Fox court papers outline defense against Redbox antitrust lawsuit

By Eriq Gardner

Twentieth Century Fox wants a Delaware District Court to dismiss an antitrust complaint filed last year by cut-rate DVD rental outlet Redbox.

Last August, Redbox sued Fox for refusing to allow wholesalers to provide the studio's DVDs so it could offer $1-per-night rentals at its 15,000 kiosks. The lawsuit claimed Fox was abusing its copyright in a "naked restraint of trade."

Last week, Fox filed new court papers that gave three reasons why the lawsuit should be dismissed:

White Stripes claim Super Bowl commercial ripped off riff

By Eriq Gardner

Jack White of the White Stripes once sang: "I'm gonna fight 'em all / A seven nation army couldn't hold me back / They're gonna rip it off / Taking their time right behind my back."

Now comes the test of whether an army can hold Jack White back. 

The singer is upset that the U.S. Air Force Reserves broadcast a commercial during the Super Bowl that used a guitar riff that sounded very similar to the one featured in the White Stripes' "Fell in Love With a Girl."

Tyler Perry sued over 'Devil' song

By Eriq Gardner

Tyler Perry has found himself in a bit of copyright trouble lately for allegedly incorporating portions of copyrighted gospel music in his many successful shows.

In the latest case, North Carolina songwriter Johnny Tyrone Stringfield filed a $100,000 lawsuit last week in California District Court accusing Perry, TBS, and Time Warner of incorporating an entire verse of lyrics from his song "I Got Away" in Perry's hit show "Meet the Browns." According to the complaint, characters in the show sang the copyrighted song with the refrain, "The Devil thought he had me but I got away."

This is the second time that hallelujahs tuned to the prospect of deliverance have caused Perry grief. In late November, he was sued for allegedly incorporating a chorus from a gospel song in the movie "Madea Goes to Jail." 

Perry's reps didn't respond to a request for comment.

Ruling on Men at Work's 'Down Under' causes men to chunder

By Eriq Gardner

Thanks to a catchy hook and exotic Aussie flair, Men at Work's 1980s song "Down Under" became an international sensation and the pride of the country. But a ruling by the Australian Federal Court today that the tune's flute riff incorporated a copyrighted children's song from the 1930s has the nation saying "You better run, you better take cover."

Colin Hay, the band's lead singer, has already admitted that its flautist used two bars of a 1930s folk song called "Kookaburra Sits in an Old Gum Tree." The testimony was enough to lead Justice Peter Jacobson to rule that the band plagiarized, opening up the possibility that the Men at Work, Sony BMG and EMI Songs might have to fork over up to $60 million in royalties to Larrikin Music Publishing, the rights-holder of "Kookaburra."

'MacGyver' creator wants to stop 'MacGruber' film

By Matthew Belloni

A downright explosive fight has broken out between the creator of the "MacGyver" television series and the producers of "MacGruber," the Will Forte parody film set to hit theaters in April.  

Lee Zlotoff, who created the 1985-92 ABC series about a resourceful secret agent who uses science to escape precarious situations, retained the right to make a movie based on the show via his "separated rights" under WGA rules. THR reported last March that New Line is developing a "MacGyver" movie, with Zlotoff, Raffaella De Laurentiis and Martha De Laurentiis producing. Months later, THR reported that Relativity Media was moving forward with "MacGruber," a comedy based on the popular "Saturday Night Live" segments featuring cast members Forte and Kristen Wiig. Universal will distribute the Jorma Taccone-directed film.

The "MacGruber" movie didn't sit well with Zlotoff, whose attorney began sending cease-and-desist letters to Relativity execs.   

Black Eyed Peas lawsuit goes 'Boom Boom Pow'

By Eriq Gardner

What's the world's biggest band these days, Coldplay or the Black Eyed Peas?

Sure, we could measure album sales, but we prefer to monitor the number of song theft allegations.

Yesterday, two musicians filed a copyright infringement claim against members of the Black Eyed Peas, Universal Music, Interscope and others for allegedly ripping off a tune called "Boom Dynamite" to create "Boom Boom Pow," the band's first song to top the Billboard 100 chart. 

According to Ira Gould, the attorney for plaintiffs Ebony Latrice Batts and Manfred Mohr, the musicians submitted their song to Interscope Records after the label showed some interest in his clients' music.

Also, last week a New York District Court judge ruled in a separate case that a songwriter's collaborator had improperly sold the rights to a sampled song that provided the basis for the Black Eyed Peas hit "My Humps." (Will I Am Music was a co-defendant in the case.)

The Peas seem to be catching up on Coldplay in the song-theft allegations department. Last year, Coldplay settled a dispute with Joe Satriani over who created the hook to the tune "Viva La Vida." The former Cat Stevens also made a claim on that song. And just a couple weeks ago, another songwriter filed a lawsuit against Coldplay alleging that the band's biggest hits, including "Clocks" and "Yellow," were stolen.

Do the newest claims against the Black Eyed Peas have any merit? After the jump, judge for yourself:

Joe Walsh (famous guitarist) teaches Joe Walsh (Republican candidate) about copyright law

By Eriq Gardner

Another musician is claiming that a political candidate is tone deaf to the nation's intellectual property laws. And this one has an amusing twist.

Joe Walsh of the Eagles isn't happy that a Republican congressional candidate in Illinois has co-opted his song "Walk Away" and added silly new lyrics. The candidate's name? Also Joe Walsh.

Now Peter Paterno, the musician's LA-based lawyer, has sent a laugh-out-loud letter to the politician, demanding he cease using the song.

The letter begins by schooling politician Joe Walsh that it "might be beneficial" for him to learn a thing or two about the United States Copyright Act:

Sundance 2010: The movie no lawyer should see

By Matthew Belloni

Imagine a film clearance lawyer's absolute worst nightmare. We're betting it looks something like "Logorama," the Oscar-shortlisted animated short we saw Thursday on opening night of the Sundance Film Festival.

French filmmakers Francois Alaux, Herve de Crecy and Ludovic Houplain spent four years creating a violent, profane, action-packed caper set in a world comprised entirely of well-known corporate logos and iconic mascots. How familiar are the stars? An evil Ronald McDonald goes on a shooting spree on a street overflowing with 7-Elevens and U-Hauls and Wal-Marts and Pizza Huts. The Michelin Men are bumbling, foul-mouthed cops on his trail. Bob's Big Boy picks his nose and flings it on an unsuspecting victim. 

The entertaining 17-minute ride effectively satirizes the global corporate culture and our scary familiarity with the tools of pervasive marketing. But it got us thinking: why has no lawyer for any of the hundreds of copyrights and trademarks featured in the film tried to shut it down? After the screening, we asked two of the filmmakers if any brands had attempted to stop it.

"Not yet," they answered, a bit nervously. "We hope there's no CEO of McDonalds here tonight." 

It's an interesting legal question. The film is clearly satire, and a casual viewer can tell the brands are used to send up corporate oversaturation. But considering the millions of dollars invested in a character like Ronald McDonald, seeing him dropping f-bombs on a murderous rampage made us wonder whether the satire crossed over into disparagement. 

The movie's audience has been so small, it's probably not on the agenda in corporate boardrooms, but that could change if it wins the best animated short at the Academy Awards in March. Who knows, maybe the in-house lawyers will play along with the joke. The filmmakers said they heard from one brand exec who was just happy that his company's logo was featured prominently in the center of town. 

We're guessing that exec wasn't a lawyer.      

Summit wins injunction against 'Twilight' fanzine

By Eriq Gardner

A couple months ago, to the puzzlement of many, Summit Entertainment decided to go after a "Twilight" fanzine that used publicity photos from the film without permission.

Few people could figure out why the studio would file a copyright and trademark infringement lawsuit against Beckett Media when those stock photos are floating around the Internet and have undoubtedly been used by many. 

But Summit has been successful, winning a preliminary injunction against Beckett last week.

We went back and looked at the original complaint in this case. To us, the most interesting issue is the way that Summit tries to foreclose a free-speech, journalists-have-fair-use-rights line of defense. 

Summit alleges that Beckett got the photos by registering as a journalist on its publicity website. The Terms of Use for Summit's press site grant the right solely "for journalistic purposes," and don't allow those who download photos to "edit, alter or modify" the content without approval.

The issue of whether a fanzine is a journalistic enterprise or a commercial one is interesting. 

Beckett's main revenue source is selling trading cards. In its "Twilight" fanzine issues, the company included pullout posters and allegedly modified some of the photographs in question. Summit has its own officially sanctioned "Twilight" books, of course, and the Beckett 'zines presumably compete with the officially licensed stuff. 

 

Still, what magazine hasn't splashed photos of Rob Pattinson and Kristen Stewart all over their pages, and many publications make similar alterations and place photos in an unflattering context (we're reminded of the ongoing lawsuit by 186 indie rock musicians against Rolling Stone magazine for featuring them in a spread next to an advertisement for Camel cigarettes). In its answer to the original complaint, Beckett asserted some defenses that media organizations might rely upon in this situation, including the First Amendment.

Journalism or commercial speech? As the space between entertainment and news product collapses, we could see more of these types of lawsuits. Especially when content like photos are so easily passed around on the Internet.

Summit, repped by Jill Pietrini and a team from LA's Manatt firm, gave us this statement on the case: 

"Summit Entertainment acted to protect its rights in a situation which found Beckett Media using copyrighted and trademarked images and materials relating to the Twilight films for Beckett's financial gain without an agreement in place with Summit to legally license the right to produce materials based on its film franchise.  Beckett's sale of standalone magazines under the name Twilight, and wholesale use of Summit's copyrighted material in a commercial product, went well beyond the intended purpose of Summit's publicity site.  We applaud the court for its judgment in this matter."

Report: US military going rogue for online content

By Eriq Gardner

There's been a lot of heated debate lately about copyright laws and Hollywood's reaction to file-sharing on digital networks.

Industry veterans are accustomed to sticking up for the rights of content owners and usually take heated rhetoric with grace. But not every day do they see a story so incendiary it questions their patriotism.

According to a report, US soldiers stationed oversees can't get online movies and music from legitimate services because of IP address blocks intended to control the way that foreigners access US media. As a result, many uniformed military members have supposedly pleaded with the RIAA and MPAA to get involved and help them out. Allegedly, these pleas have been ignored, and military members are coordinating a "campaign" to download as much music and movies as possible from BitTorrent and other P2P software clients.

If true, this would be an incredible story. RIAA spokesperson Cara Duckworth could hardly believe her ears about the report from what she calls "notoriously anti-content providers" who "write this crap so that folks will believe it." Needless to say, Duckworth says the report is untrue.

"We've never heard of this," she says. "Regardless, it is the service operators and not the content providers who are responsible for any location restrictions required by their licenses. In fact, enabling fans' access to legitimate music sites in a quick and convenient manner is in the best interest of the U.S. music labels that we represent."

 

If service operators like the ones mentioned in the report — Netflix, Amazon and others — are the ones controlling IP blocks, and are doing so without any contractual obligation, the industry associations deserve a pass. We'll continue to look into this situation and update if necessary.