Copyright - Sherman Library at Nova Southeastern University

As a general rule, I do not write blog posts about the filing of a copyright infringement lawsuit. At the stage when a complaint is filed, all that is present are the bare allegations, devoid of any proof, and as this complaint plainly shows, any kind of outrageous statement can be made. On September 21, 2015, the animal rights activists group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals filed a Federal copyright infringement lawsuit on behalf of "Naruto," an Indonesian crested black macaque.[ref]Naruto et al v. David John Slater 2015 WL 5576938[/ref] Naruto, claims the lawsuit, is responsible for the famous "monkey selfie" that was the subject of a previous blog post.[ref]Monkey in the Middle: Who Owns the Monkey "Selfie"?[/ref] In case you have forgotten, this is the photo in question:

monkey

The lawsuit seeks damages from David Slater, the photographer who set up the shoot, and his book publisher.[ref]Naruto at 7[/ref] PETA seeks to collect all the proceeds from the monkey selfie which it claims will be used "solely for the benefit of Naruto, his community of crested macaques and preservation of their habitat…"[ref]Id.[/ref] Minus a few unavoidable administrative costs, and shipping and handling, I'm sure. So the real purpose of the lawsuit is money, and of course publicity for PETA. As for the second part, they have already succeeded. Every major news outlet has run a story on the lawsuit. This is not the first time that PETA has sued as the "next friend" of an animal with a lawsuit that, to be polite, greatly stretches the boundaries of coherent legal theory or reasoning. As reported by The Guardian: "Peta has on occasion pursued lawsuits that were widely viewed by other legal experts as offering little chance of success – for example, a 2011 lawsuit accusing the SeaWorld parks of keeping five killer whales in conditions that violate the US constitution's ban on slavery. A federal judge dismissed the suit, saying the 13th amendment applied only to humans."[ref]Peta sues to give copyright for 'monkey selfies' to macaque who snapped them[/ref] Thus, it should come as no surprise that the complaint is replete with legal errors and faulty logic. Firstly, there are questions as to whether PETA has correctly identified the monkey in question. All the previous reports had the monkey being a female. Yet PETA claims the monkey is a male. As this article form Motherboard points out: "[C]overage of the monkey selfie controversy last year identified the macaque as female. The photographer David Slater identifies the monkey as female in his book, Wildlife Personalities. PETA's own president, Ingrid Newkirk, identified the monkey as female in a 2014 essay arguing that the monkey should own copyright in the photos."[ref]Did PETA Name the Right Macaque in Its 'Monkey Selfie' Lawsuit?[/ref] "[The Defendant] [p]hotographer David Slater told us in an email, ‘All you need to know is PETA have no proof they are talking about the same monkey. They hope you will buy into their stunt because an expert is willing to say her monkey is the one in my photos without proof.'"[ref]Id.[/ref] Next is the question of the legal ability of PETA to have standing to bring the suit on behalf of Naruto, a legal concept known as "next friend." According to the Supreme Court of the United States: "'[N]ext friend' standing is by no means granted automatically to whomever seeks to pursue an action on behalf of another. Decisions applying the habeas corpus statute have adhered to at least two firmly rooted prerequisites for ‘next friend' standing. First, a ‘next friend' must provide an adequate explanation—such as inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or other disability—why the real party in interest cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action. [citation omitted] Second, the ‘next friend' must be truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose behalf he seeks to litigate, [citation omitted] and it has been further suggested that a ‘next friend' must have some significant relationship with the real party in interest."[ref]Jonas H. WHITMORE, Individually and as Next Friend of Ronald Gene Simmons, Petitioner v. ARKANSAS et al. 495 U.S. 149, Supreme Court of the United States 1990.[/ref] PETA's penchant for seeking publicity by filing dodgy lawsuits may bring into question whether they have Naruto's best interest at heart, beyond just their saying so. I also fail to see how PETA has any significant relationship with Naruto. This is obviously why they are bringing Dr. Antje Engelhardt along for the ride as a co-plaintiff, since it is alleged that Dr. Englehardt has had contact with Naruto and studied him.[ref]Naruto at 4[/ref] However, if the Court rules Dr. Englehardt has standing as "next friend," this does not automatically confer standing on PETA. Next up, there is the fact that the U.S. Copyright Office has already issued a policy bulletin that "[t]he Office will not register works produced by nature, animals or plants."[ref]Monkey selfies do not qualify for copyright protection, US regulators say[/ref] Even further, as reported by the online journal of the American Bar Association: "The Office gave several specific examples of things that could not be copyrighted under this section, such as a mural painted by an elephant, a song authored by the Holy Spirit and a photograph taken by a monkey. (emphasis added) "According to the National Journal, Bill Roberts, acting associate register of copyrights and director of the office of public information, said the Copyright Office deliberately added real-life examples in order to avoid confusion."[ref]Id.[/ref] PETA disputes the legal precedent to be afforded an opinion of the Copyright Office stating: "My understanding is that they've never been asked to register a copy of the photograph. I believe they've never refused. And the Compendium is the Copyright Office's opinion on the state of law but is not authoritative. They're not the legislative body, they are not a court. And we respectfully disagree with their view on that."[ref]Did PETA Name the Right Macaque in Its 'Monkey Selfie' Lawsuit?[/ref] This is shaky reasoning on three points. Firstly, the Copyright Office has already said, in advance that they will not register Naruto's photograph, so saying that the Copyright Office haven't refused registration yet is a non-argument which carries no legal weight. Next, there is the fact that the Courts of the U.S., most notably the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which will govern this case, give great deference to the opinions of the Copyright Office: "We credit this expert opinion of the Copyright Office—the office charged with administration and enforcement of the copyright laws and registration. [citation omitted] The Copyright Office's well-reasoned position "reflects a ‘body of experience and informed judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance.'"[ref]Garcia v. Google 786 F.3d 733 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. 2015[/ref] Lastly, there is the whole problem of whose copyright law will be applied to the basic question of can a non-human being own a copyright? PETA takes the position that the photo is not a "United States Work" for the purposes of the Copyright Act.[ref]Naruto at 9[/ref] (There will be more about this further on.) This means that if the suit is correct, the country of origin is a country other than the United States. According to the Berne Convention, to which the U.S., Britain and Indonesia are all members, the "country of origin" is the country in which the work is first published.[ref]Berne Convention, Article 5, Section 4, available at Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Paris Text 1971)[/ref] This is most likely to be the UK where defendant David Slater is a citizen. Hold on here, because this gets technical. The Berne Convention states that "'published works' means works published with the consent of their authors."[ref]Berne Convention Article 3, Section 3[/ref] If Naruto is the sole author, it is doubtful that he gave permission for the publication, as it is pretty much a given that he does not understand what copyright or publication is. So even though the photo was undoubtedly published on a worldwide basis, Naruto's lack of consent might mean that his country of which he is a national is the law that governs, or the law of Indonesia, assuming of course that a non-human being is a "national" of any country. PETA's apparent assertion that Indonesia is the country of origin because the works were fixed there[ref]Naruto at 9[/ref] is incorrect, under the plain terms of the Berne Convention. The importance of this is that the copyright law of either the UK or Indonesia would have to be examined to decide who the author of the work was. If they were to decide under the applicable law that Naruto created the work alone, but was not an "author" because Naruto is not a human being, then the photo is not protected at all in its country of origin, and therefore is not protected in any Berne country since it is not a work which is "protected under this Convention." The other possibilities are that Naruto and Slater are co-authors or Slater is the sole author, which means there can be no viable action for infringement brought by Naruto, or its "next friend." For this reason alone, the complaint should be dismissed because PETA has failed to allege adequate facts to support their contention that Naruto is the sole owner of the copyright under the laws of the UK or Indonesia, a prerequisite to any enforcement of the copyright in the United States in reliance on the Berne Convention. The reason why PETA is claiming that the photo is not a "United States work" is to avoid the whole requirement that one must register with the Copyright Office before filing a copyright infringement lawsuit.[ref]17 USC 411[/ref] This requirement only applies if the work is a "United States work."[ref]17 USC 411(a)[/ref] According to section 101 of the Copyright Act, a work is a United States work if it is first published in the United States or "simultaneously in the United States and another treaty party or parties, whose law grants a term of copyright protection that is the same as or longer than the term provided in the United States." This obviously includes the Berne Convention. The U.S. Copyright Act does not define what "simultaneous publication" is, but the Berne Convention does. The Berne Convention states that "[a] work shall be considered as having been published simultaneously in several countries if it has been published in two or more countries within thirty days of its first publication."[ref]Berne Convention, Article 3, Section 4[/ref] So if the photo was published in any Berne country and the U.S. within thirty days of each other, then the photo is a "United States work" and subject to the registration requirement. A registration, as discussed above, that is going to be summarily rejected by the Registrar of Copyrights. So now we come to the true question: can a monkey be an author for purposes of copyright? Here, PETA winds up hamstrung by its own arguments. If Naruto needs his "next friends" to litigate for him based upon his "mental incompetence, or other disability," how does he form the requisite intent to create a work of art? Consider this rather arrogant and snarky exchange between Jeffrey Kerr, the attorney who filed the suit for PETA, and a reporter for the Motherboard website. ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. "Does Naruto know about this lawsuit? [pause] Um, the… fact here is that Naruto is unable to come into court himself and so we are standing as Next Friend. Your question is silly, frankly. The issue is as I've stated it. Does Naruto know about his selfies? [pause] I have the same response. Naruto certainly knew at the time that he was engaged in intentional conduct that is obvious from Mr. Slater's own description of the situation. And Naruto clearly engaged in the purposeful intentional conduct that resulted in the creation of the selfies. [Later on in the same interview] So you saying that you think Naruto knows these selfies exist, because he— That's not what I'm saying and you should not report that. What I am saying is, alleged in the lawsuit, that Naruto engaged in a series of purposeful, intentional actions. He is very bright. He was aware of the cause and effect relationship between pushing the shutter, his reflection in the camera—this is all admitted by Mr. Slater. The result of his conduct, the original works fixed in a tangible medium, resulted. And that is sufficient for copyright protection. Can a photographer intentionally create a photo if they don't know how a photo results from a camera? Yes, of course. ……………………………………………………………………………………. This is absolute nonsense. The words that PETA's attorney is carefully leaving out are the words "authorship" and "creativity." Remember that according to the United States Supreme Court, the Copyright Act requires "that the work was independently created by the author, and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity."[ref]Feist Publications Inc. v Rural Telephone Service Co. 499 U.S.340 at 345, Supreme Court of the United States (1991) emphasis added[/ref] If Naruto does not understand that what he is holding is a camera, does not understand that the camera will make a visual record of whatever it is aimed at, and that he is creating a "selfie" by pressing the shutter, then he has not engaged in a creative act of authorship, he is simply playing with an object. So, not only is PETA refusing to go on the record to claim that Naruto knew he was creating a "selfie" but based on Slater's previous statements, as recounted on this blog, that despite hundreds of photographs being taken, only a few were usable and most were out of focus.[ref]Monkey in the Middle: Who Owns the Monkey "Selfie"?[/ref] Clearly Naruto had not even the slightest grasp of what he was doing. In addition, if Slater committed any act which shows "a minimal degree of creativity" then he, at the very worst, is a co-author and cannot be liable for infringement. If you need any more evidence that this suit is little more than a ridiculous publicity stunt, ask yourself: why hasn't PETA sued Wikimedia? Recall that this whole kerfuffle started because Wikimedia took the position that the monkey took the photo and thus the photo was in the public domain and allowed anyone to copy it. The most severe damage being done to Naruto's interest is by Wikimedia distributing the photo for free, not by the meager money being made by Slater. Slater agrees: "He added, in reference to the photos being posted on Wikipedia as being under the public domain, ‘And, WHY aren't PETA suing Wikimedia for loss of royalties? Important question!'"[ref]Did PETA Name the Right Macaque in Its 'Monkey Selfie' Lawsuit?[/ref] And finally, The Guardian quotes Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe as commenting on the suit that: "'It trivializes the terrible problems of needless animal slaughter and avoidable animal exploitation worldwide for lawyers to focus so much energy and ingenuity on whether monkeys own the copyright in selfies taken under these contrived circumstances.'"[ref]Id.[/ref]

Recent Posts

The “Art of No Deal” Will Cost Trump Plenty in Copyright Infringement Case

On September 13, 2024, a Federal Court Judge issued summary judgement against Donald Trump and his campaign in the long running copyright infringement dispute with Barbadian based musician Eddy Grant over the Trump campaign’s use of Grant’s song “Electric Avenue” in a Trump campaign video. 1 I have been following this case for a long time and have blogged about it previously. 2 To anyone who read the Judge’s initial ruling on Trump’s Motion to Dismiss, the ruling against Trump should not be surprising. The only real surprise is why the case got this far.As I suggested in my previous blog post, the case should have quickly been settled. Yet for whatever reason, including Trump’s own pugnacious personality, it was not, and now it will cost him. According to the complaint, Grant is seeking $300,00 in statutory damages, the maximum for infringement of not only the song “Electric Avenue” but sound recording as well. 3 The attorney’s fees, for four years of litigation, will easily top the amount of damages. And Trump is personally liable for both amounts.“It’s everything we asked for,” one of Grant’s lawyers, Brett Van Benthysen, told Business Insider. “100%.” 4The real question is why litigate? This crops up time and time again in copyright cases, where copyright defendants take to the costly step of litigating such malleable issues as “fair use” when a simple settlement, or license fee for that matter, would resolve the issue once and for all and make it go away, for a lot less money. And for Trump, the result is the prospect of a very large judgment against him, creating a lot of negative publicity around him at a time when negative publicity is very much not in his best interest. To which we can add the recent injunction granted against Trump for his use of “Hold On, I’m Comin” and a lawsuit filed by The White Stripes over use of the song “Seven Nation Army.” 5As I noted three years ago:Many times, an [infringement claim] occurs when songs are used at campaign rallies. The composers feel that this is an implied endorsement. The campaigns usually rely on a license from the performing rights organizations. However, sometimes the use is in a campaign video, and since this is a “synchronization” use, it absolutely requires a license and absolutely requires permission, even in the internet age. 6To this, Trump trots out the same fair use argument that got pummeled in the Court’s rejection of his Motion to Dismiss. Indeed, large sections of the Court’s opinion on summary judgement could have been cut and pasted from its previous ruling. For the fine details of that ruling, I invite you to read my previous blog post. 7The only new matter Trump brings to the Court is the contention that the “Electric Avenue” sound recording was not properly registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.Interestingly enough, there is no discussion about whether the “Electric Avenue” sound recording had to be registered with the Copyright Office in the first place. Eddy Grant was born in Ghana, raised in the UK, and presently resides in Barbados, 8 and as such is protected by the Berne Convention.In that situation, according to the expert folks at the Copyright Alliance:“A foreign author may bring a copyright infringement action in a U.S. district court without registering his or her work with the U.S. Copyright Office. However, a foreign author must register his or her work with the U.S. Copyright Office in order to obtain certain statutory benefits that are provided under the 1976 Copyright Act, such as the presumption of validity and the ability to claim statutory damages and attorney’s fees in an infringement action.” 9So, Grant’s lawsuit would have been sustainable in any event. The real crux would be his ability to ask for statutory damages and attorneys fees, which he clearly is asking for.Now, while the song “Electric Avenue” was registered for copyright in the U.S. in 1983, 10 it does not appear that the sound recording was registered until many years later. “Electric Avenue” was recorded at Grant’s studio in Barbados and he is the sole musician on the recording, so the sound recording copyright unquestionably belongs to him. The sound recordings rights to “Electric Avenue” (amongst others) were licensed to Warner Music UK in 2001 for a five-year period, and for a territory which included the United States. 11 During this agreement, a “Greatest Hits” compilation was released which included “Electric Avenue.” This collection of sound recordings was registered with the U.S. Copyright Office in 2002. 12 The license agreement expired in 2006, by which all rights reverted to Grant. 13For his part, Trump contends the “Greatest Hits” registration was insufficient to register the component part of “Electric Avenue.” All of these arguments fail.The Court cites to previous Second Circuit precedent that held:“a publisher that filed collective works copyright registrations for issues of its magazine would have thereby obtained copyright registration for…the articles contained in the issue if the publisher owned the copyrights for those articles.” 14The Court also notes that:“[Trump argues] that the registration for a collective work does not include the registration for any previously published part but have failed to point out any case that supports that position.” 15Not a good strategy.Also in his answer, Trump asserted that he had “absolute presidential immunity” from Grant’s lawsuit. 16 This argument was apparently so ridiculous that it didn’t even merit discussion in the summary judgement opinion.But once again, why litigate this issue when a quick settlement and a much smaller fee would have made the entire matter disappear from the public eye? Further, why not take the video down after the cease and desist letter? Why wait until a lawsuit is filed until the video is removed from the public eye?I’m not alone in this thought. As my colleague David Newhoff wrote at the Illusion of More website:“When I wrote about the Grant v. Trump copyright case on October 1, I was wrong about one thing: that Team Trump would quickly settle the matter as a relative storm in a teacup within the legal tornadoes swirling around the ex-president.” 17Even the website Torrent Freak wondered:“In an ideal world, the failure of Trump’s motion to dismiss in September 2021 should’ve been seen as an opportunity to settle the case privately.A very small slice of humble pie and some tea, perhaps, so that everyone could move on. Or even negotiating the terms of the settlement Grant offered in August 2020 before filing the lawsuit.” 18And as a high-profile individual that once published a book under his name about “The Art of the Deal,” Trump should have known that “The Art of No Deal” can be much costlier.Notes:Grant v. Trump 2024 WL 4179057 SDNY 2024 (citations are to the WestLaw pagination) ↩“Electric Avenue” Derails Trump Train ↩Donald Trump Loses ‘Electric Avenue’ Legal Battle With Eddy Grant; Jury Could Be Convened Over Compensation From Ex-POTUS – Update ↩Donald Trump loses legal fight over using Eddy Grant song without permission ↩Id. ↩“Electric Avenue” Derails Trump Train ↩“Electric Avenue” Derails Trump Train ↩Wikipedia – Eddy Grant ↩Are Foreign Creators Protected in the US? ↩Grant v. Trump at 1 ↩Id. at 2 ↩Id. ↩Grant v. Trump at 2 ↩Grant v. Trump at 3 ↩Grant v. Trump at 5 ↩Trump Claims “Absolute Immunity” in Eddy Grant Copyright Suit ↩Id. ↩Eddy Grant Wins: Trump’s ‘Fair Use’ of ‘Electric Avenue’ Was Anything But ↩...

Test

Many headlines were generated on September 24, 2021, when Marvel Characters, Inc. filed a series of lawsuits against many former Marvel Comics illustrators.1 The suits, filed in New York and Los Angeles, all have the same basic fact pattern and asked for the same relief. The suits sought a declaratory decree that the termination notices served on Marvel by the authors and heirs of the former Marvel illustrators were invalid. At stake are the characters Iron Man, Spider-Man, Daredevil, Ant-Man, Hawkeye, Dr. Strange, Black Widow, Falcon, Thor and more.2When the Copyright Act was re-written, eventually enacted in 1976, for the first time, the right of an individual author to terminate a grant of copyright, and reclaim ownership, was added. But to make matters even more confusing, there were two different termination schemes enacted, one for post-1978 grants3 and one for pre-1978 grants.4 Yet, both systems have the same legal trap, the author cannot terminate a work that was prepared as a “work made for hire.” That is the central dispute in the suits that were filed. Yet, what constitutes a work made for hire after 1978, is largely governed by the Copyright Act. For pre-1978 works, it is largely a question of court decisions on the topic. Unfortunately for the Marvel illustrators, the case law does not favor their position.The case law on the subject indicates that a pre-1978 creative work is “made for hire” when it is prepared at the “instance and expense” of the hiring party. This is the rule in the Second, Ninth and Fifth Circuits, and cited as controlling by a Bankruptcy Court ruling involving, interestingly enough, Marvel Comics.5“If the employer can meet its burden to show some credible evidence that an employee worked at the ‘instance and expense’ of the employer, then the court will presume that the employer holds the copyright to the material produced.”6The Second Circuit defines “instance and expense” as “when the ‘motivating factor in producing the work was the employer who induced the creation.’”7The Fifth Circuit adds that another factor is “whether the employer had the right to direct and supervise the manner in which the work was being performed. Actual exercise of that right is not controlling, and copyright is vested in the employer who has no intention of overseeing the detailed activity of any employee hired for the very purpose of producing the material.”8According to the Second Circuit: “[t]he ‘expense’ component refers to the resources the hiring party invests in the creation of the work. We have, at least in some cases, continued the tradition of treating the incidents of a traditional employment relationship as relevant to the analysis. (Citation omitted) We have, moreover, suggested that the hiring party’s provision of tools, resources, or overhead may be controlling…In other cases, however, we seem to have focused mostly on the nature of payment: payment of a ‘sum certain’ suggests a work-for-hire arrangement; but ‘where the creator of a work receives royalties as payment, that method of payment generally weighs against finding a work-for-hire relationship.’”9The last quote is telling, as it came in a lawsuit bearing what Marvel calls “virtually identical circumstances,” Marvel Characters, Inc. against former Marvel illustrator Jack Kirby.That case described in detail “The Marvel Method”:“Under the Marvel Method, [Stan] Lee would not write a detailed script for a story before assigning an artist to draw it. Instead, at a ‘plotting conference,’ or in a ‘plot outline,’ Lee gave the artist the general contours of the story he had in mind: an outline of the plot, a description of the hero, and suggestions for how the story should look. The artist would draw the story along the lines of Lee’s ‘main theme.’ After an artist completed the pencil drawings, Lee edited his work and added dialogue and captions. Use of the Marvel Method allowed Lee to keep multiple artists working on assignments simultaneously.”10Here’s where it starts to get sticky. Stan Lee was certainly an employee of Marvel. Whatever his contributions to the creation of a character were certainly works for hire which would remain with Marvel. Even though individual authors can terminate individual author’s shares, the questions then become “who created what” and “is this still relevant today”?Let’s take Daredevil for example. His original costume was yellow. Who decided to change it to all red? So does the termination notice apply to “yellow” Daredevil or “red” Daredevil?Or let’s look at Iron Man, whose suit of armor and look have changed vastly over the years:Does the termination only apply to the original Iron Man? Who gets authorship over the changes? Or, let’s take on the character of Tony Stark. For the most part, Stark has been Iron Man. Sometimes Iron Man has been other characters, most notably James Rhodes.11This is important because despite termination, Marvel gets to keep the derivative versions of the character made while they held the copyright.12And then we get to the problems of proof on these issues. Stan Lee is dead. So are Gene Colan, Don Heck and Don Rico.13 Stan Lee was deposed extensively in the Jack Kirby litigation, but these may not have any bearing on the creation of Iron Man or Spider-Man. While it is true that Marvel as Plaintiff has the burden of proof, how are the various defendants going to introduce evidence to the contrary?Then there is the ruling on how “the Marvel Method” results in a decision of “work made for hire.”“In the work-for-hire context, ‘an essential element of the employer-employee relationship is the right of the employer to direct and supervise the manner in which the [artist] performs his work.’ (citation omitted) If the hiring party ‘took the initiative in engaging [the artist]’ and had ‘the power to accept, reject, or modify her work, then the work is a work for hire. (citation omitted) It is undisputed that at all times between 1958 and 1963 Lee had complete editorial and stylistic control over all work that Marvel published…. If Lee did not approve of the artist’s work, it was not published. (citation omitted) Kirby was no exception. Lee edited Kirby’s work and reviewed and approved all of his work prior to publication. (citation omitted) Lee’s testimony is consistent with the recollection of Kirby’s daughter, Susan Kirby, who testified that Lee asked her father to ‘redo pages.’ (citation omitted) Neal Kirby testified about one instance where Lee rejected a ‘cover’ created by Kirby.”14In affirming, the Second Circuit wrote:“Understood as products of this overarching relationship, Kirby’s works during this period were hardly self-directed projects in which he hoped Marvel, as one of several potential publishers, might have an interest; rather, he created the relevant works pursuant to Marvel’s assignment or with Marvel specifically in mind. Kirby’s ongoing partnership with Marvel, however unbalanced and under-remunerative to the artist, is therefore what induced Kirby’s creation of the works…Marvel’s inducement, right to supervise, exercise of that right, and creative contribution with respect to Kirby’s work during the relevant time period is more than enough to establish that the works were created at Marvel’s instance.”15As to the “expense” prong:“The facts underlying the expense component are not in dispute. Marvel paid Kirby a flat rate per page for those pages it accepted, and no royalties. It did not pay for Kirby’s supplies or provide him with office space. It was free to reject Kirby’s pages and pay him nothing for them. The record contains anecdotal evidence that Marvel did in fact reject Kirby’s work or require him to redo it on occasion, if less often than it did the work of other artists, but with what frequency is unclear… In the final analysis, then, the record suggests that both parties took on risks with respect to the works’ success—Kirby that he might occasionally not be paid for the labor and materials for certain pages, and Marvel that the pages it did pay for might not result in a successful comic book. But we think that Marvel’s payment of a flat rate and its contribution of both creative and production value, in light of the parties’ relationship as a whole, is enough to satisfy the expense requirement.”16Given that the facts surrounding the current dispute are bound to be the same, how does the Marvel illustrator’s cases succeed?According to the Marvel illustrator’s attorney, “At the core of these cases is an anachronistic and highly criticized interpretation of ‘work-made-for-hire’ under the 1909 Copyright Act that needs to be rectified.”17Except that in this instance the appellate court in both jurisdictions where the suits have been filed have both affirmed the “instance and expense” test.And if they succeed, what do they get? Certainly not total ownership of the copyrights at issue, since, as noted, Stan Lee was definitely an employee of Marvel. Co-ownership?Co-ownership of a copyright means all parties own the copyright equally. And being a co-owner means that you can license a work without the permission of the other co-owners, subject to your duty to account for all the compensation one would receive. Could this happen?Doubtful. The movie business is not like other businesses and thrives on exclusivity. Would a movie company really make a deal for one of the Marvel characters knowing that they would not have exclusive rights and that Disney would in essence be looking over their shoulder?All likely outcomes point to a settlement at some point. This is what happened to the Kirby case even after the affirmance by the Second Circuit.18Notes:The suits are Marvel Characters Inc. v Lieber, 21-cv-7955; Marvel Characters Inc. v Ditko, 21-cv-7957; and Marvel Characters Inc. v Dettwiler, 21-cv-7959, all in U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan); Marvel Characters Inc. v Solo, 21-cv-5316, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York; and Marvel Characters Inc. v Hart-Rico, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles.)Marvel Suing to Keep Rights to ‘Avengers’ Characters From Copyright Termination, Marvel Sues to Prevent Losing Copyrights to ‘Avengers’ Characters, Disney sues former Marvel artists over Iron Man and Spider-Man rights17 USC 20317 USC 304(c)In Re: Marvel Entertainment Group 254 B.R. 817 (D. Del 2000)Id. at 828Sigel v. National Periodical Publications 508 F.2d 909 (2d. Cir.1974) at 914Murray v. Gelderman, 566 F.2d 1307, 1310 (5th Cir.1978) at 1310Marvel Characters Inc.v. Kirby 726 F.3d 119 (2d. Cir. 2013) at 140Marvel Worldwide v.Kirby 777 F.Supp. 2d 720 (SDNY 2011) at 732Wikipedia – Iron Man17 USC 304 (c) (6) (A)Disney sues former Marvel artists over Iron Man and Spider-Man rightsMarvel Worldwide v.Kirby 777 F.Supp. 2d 720 (SDNY 2011) at 740Marvel Characters Inc.v. Kirby 726 F.3d 119 (2d. Cir. 2013) at 141Id. at 142Disney sues former Marvel artists over Iron Man and Spider-Man rightsId....

Appellate Court Rules That “Sophisticated Plaintiffs” Are Entitled to Equal Protection Under the Copyright Laws

Appellate Court Rules That “Sophisticated Plaintiffs” Are Entitled to Equal Protection Under the Copyright LawsIt’s one of those principles that should not need to be debated: people are entitled to equal protection under the law. Yet strangely, one Federal Court went out of its way to penalize a litigant, because they were a “sophisticated copyright litigator” causing the dismissal of the case. Now, the Second Circuit has reversed this erroneous decision, stating “[t]here is no ‘sophisticated plaintiff’ exception to the discovery rule or to a defendant’s burden to plead and prove a statute of limitations defense.”The Plaintiff here is Michael Grecco Productions, Inc., the business arm of photographer Michael Grecco. In an appendix filed with the case, it was claimed that MGP had filed more than 100 copyright lawsuits. Why this matters is beyond me. Anyone with a clear mind knows that the internet is a cesspool of copyright infringing material, with photographers taking the brunt of the injuries. According to the website Torrent Freak, Google processed over one BILLION takedown notices in the first four months of 2024 alone. 2 One hundred lawsuits is not even a drop in the ocean.This legal squabble arises because the defendant here claims that MGP’s lawsuit was filed too late and thus barred by the statute of limitations under Section 507(b). The question arose as to the proper time using the “discovery” rule. The Court below ruled that MGP’s “relative sophistication as an experienced litigator in identifying and bringing causes of action for unauthorized uses of Grecco’s copyrighted works leads to the conclusion that it should have discovered, with the exercise of due diligence, ‘Davis’s alleged infringement ‘within the three-year limitations period.’” 3Rather than trying to amend its complaint, MGP stood by its original filing and the Court dismissed the case. MGP filed an appeal. The second Circuit made quick work of the District Court’s reasoning.“Although the district court claimed to apply the discovery rule, its calculation actually employed the injury rule; it started the three-year clock when the infringement allegedly began, while also implying that some extension of time might be available if MGP was unable to discover the infringement within those three years. In essence, the calculation incorrectly reflected the discovery rule as an equitable extension and not the rule of accrual.” 4“MGP filed its complaint on October 12, 2021. Thus, to be timely, MGP must have been unable, with the exercise of due diligence, to discover the infringing activity prior to October 12, 2018, three years before the complaint was filed. [Citation omitted] By contrast, the district court held that MGP “must have been unable, with the exercise of due diligence, to discover the infringing activity prior to August 16, 2020, three years after the infringing activity allegedly began.” 5“Although the district court claimed to apply the discovery rule, its calculation actually employed the injury rule; it started the three-year clock when the infringement allegedly began, while also implying that some extension of time might be available if MGP was unable to discover the infringement within those three years. In essence, the calculation incorrectly reflected the discovery rule as an equitable extension and not the rule of accrual.” 6In simpler terms, for purposes of the Copyright statute under the “discovery rule,” the three-year term runs from when the suit is filed and looks backward. Did the Plaintiff know, or with the exercise of due diligence, reasonably know, or should have known about the infringement more than three years from the date of filing of the lawsuit?And (in the words of Frank Zappa) here’s the crux of the biscuit: does the sophistication of the Plaintiff matter at all in assessing the “should have known” portion of the test? The answer is no.“In the context of the Copyright Act’s three-year limitations provision, the discovery rule is the rule of accrual, not an equitable tolling or estoppel doctrine. The discovery rule is not an exception to the injury rule that only applies to some infringement claims; it is not a benefit for which only some plaintiffs qualify. Rather, ‘the discovery rule, not the injury rule’ determines, in the first place, when a copyright infringement claim accrues.” 7“This ‘sophisticated plaintiff’ rationale has no mooring to our cases. First, to the extent this rationale arose out of treating the discovery rule as an equitable doctrine for which only some plaintiffs in some circumstances will qualify, it is wrong. As already noted, because we have previously determined that the discovery rule is Congress’s intended rule of accrual for civil actions under the Copyright Act, it is the rule in every such action and not an equitable exception to the injury rule.” 8“Second, to the extent the district court’s rationale recognizes the discovery rule as one of accrual, but nevertheless suggests different rules of accrual for different plaintiffs—the discovery rule for copyright holders not sophisticated in detecting and litigating infringements, but the injury rule for copyright holders who are—it also is wrong. We have never understood the Copyright Act to employ different rules of accrual for different plaintiffs. The Supreme Court has made clear that the Act’s “clock is a singular one.” 9“Third, even if the district court’s ‘sophisticated plaintiff’ rationale is merely a presumption that sophisticated plaintiffs can discover infringements immediately or nearly so, such that the date of earliest diligent discovery would always be the date of injury (or approximately so), the rationale remains flawed. A plaintiff’s ‘sophisticated’ nature does not automatically relieve a defendant of her burden to plead and prove a Copyright Act limitations defense… A sophisticated plaintiff may well discover an infringement sooner than their less practiced neighbor. But the answer to the discovery question turns on due diligence—the fact-intensive inquiry of the copyright holder’s efforts to discover the infringement. An overly simplified ‘sophisticated plaintiff’ presumption is antithetical to the nature of the task.” 10And there you go. Equal protection under the law.Notes:Michael Grecco Productions Inc. v. RADesign, Inc. 2024 WL 3836578, 2d Cir. Court of Appeals 2024 ↩Google Search Processed a Billion DMCA Takedowns in Four Months ↩Michael Grecco Productions Inc. at 2 ↩Id. at 4 ↩Id. ↩Id. ↩Id. ↩Id. at 5 ↩Id. ↩Id. ↩...

The Beat Goes On - and So Do the Royalty Payments

The late Sonny Bono now adds his name to another chapter of copyright law. The first, of course, was the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, The Shocking Truth Behind the Passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension! (Is That It's Not Really Shocking) which extended copyright protections for an additional 20 years. Now, his name gets attached to a very novel copyright fight: can the copyright termination provisions of Section 304 trump the terms and conditions of a State marital property settlement agreement? The facts of the case are simple and largely not in dispute. Sonny Bono was half of the very popular 1960's musical group "Sonny and Cher,"[ref]Wikipedia - Sonny Bono[/ref] who in the 1970's had their own TV Variety Show.[ref]Wikipedia - Sonny Bono[/ref] After their divorce, Cher became the far more popular and successful of the duo and is better known to modern audiences than Sonny. Indeed, Cher is so popular that she is now legally known only as "Cher" as the headings to this case indicate.[ref]Cher v. Mary Bono LA Cv21-08157 JAK (RAO) U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Slip Opinion)[/ref] Sonny went into politics before dying in a skiing accident in 1998.[ref]Wikipedia - Sonny Bono[/ref] The epitaph on his gravestone is "And the Beat Goes On," a nod to Sonny and Cher's 1967 hit single "The Beat Goes On."[ref]The Beat Goes On (Sonny & Sher song)[/ref] As a result of their 1978 divorce, Sonny agreed that Cher would continue to receive "an undivided 50% interest" in the continuing royalties derived from sales and performances of their songs, less an administrative fee.[ref]Cher v. Mary Bono LA Cv21-08157 JAK (RAO) U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Slip Opinion)[/ref] In 2016, Sonny's widow Mary Bono served termination notices under section 304(c) of the Copyright Act to reclaim ownership of Sonny copyrights on "various music publishers to which Sonny had granted a transfer or license of copyright in musical compositions that had authored or co-authored."[ref]Id. at 2[/ref] When the termination notices took effect, Mary stopped paying the royalties to Cher and in 2021 informed her that she no longer was entitled to any further royalties under the Marital Settlement agreement.[ref]Id. at 2-3[/ref] Cher sued in 2021 for declaratory judgement that "the notice of termination does not affect her royalty rights or approval rights under the [Marital Settlement Agreement]."[ref]Id. at 9[/ref] Both sides moved for summary judgement. On May 29, 2024, the District Judge sided with Cher, ruling that the MSA entitled Cher to a royalty stream, not necessarily an ownership interest in the copyrights themselves to which Section 304(c) termination would apply. "Consequently, Plaintiff's rights under the MSA are linked to the musical compositions and Sonny's corresponding property interests. Because in granting the royalty and approval rights at issue, the MSA did not refer to a "grant of a transfer or license" of the underlying copyrights, Plaintiff's rights under the MSA arise solely under state law. Further, because section 304(c) expressly provides that it "in no way affects rights arising under any other Federal, State, or foreign laws" (Citation Omitted) the Notice of Termination cannot affect Plaintiff's contractual right to receive financial compensation in exchange for the release and permanent discharge of any and all claims arising out of her marital relationship with Sonny. Notwithstanding the plain language of the MSA, Defendant argues that, under 17 U.S.C. § 304(c)(5), "[t]ermination of the grant may be effected notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, including an agreement to make a will or to make any future grant," and the MSA constitutes such an "agreement to the contrary." (citation omitted) However, the only rights that are terminable under section 304(c) are copyright grants. (citation omitted). Therefore, an "agreement to the contrary" under section 304(c)(5) is only a "contractual device that purports to divest" authors and successors of the right to "terminate copyright assignments." (citation omitted) Because the MSA does not refer to the underlying copyrights, it did not affect the ability of Sonny's heirs to terminate the copyrights. Therefore, it is not an "agreement to the contrary."[ref]Id. at 10-11[/ref] In rendering this decision, the Judge has side-stepped one of the more thorny issues of copyright law: marital community property. Under the laws of States that recognize "community property," all assets acquired during the marriage belong equally to the parties to the marriage. This would include all copyrights to works created by one of the spouses during the marriage. So here, absent an agreement, Cher would be a 50% owner of all of Sonny's copyrights due to the laws of community property. What the MSA agreement did was merely formalize this into an agreement where Sonny would keep 100% of the ownership of the copyrights, subject to Cher's right to receive 50% of all future income. If the Judge were to side with Mary Bono, it would mean that parties to a divorce proceeding could agree to a similar arrangement, only to have one party renege on that agreement years later, using the Copyright Act termination provisions of section 304. "The MSA … assigned to Plaintiff a right to the "contingent receipts ... from musical compositions and interests therein" in exchange for the release of "any and all claims ... arising out of the marital status of the parties." (citation omitted) Consequently, the conclusion "that an author-spouse in whom a copyright vests maintains exclusive managerial control of the copyright but that the economic benefits of the copyrighted work belong to the community while it exists and to the former spouses in indivision thereafter ... is consistent with both federal copyright law and [California] community property law and is reconcilable under both."[ref]Id. at 11[/ref] So, the beat goes on – and so do the royalty payments....

Monkey in the Middle Redux: Animal Rights Group Sues to Claim Copyright On Behalf of Monkey

NSU Partner Libraries

Attractions

Resources

Help