2000, Disney bought the rights from him to develop a workshop in its stores offering customers the opportunity to create their own Muppets from a generic Whatnot Muppet.  Reportedly, when Marcus contacted Disney to seek his share of the profits, the company replied that the endeavor has not been financially profitable, though a 2008 New York Times article quotes a Disney store manager rejoicing that “overnight, the workshop went from a soft opening to a global phenomenon. . . . .”

- Gergana Miteva

- Gere/Sarandon film in pre-production legal clash.  The writer and director of Arbitrage, Nicholas Jarecki, and the film’s former producer, Michael Ohoven, have each filed complaints against one another over who owns the production rights to the film.  The two collaborated on the screenplay without a written contract for months, casting Richard Gere and Susan Sarandon and securing the film’s budget.  It is now up to the courts to determine whether an option agreement for Ohoven to acquire rights in the production was ever executed.  The Hollywood Reporter reports that the sticking point was Jarecki’s insistence on shooting the entire film in New York, while Ohoven sought a more budget-friendly state like Louisiana.  Jarecki was the first to file a complaint, asking a New York federal court to declare him sole owner of the copyright.  Last week, Ohoven, through his production company, Infinity Pictures, hit back in California state court.  He claims Jarecki used his reputation (he produced Capote and other critically acclaimed films) as a “stalking horse” to lure prominent actors.  This off-stage drama sets a promising backdrop for the thriller, for which production is scheduled to begin this month.

- Online post of entire copyrighted article deemed fair use.  Copyright crusader Righthaven suffered its second defeat in federal court to a non-profit organization which published on its Web site a Las Vegas Review-Journal story about the local police’s relationship with immigrants.  As a copyright enforcer for the newspaper, Righthaven had sued the Portland, Oregon-based immigration organization for copyright infringement, but federal judge Hon. James Mahan ruled that the charity’s publication was “fair use.”  In a rare application of the fair use exception to exploit an entire copyrighted work, Judge Mahan said Righthaven’s use of the copyright was afforded lesser protection because its objective was to litigate rather than to protect the creative work, and it gave the non-profit no opportunity to remove the story before resorting to legal action.  Further, the non-profit posted the article online for non-commercial educational purposes and targeted a different audience than the newspaper.  Since last year, according to Paid Content, Righthaven has filed roughly 250 lawsuits against various Web sites and blogs and recently lost a similar case on fair use grounds (though that case involved only partial use of copyrighted work).  While it is early to speculate, this decision may have significant implications for non-profits and publishers everywhere. 

- OK for Oprah to read from presidential trivia booklet.  The Hollywood Reporter is reporting on the dismissal of  a $100 million copyright infringement lawsuit against the talk show queen for allegedly using material from a presidential trivia booklet without permission.  The author, Charles Harris, claims Oprah read content from the booklet on air, asking kids questions about presidential facts, one of which called for the name of the heaviest U.S. president – identified as William Howard Taft at 354 pounds.  Oprah said Harris failed to register his booklet as a compilation, which, as the court noted, is the one circumstance where historical facts are afforded copyright protection.  The court reiterated that facts are not copyrightable unless presented in some original form and that, while the booklet had “some hallmarks of originality,” in its essence it was a “piece of raw data,” rather than a creative work.

- Online store thrilled to pay $950,000 for Beatles copyright infringement.  Online music store BlueBeat.com has settled its $1 billion lawsuit with EMI – for less than $1 million.  EMI, owner of the copyrights in many Beatles works, sued when BlueBeat offered the entire Beatles catalog on its Web site at the “unreasonabl[y] low” price of 25 cents a song, without permission.  By the time BlueBeat took down the infringing music, it had already sold 67 million Beatles songs.  EMI won the first battle when a federal judge refused to indulge BlueBeat’s unusual argument that the infringing music files were “psycho-acoustic simulations” of the songs and scheduled a trial to determine damages.  To BlueBeat’s delight, the settlement agreement came just a day before the trial.  “I felt that was sort of an acknowledgement on their part that they don’t have the damages they claimed,” said a BlueBeat lawyer. Before BlueBeat stepped in to offer Beatles music online, EMI had elevated the online product to cult status by withholding it for years; indeed, only last year did iTunes add the Fab Four to its catalog.

- Hungry for Howard Stern’s Porky’s sequel? Prepare for an extended fast.  Just as controversial radio host Howard Stern was rolling up his sleeves to produce the next installment of the 1982 raunchy teen comedy, Mole Entertainment went to a Los Angeles Superior Court to claim that it owns the rights to the franchise.  In 2001 the rights holder Lontano Investments granted Mole Entertainment the exclusive option to make a Porky’s sequel within a certain number of years.  Apparently to retain its Porky’s remake rights, Mole produced a speedy sequel in 2009 named Pimpin’ Pee Wee, but did not distribute it.  With no knowledge of the sequel, Lontano went ahead with another Porky’s follow-up with Howard Stern.  Lontano maintains that to exercise its option, Mole would have had to put up a minimum budget of $10 million (it had only expended $1 million).  On the bright side, the temporarily derailed Howard Stern sequel is still on track to begin production.

- Gergana Miteva

- Michael Moore settles “Sicko” Suit.  The Hollywood Reporter reports that filmmaker Michael Moore settled a copyright infringement lawsuit over the allegedly unauthorized use of third-party footage in his Academy Award nominated documentary “Sicko.”  The plaintiff sued Moore for using a short clip from a video he shot while visiting London without his permission.  Moore received the footage in response to his call for stories on healthcare experiences outside the U.S.  The settlement, for an undisclosed amount, followed plaintiff’s appeal of a federal court decision in Moore’s favor on First Amendment grounds.

- AP reporter sued for blowing the whistle on NBA referee.  Longtime NBA referee Bill Spooner has sued the Associated Press (the “AP”) and one of its reporters over a tweet.  The AP reporter’s tweet said that “Ref Bill Spooner told Rambis he’d ‘get it back’ after a bad call. Then he made an even worse call on Rockets. That’s NBA officiating folks,” implying that Spooner would make amends to Timberwolves coach Kurt Rambis for a bad call.  In his Complaint, Spooner recounts a different story, claiming he did not respond to the coach’s grievances, but merely promised to review the call at half-time.  The referee is asking for an injunction removing the tweet from Twitter.com and for more than $75,000 in damages.

- Lawsuit brewing over use of “Spiral Jetty” on beer label. A Salt Lake City brewery is taking heat from New York-based Dia Art Foundation, a co-owner of the copyright in “Spiral Jetty,” for using a photograph of the earthwork on a beer label.  Built entirely out of mud on the shore of the Great Salt Lake, “Spiral Jetty” is considered to be sculptor Robert Smithson’s most significant work. In its efforts to preserve Smithson’s original vision for the work, the foundation plans to have all images and reproductions of it licensed. While the brewery called the endeavor “ludicrous” because the work has been photographed countless times, it is reportedly open to licensing discussions if the foundation can prove its copyright ownership.

- “Hurt Locker” Filmmakers wave a white flag in a piracy class action. The copyright holders in the film “Hurt Locker” recently dropped their claims against approximately 100,000 BitTorrent users who allegedly pirated the film.  While the plaintiffs’ decision to “desert” the lawsuit remains a mystery, commentators speculate that recent dismissals of similar lawsuits on procedural and jurisdictional grounds may have influenced the move.  Nevertheless, the accused pirates should hold off on their victory lap, because the cases were dismissed “without prejudice” — meaning the copyright holders have the right to re-file their Complaint.

- Featuring Slash may cost you $20M in cash. Celebrated Guns and Roses frontman Axl Rose sued videogame publisher Activision Blizzard for breach of contract because it included Rose’s ex-bandmate Slash in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock in contravention of the parties’ agreement.  In his Complaint, Rose alleges that he licensed the use of the G N’R song “Welcome to the Jungle” for the videogame on condition that Slash would not be featured in the game.  Rose also claims that Activision spun a “web of lies and deception to conceal its true intentions” to not only include Slash in the game, but make him a playable avatar. Apparently having exhausted the game’s battle arenas, the two rockers will have to duke it out in court.

- Spinning Charlie Sheen’s catch-phrases into cash-phrases.  It is open season on trademarking Charlie Sheen’s catch-phrases, according to several entrepreneurs who have been sprinting to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to trademark his utterances.  Sheen himself is in the running, and he will no doubt coin a few more gems on his “Violent Torpedo of Truth/Defeat Is Not an Option” tour.  Some of Sheen’s most popular quotes at the USPTO are “Winning,” “Tiger Blood,” and the “Defeat is not an Option,” all of which Sheen directed at his former bosses at “Two and a Half Men” who recently fired him from the show.

- Netflix Privacy Suit. Online video streaming giant Netflix faces a class action lawsuit over retaining members’ billing and viewing information after their subscriptions have expired.  In a five-count complaint filed in federal court, former subscribers accuse Netflix of, among other things, violating federal privacy laws by holding onto confidential data and unjustly enriching itself by selling their personal information to third parties.  Plaintiffs rely on the Video Privacy Protection Act, a federal law that requires the destruction of consumer records that are more than one year old.  If this case goes to trial, it may resolve a longstanding legal question of whether the law applies to online video streaming as well as physical video rental.

- Gergana Miteva

Last week, the Associated Press (“AP”) sued Urban Outfitters, Nordstrom and Zumiez, a company that sells sportswear in stores and online.  All three actions against these retailers are pending in federal court in New York.  By selling clothing bearing Shepard Fairey’s iconic Obama “Hope” poster design, the AP alleges these retailers violated the AP’s copyright in the now-famous 2006 photo of Barack Obama taken by AP photographer Mannie Garcia.  

We previously reported on the “Hope” poster litigation here and here.  In brief, the AP is a litigant in a related lawsuit which has been pending since 2009 in federal court in New York.  In that case, the AP claimed that Fairey infringed its rights by using Garcia’s photograph of Obama in the “Hope” poster Fairey created without crediting or compensating the AP.  Fairey claimed that he did not appropriate any copyrightable material from the photograph and that his use of the photograph constituted fair use under copyright law.  In January, the AP reached a settlement with Fairey whereby the parties agreed to share the rights to make posters and merchandise bearing the “Hope” image.  The case did not settle entirely, because the AP still has copyright infringement claims against One 3 Two, Inc. d/b/a Obey Clothing (“Obey Clothing”).  That company is the exclusive licensee of apparel featuring Fairey’s work, including the “Hope” image.  Last week’s lawsuits represent the first time the AP has gone after Obey Clothing’s customers — the retailers that have sold merchandise bearing the image.  

It is unclear why the AP is just filing these cases now.  However, AP spokesperson Paul Colford stated that the AP is obligated to protect its copyrights in its photos.  He added: “When a commercial entity such as these retailers, or the company that sold the shirts to them, gets something for nothing by using an AP photo without credit or compensation, it undermines the AP’s ability to cover the news and devalues the work that our journalists do, often in dangerous locations where they may literally risk life and limb to cover a story.”

AP’s case against Obey Clothing is set to go to trial later this month.

 - Amelia Brankov

- “Baby Gaga” ice cream better switch to formula. Lady Gaga recently threatened Icecreamists, a London ice-cream parlor, with a suit over an ice cream made of human breast milk called “Baby Gaga.”  Lady Gaga’s lawyers sent a cease-and-desist letter demanding that the shop change the name of the ice cream, or a trademark infringement suit would follow.  The pop star accuses the parlor of trying to get a free ride on her “reputation and goodwill” and alleges that the product is “highly detrimental” to her image because it may be “unsafe for human consumption (owing to the risk of it carrying such viruses as hepatitis).”  The Icecreamists shot back blogging  that Lady Gaga cannot claim ownership to the word “gaga” since it “has been one of the first discernable phrases to come from a baby’s mouth.”  The Icecreamists placed the cherry on the top of this “delicious” legal battle by daring Lady Gaga to “bring her legal team, we will bring our ice cream.” 

- Lens off my poker face.   Lady Gaga stirred another controversy by pushing the limits on publicity restrictions at her performances. According to the network station TBD, Lady Gaga required all photographers to sign a Press Release Form at her recent Verizon Center concert in Washington, D.C., automatically transferring all copyright ownership in the concert photographs to her. Reportedly, print media photographers were handed a less restrictive form, suggesting that the measure was mostly targeted at controlling the online distribution of the concert photographs.  

 - You’re cramping my Bold and Beautiful hairstyle.  The Bold and the Beautiful’s principal hairstylist filed a lawsuit against the show’s producers and its senior supervisor for allegedly defaming him in a performance review memo, calling him “lazy, incompetent and uncaring” and recommending his dismissal. The stylist, Carlos Pelz, reportedly claims emotional distress, anxiety, embarrassment, shame and humiliation and is seeking an unspecified amount of damages. Citing the show’s two consecutive Emmy awards for creativity, the coiffeur maintains in his Complaint that the show’s actors do not become bold and beautiful by accident.

- Copyright to World Cup Promo Song Lost in Translation.   A Florida federal judge tossed a copyright infringement suit against Coca-Cola over a World Cup 2010 marketing song.  The songwriter, Rafael “Rafa” Vergara Hermosillo, sued Coca-Cola for royalties and recognition in the song’s credits.  Based on an email negotiation exchange between Rafa and Coca-Cola, whereby Rafa agreed to adapt another song’s lyrics and translate some of the words into Spanish for the hefty sum of $1, the judge found that the songwriter had unequivocally assigned his copyright in the song to Coca-Cola and that the question of royalties was not relevant to the infringement claim before the court.     

 - Gergana Miteva