RSS FeedNew Bob Marley Brand “House of Marley,” Heirs Take Steps To Protect Father’s Legacy
First posted on Commercial Law International on Jan 7, 2010.
“Old pirates, yes they rob I.”
The opening words to Redemption Song are as hard hitting now as they were when first bellowed by the iconic musical legend – Bob Marley - years ago. These words however may be taking on a new meaning in this era digitization and globalization where information is king. This era is all about IP – Intellectual Property – and the right to access, control and exploit for ones own benefit the concepts encapsulated within creativity.
As a matter of course the Brand – how you package and sell your IP, in fact branding itself becomes a form of IP – in this era becomes of great import. In fact one could argue that brand is not the everything but is the only thing. Consumers no longer simply buy a product or service – no, no – rather they are buying a brand.
Now this brings me to the House of Marley. The heirs of Bob Marley – the holders of the exclusive rights to the reggae superstar’s image – are drawing clear battle lines in the IP war on whom can access, control and exploit Marley’s iconic status. They have enlisted the aid of Canadian private equity firm Hilco Consumer Capital to package, manage, market, sell, monitor and protect the IP that is Bob Marley through the products sold under the new House of Marley brand.
Rather than attack the hawkers of existing wears, which would result in a multiplicity of protracted legal battles spread-out across the globe, Hilco and the House of Marley have instead embarked on a branding campaign. It is quite simple, the House of Marley will be authentic and all other comers will only be imitators – a potentially very lucrative strategy, if it can be pulled off.
According to reports, the Marley brand – name, sound and image – are estimated to generate $USD 600 million in a year and this is on the bootleg side alone. On the legal side, the brand generates a profitable but substantially smaller $USD 4 million a year.
With numbers like those no wonder the Marley heirs sought out and gained a partner like Hilco with a proven reputation in IP generally and branding specifically?
While I applauded this new venture, I can’t help but how long will it be before we see a court case or two? Maybe a few Anton Piller orders – best described but somewhat inaccurately as a civil search warrant, that feature so prominently in IP cases – or maybe the odd Mareva injunction – a court order freezing assets -?
The reason why I am thinking this is that it is impossible to escape the fact that branding – intellectual propertization – eventually means not only the allocation of exclusive rights but also the enforcement of those rights.
SOCAN goes after Vancouver transit buskers
It seems that SOCAN has finally decided to take a piece of the incredibly rich Vancouver transit busker pie, and has informed the Vancouver transit authority of their intent to enforce SOCAN tariffs for buskers.
The Vancouver transit authority says those tariffs could drive the cost of a Translink busker licence as high as $1,500.
SOCAN, short for the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, is a collective society whose job it is to “make sure [members] get paid for the public performance and communication to the public of their music.” SOCAN does this by negotiating new royalty tariffs with the Copyright Board of Canada, and making licences available to “customers” interested in legally playing music in public.
Pretty much everything you can think of is covered by a SOCAN-negotiated tariff, outside of “Showers, Singing in, One or more other users of bathroom” and “Campfires, Guy with guitar, Compensated with beer from cooler.” My personal favourite existing tariff has to be tariff 3C, the pole-dancing tariff, but there are many, many more depressingly bean-counted avenues of creative expression listed on the SOCAN tariffs page. The Vancouver buskers are likely covered under “3A Live Music” or (more hilariously) 10A Strolling Musicians and Buskers; Recorded Music.
Charging a royalty fee every time the unicycling juggler blares “Life Is A Highway” may sound absurd to some, but it’s definitely the law. However, it seems clear that most (if not all) buskers in this program would find ponying up $1,500 for a licence to be a challenge. In fact, TransLink spokesman Ken Hardie said that with such a big jump in licencing fees, “We’re probably faced with possibly having to cancel the program.” So no performance space for buskers, no busker program at all… and no royalty fees for SOCAN. Brilliant.
It’s true that artists deserve to be compensated for their work, and it’s also true that the current state of Canadian copyright law encourages a royalty fee system. But after reading about SOCAN’s approach to this – “that businesses that allow musical performance on their premises obey the law” – coupled with Translink’s approach to SOCAN’s demands (passing the cost along to the buskers) makes me wonder if anyone wanted to make this work in the first place.
In the event that the Vancouver busker project isn’t canceled, I just hope SOCAN accepts payment in loose change.
Ron Livingston Sues Wikipedia over Orientation
The most recent controversy around Wikipedia, and there are plenty to come I’m sure, surrounds Ron Livingston, an actor in Office Space who starred briefly in Sex in the City. Well it’s Livingston’s sex, or rather his sexual orientation, that is at the center of a current dispute with Wikipedia.
Livingston married Rosmarie DeWitt last month, and yet his Wikipedia entry has been repeatedly vandalized to say that he is gay and living with a Lee Dennison. He also claims that the same individual made Facebook pages for himself and Dennison and showed the the two in a relationship together.
TMZ states,
Livingston is suing for libel, invasion of privacy and for using his name and likeness without his permission.
Unlike blogs, which go through minimal editing and scrutiny, Wikipedia has a vigorous review process which includes questioning sources and the neutrality of a point of view. The system seems to have worked, as the references to Livingston’s sexuality were repeatedly omitted. The problem is that the reference was repeatedly re-entered.
Wikipedia does have controls for this as well, including how to deal with vandals and locking pages that have repeat problems. We don’t know if this occurred yet, but Livingston could have contacted a Wikipedia editor to invoke these stronger protection mechanisms. Any court reviewing the case should closely scrutinize the options that were available.
Blogs face a more difficult challenge. We often try to ensure our accuracy by linking to our sources, and searching as best we can for conflicting opinions. But especially in the field of law, information does change with new legal development and judicial decisions. Posts are really only valid for the time-stamp when they are published.We do not benefit from the continuous and ongoing scrutiny of editors the way Wikipedia does.
For this reason, I rely on my readership to inform me when information needs to be updated. In fact bloggers often depend on that, and most of us are usually willing to make necessary changes. In case of litigation, we might find sanctuary under the evolving ‘public interest responsible journalism defence‘ described in the 2007 Ontario case of Cusson v. Ottawa Citizen and the 2006 House of Lord’s decision, Jameel v. Wall Street Journal Europe.
The wonderful thing about Wikipedia for the purposes of litigation is that everything is meticulously documented on the revision history and the talk page, including when and what changes were made, by whom, and the corresponding IP addresses. Issues surrounding the pending litigation are even raised on the talk page among the editors, including the location of the IP addresses making the changes, and news stories about the issue.
One of the IP addresses involved in the Livingston changes also made similar revisions on December 2, 2009 to the page of Sheikh Rashid bin Mohammed Al Maktoum of the royal family of Dubai, adding,
…as well as president for UAE LGBT conference as he is a known homosexual!.
Not that there is anything wrong with that. But there’s no need to add personal information to Wiki entries, especially if they cannot be substantiated with an independent source, and may cause the person involves some personal harm.
In cases where the control features described above do not work, it may be appropriate to pursue litigation, possibly including the site in order to compel them to provide further information.
But the best strategy for celebrities, corporations, politicians and professionals, as I told a group of marketing professionals at a seminar earlier this week, is to mitigate any adverse impact by establishing a social media strategy yourself.
Balsillie continues his fight for Phoenix Coyotes
There are some new developments in the fight to bring the hockey team from Arizona to Hamilton.
Lawyers expected to grill Bettman
David Shoalts writes for the Globe and Mail:
… Judge Baum raised a third possible outcome early in yesterday’s hearing – no sale at all.
“I would say that’s more than a possibility,” the judge added, as an audible stir went through the courtroom. That came out in the morning while one of Moyes’s lawyers, Jordan Kroop, was arguing that the financial penalties owed to Glendale if the arena lease was terminated should be capped under bankruptcy law.
If there is no sale, presumably the Coyotes would remain in Glendale indefinitely with the NHL continuing to pay the losses, which were in excess of $60-million (all figures U.S.) last season.
Blawg Review #228
If you’re just starting law school, law blawgs can be your best friend. In addition to this site, here are 99 other blog posts that you should read to help prepare for your adventure. It won’t help you though if you’re a judge about to be tested.
Most law students want to be in the top 10-15% of their class, and there are career opportunities that depend on that. Ken DeLeon of Top-law-schools.com provides some tips for success in law school, including a handy flowchart on how to prepare for your law school exams. But keep in mind that the end of the billable hour might result in some changes to your legal education, and law students have different learning styles than the rest of the population.
Still applying to law school? An undergraduate degree in physics or math might be your best option to get a solid LSAT score. Remember that these days a law career is considered a risky option, and there are lawyers in Jersey actually working for free. Where else is success defined by more work (even for less pay), and not more recreational or family time? Larry Ribstein still thinks law school is the cool choice. But is it really worth it?
On the other hand you could elect to skip your classes, get intoxicated regularly, sleep with all the members of the opposite sex, gain a reputation as being a total douche bag, and then score a book and movie deal.
Introducing Tucker Max – asshole extraordinaire – a graduate of Duke Law that claims assholes finish first.
An inspiring personality, certainly, and an approach that John Infante of Fearfully Optimistic would definitely disagree with. It does make you wonder how many Dukes are faking the Daisy to hazard “celebrity bias.” The Bitter Lawyer has an exclusive interview with Tucker that is, at the very least, amusing.
Then again, “skipping classes, playing basketball, doing cocaine and getting drunk” might help you become President of the United States – but eventually someone might start asking for your law school transcripts. None of this is likely to come up during the President’s special advice to students tomorrow (Sept. 8). An open and transparent government, perhaps, but not that open. Reality check: the last refuge of the persecuted crack smoker may not be in law school.
Hey, “Some people snort cocaine, others snort religion,” and the latter is not necessarily better. The Exit at My Legal Fiction suggests wearing lipstick as a law school study aid, for some very compelling reasons. If you’re a missionary in Kenya, please don’t vow to go to law school out of religious convictions, unless you’re going to a low-ranking religious-affiliated law school. Happy Belated Todd, but I won’t be paying $25,000 for dinner any time soon.
Still, your biggest youthful indiscretion might be going to law school itself (and graduating at the bottom of your class hardly precludes success). If your indiscretions precede law school and include a criminal record, there are some disclosure issues you should consider. Using stolen Social Security Numbers to steal student loans for partying, with Tucker, Todd, or otherwise, probably isn’t a great idea. Assistant Deans at law schools? Not a good idea either.
Robert J. Ambrogi also tells us about Branigan Robertson of Chapman University School of Law, who won $10,000 for this video in the My Inspiration video contest:
These law students are doing better than a lot of lawyers these days. When life gives you lemons (or a recession), you should just make lemonade. Dan Markel is asking, what kind of juice are you making?
On the other hand, if you’re looking to avoid personalities like Tucker Max at all costs, you might be interested in Above the Law’s Douchiest Law School Contest.
No surprise that Harvard and Duke are currently heading the pack as finalists. Also check out Paul Caron’s review of U.S. News Law School Rankings for Judicial Clerkships, which includes data from Brian Leiter’s rankings. If douchiness turns you off of Yale and clerkships are really important to you, the University of North Dakota might be a good alternative. However, great credentials don’t always make more satisfied lawyers, because these guys tend to be plagued by that green-eyed monster.
Charon QC’s musings might be useful in determining if a “douchy law school” is worse than a “McDonalds of law schools,” while Dan Slater of the NYTimes suggests just locking the doors to all law schools because there are too few hiring positions. Still having a hard time picking a law school? The iPhone app Law School 100 is free until midnight tonight (Sept. 7). Study aids are becoming more interactive, with West’s new Interactive Case Series now linking to directly to law review articles cited in the case series.
Keep in mind that law school is different than undergrad, and you should probably clean up those social networks you’re on. After all, you wouldn’t want your mom witnessing you pulling a Tucker Max, and some employers might require you to submit your social media for a background check. Social media is also being increasingly being used in the courtroom, and no, the judge doesn’t really want to be your “friend.” Don’t get rid of that social media entirely though, because “People don’t find lawyers in the phone book… They find them through TV ads or friends or by searching the Internet, including blogs and social networking tools.”
Apparently what clients really want from their lawyer is to “feel the love,” so if someone comes to your office complaining they hurt their “tushy bone,” try not to laugh too hard. Be forewarned though – that volenti non fit injuria doctrine you learn in Torts class also applies to contracting Herpes Simplex I from wrestling, also known as Herpes Gladiatorium.
That’s probably not what Lauren in Law School had in mind when she suggested gladiator games as an alternative to On Campus Interviews (OCIs). You can get a list of the guys in your university with herpes from the new Campus Gossip site just to be on the safe side.
Although the number of followers you have on Twitter is no sign of of expertise or influence, it might land you a job (or lose it) with a firm or get you published, even if Perz Hilton decides to sue you for defamation. No “love” (or wrestling) for him, sorry. Some people do take Twitter seriously, perhaps too seriously.
Eric Goldman’s interview with David Lat highlights the importance of students networking during a crisis. Dennis Jansen also thinks that networking with your peers might be useful, but consists of more than “beaming your peers with business cards or mass-adding people on Facebook and LinkedIn.” As popular as Wordpress may be for blogs, it just might not be for your law firm, and you even might be held liable for content on your site to a tune of $32.4 million.
The Law Society or State Bar is probably not going to like it if you steal other people’s Twitter content and pass it off as your own, like Melina Beninghoff did . Stealing content doesn’t take brilliance, and it barely takes effort. What is clever is coming up with this CraigsList listing from Los Angeles. But is stolen content any worse than fake content?
Today is also Labour (sic) Day in Canada and the U.S. That’s the Canadian spelling, because Labour Day did originate in Canada in 1872 with the Trade Unions Act, which legalized unions. The United States followed in 1882 with informal observance in New York City, and by 1894 it was observed by 23 states through legislation. Still, it was the American President Lincoln, not a Canadian, who said in December 1881,
It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor…
Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not existed.
Although most Canadian law schools start the day after Labour Day, many Americans start a week or two earlier. According to Blawg Review 122 it seems that in Dublin they start as late as October, but it might just be that everyone (students and profs) are recovering from prolonged hang-overs.
Labour relations are highly relevant for this edition of Blawg Review, since law professors at the University of California are considering a walk-out despite having the “best public education in the world.” Perhaps they could use this list of 24 alternative mediation dispute resolution sites to read.
Maybe they should just settle this all over a beer. Then again, those Canadian brewers are at it again with their trade-mark litigation! Next time someone tells you “I Am Canadian,” you might want to do your due diligence.
The big thing up here in Canada right now is Copyright Consultation Reform. Although over-reaching legislation is great for the lawyers, it does little for end-users of copyright material. If you’re one of those folks with a keen attention for cyberspace cases, this new blog following the 10 most important U.S. cases will probably be of interest.
But the big thing about Canada in the U.S. right now seems to be our healthcare system, which we’re rather partial to, despite what they mights say (Ignore those pesky suits). Send us your gladiators with herpes, and your perdurable impetus. All that talk over at Volokh about a “lottery system” can only be described as nonsense.
(At 1:53 Glenn Beck repeats lottery libel, and at 3:21 yells at a caller to get off his phone, “you little pinhead,” for not listening to the “facts.” The remix is even funnier.)
Although she acknowledges that healthcare reform is needed, Althouse has 10 things she hates about it. Change is always hard due to “status quo bias.” Madeleine Begun Kane has a limerick she wrote just for the spats over healthcare in the U.S. (watch your pinkies!):
“Majority rule is just great,”
Said Gregg in the drilling debate.
“You’ve got 51 votes,
Then you win.” Check his quotes.
Yet 51 Dem votes don’t rate.
Seeking medical treatment is probably the first thing you should do after a car accident, irrespective of whether it occurs in Canada or the U.S. Passen Law provides 9 other things you should do, including, of course, getting an experienced personal injury lawyer.
Another thing we have in Canada absent in the U.S. is a prohibition against the death penalty. Perhaps the fact that 45% of wrongful convictions in capital cases are based on jailhouse snitches has something to do with it. Mark Bennett of Defending People points out the interesting observation that a Texan executioner appears to be committing murder by that state’s law,
…would you participate in a death penalty trial, knowing that, for the rest of your life, with the turn of a tide of public opinion you could be prosecuted for making what you believed to be the right decision? You may be betting your life.
Do you think that employment contract with the State would protect you? Don’t count on it, as Jeffery I. Gordon mentions that most contracts are too brittle to withstand scrutiny, even if those FirstDrafter clauses look like they can do the job.
On the other hand, if your employment contract follows an affirmative action plan that is not remedial and narrowly tailored for past discrimination, it may constitute unlawful discrimination. We’re still not sure if a stripper constitutes an employee or an independent contractor in Employment Law class.
More guys in that class would probably express their anticipation for seeing Jessica Alba as the stripper-law student Nancy Callahan in the upcoming Sin City 2 if they weren’t concerned about objectifying women.
Don’t lose any sleep over it, unless you’ve sexually assaulted employees and are settling for $1.72 million. Be careful though – the risk of contracting gladiator herpes (and sins) rises exponentially when wrestling with strippers. You could also get robbed or raped.
Personally, I would be okay with any affirmative action that sought to get everyone but Tucker Max and any potential douches into my law school. Nancy Callahan might get a pass, as long as she doesn’t hook up with Tucker while she’s there.
Special thanks to David Shulman for editing on this piece.
That’s it for this week’s edition! Remember: Blawg Review has information about next week’s host, and instructions how to get your blawg posts reviewed in upcoming issues.
Legitimate-Content Bay?
I was surprised to see in numerous newspaper (here, here, etc.) that a Swedish firm called Global Gaming Factory signed an agreement to buy the Pirate Bay. For those unaware, the Pirate Bay, also based in Sweden, is the world’s largest Bit Torrent tracker, providing easy access to a multiplicity of files using peer-to-peer technology. An estimated 90% of these are copyrighted, and a Swedish court held the company and its founders liable in mass copyright infringement. It’s founders and financial backer have recently been sentenced to one year each in prison and millions of dollars in fines (the case is under appeal and some of the founders are no longer in Sweden).
But now, Global Gaming Factory is agreeing to pay US $7.8 million for the file sharing website, tracker, and community of users. Global Gaming’s business plan is weird to say the least. It plans to pay royalties to the copyright owners for the files that are transferred using the tracker and make money using a mix of advertizing and the selling of bandwidth on the peer-to-peer network to internet service providers and other entities. The latter means that if a user is downloading or uploading a bit torrent file using Pirate Bay, their spare CPU, memory, and internet connection capacity will be sold to a third party who can use it for anything from SETI to DDoS attacks. The company is also planning a revenue-sharing program to kick back a part of the earnings to its users.
All of this sounds great (or not so great in the case of DDOS attacks, but the company assures us that it is legitimate), there’s just one problem: Global Gaming does not seem to have any plan on making this happen. Case(s) in point: they have not approached any of the copyright holders to attempt to negotiate prices. They have no idea how much they will have to pay to make Pirate Bay go legitimate. Analysts are also saying that ISPs will likely balk at buying bandwidth back from its own users. Users selling bandwith (which they are if there’s a revenue sharing plan) is also against the Terms of Service of most ISPs.
To add to their problems, Global Gaming is now being investigated for insider trading. Authorities noticed an unjustified spike in the price and trading volume of the company’s shares weeks before the announcement to purchase Pirate Bay was made. AktieTorget, the Swedish exchange on which the company was listed is also saying that it will broaden its investigation into the activities of the company once the sale is completed. Any illegal activities (such as distributing copyrighted content without permission) are grounds for removal from the exchange.
I find the move to buy the Pirate Bay to be a little bit weird. Global Gaming seems to be a legitimate company that owns internet cafes and produces software. It is highly unlikely that they would put out $7.8M USD if they did not have a plan. There’s something missing. For now, Pirate Bay’s previous owners are optimistic and there’s some cautious optimism in the Pirate Bay community as well. If Global Gaming manages to pull off what they’re promising, they have found a brilliant new business plan that may legalize all kinds of file sharing. The costs of failiure however, are very high. Global Gaming has a huge uphill battle ahead.
French Court Over-Rules Three Strike Policy
This entry is meant to act as a follow-up to my February article discussing the three-strike policy, but for those who need to refresh their memories, the three-strike policy refers to a propsal supported by various industry groups under which users who continue to share copyrighted content on the web will have thier internet access cut off after two warnings. A three-strikes-you’re-out policy, if you will.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy rushed a relatively extreme law through through the French Parliament which would have seen a creation of a new agency that tracks and automatically suspends internet access to those accused of downloading copyrighted material.
The Constitutional Council of France however stated that there are several problems with this law, some of which I have already touched on in my previous article. Among the most obvious, the Constitutional Council took issue with the fact that the law removes the presumption of innocence. An alleged “pirate” of copyrighted material cannot defend herself before the internet gets cut off. Furthermore, the agency that was created by this law is extra-judicial, and hence some left-wing thinkers and politicians thought that it is wrong for it to be meting out punishment. The Council agreed, stating that having an administrative agency handle quasi-judicial issues is a breach of separation of powers under the French Constitutions.
What is most striking however is the lengths to which the council went in its decision. It declared internet access a human right by stating that “free access to public communication services online” is a part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which sits in the preamble of the French Constitution). I could see this part of the decision raising several problems, most obvious of which is the fact that only 6% of the world population has internet access. It follows then that calling internet a human right is a little premature. There are some other problems with this, but they are outside the scope of this short article.
Finally, as an addendum, the article in the timesonline (UK edition) mentions that several prominent left-wing artists stood up against this decision and for the government’s law that the decision overruled, seemingly forgetting the fact that the law suggested a creation of an agency for monitoring people’s internet activity and meting out punishment without due process. It is amazing how fast some people give up on principles of liberty and justice when the application of these principles start to negatively affect them.
The law will come into force as planned, but without the provision for cutting off internet access. The cases will be forwarded to prosecutors and it will be up to them whether or not to try the people accused of downloading in a court of law.
Tupac’s Mother Files Counter-Suit Over Late Son’s Film Rights
First posted on Commercial Law International on March 19, 2009.
The mother of late rapper Tupac Shakur, Afeni Shakur, filed a $10 million suit against Morgan Creek, an independent production company over the rights to make a biopic of the rapper. This is a counter claim to a suit filed earlier by Morgan Creek in Los Angeles alleging Amaru Entertainment reneged on a deal to sell the rights for a biopic about the deceased rapper.
Amaru Entertainment, what is that and how did they get involved in this dispute? Isn’t it between Morgan Creek and Ms. Shakur?
This is easily explained. Amaru Entertainment controls the estate of the late rapper which in turn is over seen by Ms. Shakur.
Ok, with me now.
This whole morass it would seem stems from, and you will never guess, Biggie Smalls. Yes the other late rapper and Tupac’s rival, Christopher Wallis a.k.a. the Notorious B.I.G – no no please don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to reignite the whole West Coast-East Coast, Tupac vs Biggie thing. I simply want to point out that this dispute, in my opinion, is highly connected and only arose after the biopic, “Notorious,” about Biggie grossed over $20 million in its opening weekend earlier this January and potentially profitability of a Tupac biopic became fully crystallized in the minds of both parties.
The central legal question is this case appears to whether or nor there was a deal between Morgan Creek and Amaru entertainment. For all the present and former law students out there, yeah, offer and acceptance is rearing it ugly head out side the safe confines of a law school.
Hahahahahahhahaha.
Was there in fact a deal? You decide:
Both parties were in advanced negotiations about a biopic on the later rapper. In December of last year Morgan Creek received a final term sheet which detailed everything that would be required to reach a deal. Morgan Creek’s executives in late January accepted this proposal – please note that this is after the “Notorious” opening weekend. It then began tell others in the film industry that it in fact owned the rights to a Tupac biopic. Morgan Creek then file suit in order to get Amaru to honor the deal.
Amaru Entertainment for its part claims that that there was no deal but that the final term sheet was in fact a counter offer and was the basis of further negotiations. In fact key details of a deal were not workout, such as an executive producer credit for Ms. Shakur. Because Morgan Creek was only one of many suitors for the biopic rights – others included Fox Searchlight, Paramount and Kennedy/Marshall – when they began telling others in the industry that they owned the film rights it sabotaged negotiations with the other studios.
Like I said a morass.
Chuck Norris’ Tears Don’t Cure Cancer
So he claims, in a lawsuit against book publisher Penguin.
Chuck Norris is suing the publisher for releasing a book called The Truth About Chuck Norris: 400 facts about the World’s Greatest Human.
The book contains numerous allegedly “mythical” facts about Chuck Norris which were collected from the internet. The facts include:
- “Chuck Norris’s tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried.”
- “When Chuck Norris does a push up, he isn’t lifting himself up, he’s pushing the Earth down.”
- “There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.”
- “Chuck Norris is not afraid of the dark. The dark is afraid of Chuck Norris.”
The lawsuit alleges that the book resulted in trademark infringement, unjust enrichment and misappropriation of personality.
You will note that Chuck Norris is not suing for defamation. I suspect that’s because truth is a defence.
What I can’t understand is why Chuck Norris is bothering to sue. We all know that Chuck Norris doesn’t step on toes. Chuck Norris steps on necks.
Collective Licensing – a Solution to Copyright Lawsuits?
There has been increasing talk about voluntary collective licensing of media on the internet and it seems that at least some music labels are open to embracing it, albeit in limited ways. There is some opposition too.
The voluntary collective licensing solution, whereby a body collects a levy from all interested parties (in this case university students) and redistributes that money to record labels and artists, is a welcome step forward from the current (failing) strategy of litigation against those accused of copyright violation on the internet. The basic premise of the approach is what organization such as EFF have been advocating for some time, which is the legalization of distribution of copyrighted content on the internet (i.e. filesharing).
From an economic perspective, the creation of such content needs to be encouraged, so the content needs to be somehow protected…or does it? The only thing that has to be ensured is that those that create the content are fairly rewarded for it in accordance with the principles of perfectly competitive markets (most notably, no extra-normal profits). Schemes such as volutary licensing should ensure that content flows while people who create that content get fairly compensated.
If copyright holders still wish to generate extra-normal profits, they must take steps to create and market scarcities. In the past, this scarcity came in the form of on-demand performances (recordings of artists that can be viewed or heard on demand by the user). Now that these recordings may be freely distributed and copied, they are no longer scarce.
So what is scarce? Items and experiences demanded by fans and followers of given content (e.g. fans of musicians, movies, directors, actors, etc.). Merchandise (t-shirts with band logos for example), special interviews with directors, concerts, backstage access at concerts, special authentic album inserts, autographs, and other such opportunities are in great demand, cannot be copied and are entirely controlled by content owners and copyright holders.
If copyright holders were to make the bulk of their money off resources that are scarce, they may even find it profitable to give abundant content which is easily copied away for free and drum up demand for scarcities that they control. In this case, issues like voluntary licensing (and litigation) won’t even come up.
Strange B&E May Signal Growing Practice Area
Police are chasing a man in Cairns, Australia for breaking and entering into a store and stealing their toys. He’s suspected of several break-ins at a s similar store in the city.
But these stores aren’t for kids. They are adult sex shops, and the product he has been stealing are inflatable dolls. After using the toys from the store the suspect disposed of them in the alley.
The owner of the store, who declined to provide his full name, said,
He has been taking the dolls out the back and blowing them up and using the dolls and leaving them in the alley. It is totally bizarre. It is a real concern that someone like that is out on the street.
Police do have several clues they are following that distinguishes the suspect:
- He seems to have a crush on a particular model, “Jungle Jane”
- His preferred method of entry is to squeeze through tight holes
- Despite always cleaning up after himself, the suspect has left unspecified samples of DNA on the dolls
As strange as the story may sound, there is a vinyl lining in it for lawyers worried about how the economy is going to affect their work prospects.
Robert J. Ambrogi claims the adult entertainment industry continues to make a buck even in the worst of times.
He notes a recent conference, in Las Vegas of course, that included a panel on adult entertainment law, which overlaps with areas of obscenity and free speech, zoning, labor law and record-keeping.
Even more interesting was that the media reported there were more lawyers in the audience than on the stage.
According to Ambrogi,
Lawyers, it appears, can make a decent living from indecency, even in a recession.
Updates
They caught him.
Batman, Turkey Sues Warner Bros.
It’s not the first time a city or location is suing for intellectual property in its name. But it’s probably the first time a major blockbuster has been the target of the lawsuit.
The city of Batman, located in eastern Turkey, is named after the river by the same name that flows into the Tigris. Both the river and the oil-producing city derive their name from the adjoining Bati Raman mountains.
Batman is known around the world for a much more popular comic book character, turned into blockbuster film. The $1billion box office sales for the Dark Knight, the second highest ever, is probably what prompted the suit.
Huseyin Kalkan, the Kurdish mayor of the town, is preparing an interesting statement of claim, including psychological damages. He attributes a number of unsolved murders and a high female suicide rate on the film’s success.
The town is not without controversy, as many of the suicides are attributed to honour killings. Kalkan himself has been jailed for support of the Marxist-Kurdish terrorist organization also operating in northern Iraq, the PKK (Kurdish Workers Party). The Caped Crusader would probably have his hands full in the town that shares his namesake.
Vehbi Kahveci, head of the Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights Commission of the Istanbul Bar, stated that Batman (the character) and its related logos are already registered around the world. Kalkan’s claim is also limitations barred, probably by several decades.
Jonathon M. Seidl of Patrol Magazine said,
…do all the Springfields in the U.S. get to sue FOX and The Simpsons? Or do all the Springfields get to sue one another? Or maybe Hell, Michigan should sue the Devil. Or what about Garfield, New Jersey, Archie, Missouri, or Henry, Illinois?
The case would have a difficult time making a claim at common law (just for fun). It’s unlikely that a character first created in Detective Comics #27 in May 1939 could reasonably foresee any risk of nervous shock to a small obscure town on the other side of the world founded only two years before.
In addition to lack of temporal and spacial proximity, the recent SCC case of Mustapha v. Culligan suggests that a suddenly sensitive, or thin-skulled plaintiff, is not likely to be successful. Yet, Kalkan somehow received damages last year from D.C. Comics for the use of the Batman name.
But s. 61(2) of the Family Law Act does allow an action for loss of companionship. Let’s just hope that Kalkan’s wife is not one of the recently deceased in the town of Batman.
Cross-Posted from Slaw.ca.
Podcast Feeds
Awards
Partners
- Advertise Here
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The Whiners - The Elusive Fish Creative Services
- Mesothelioma Lawyer
- no win no fee solicitors
- Compensation Claims
- personal injury lawyer toronto
- no win no fee
- Pardons Canada Accident Claim Medical Negligence Whiplash Claim
- No win No fee Claims
- Venue
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
