Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.
-
Upload
magdalene-logan -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
2
Transcript of Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.
![Page 1: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Copyright Infringement II
Intro to IP – Prof Merges
2.23.09
![Page 2: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Nichols V. Universal Pictures (2d Cir. 1930)
• Did the film “The Cohens and the Kellys” infringe the play “Abie’s Irish Rose”?
![Page 3: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
![Page 4: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
![Page 5: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
![Page 6: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
NY TimesAbie's Irish Rose: Review
Published: May 24, 1922
The play has its little sermon that earned one of the heartiest bits of applause last night. Priest and rabbi, it appeared, also had met "over there." "I gave the last rites to many Jewish boys," said the fighting chaplain. "And I to many of your Catholic lads," the Jewish chaplain replied. "We're all on the same road, I guess, even though we do travel by different trains."
![Page 7: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Judge Hand Opinion
• “It is of course essential to any protection of literary property, whether at common law or under the statute, that the right cannot be limited literally to the text, else a plagiarist would escape by immaterial variations.”
• -- p. 484
![Page 8: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Types of infringement
• “block in situ” (in whole), vs.
• “an abstract of the whole”
![Page 9: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Nichols : Abstractions test
“Upon any work, and especially upon a play, a great number of patterns of increasing generality will fit equally well, as more and more of the incident is left out…there is a point in this series of abstractions where they are no longer protected.” [since they are idea]
![Page 10: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Abstraction Test
• Abie’s Irish Rose– I. Jewish and Irish families
– One wealthy, one not
– Strangers to each other
– A. Son and daughter marry
– Twins born
• Cohens and Kellys– I. Jewish and Irish families
– Both poor (at start)
– Long-time enemies
– A. Son and daughter marry
– Single child born
![Page 11: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Nichols Abstraction Test
I. A. 1. a. b. c. i. B. 1. 2. a. b. i. ii. II.
I. A. 1. B. 1. 2. II.
![Page 12: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Nichols Abstraction Test
I. A. 1. a. b. c. i. B. 1. 2. a. b. i. ii. II.
I. II.
![Page 13: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Story - Main Idea
Plot Outline
Subplots
General Characters and Scenes
Text
Specific Character Elements
Levels Of Abstraction
![Page 14: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Why are “high level” abstractions of plot not copyrightable?
• Ideas, not expression
• Theory of relativity, or evolution: basic ideas, too general to be protected
• Similar to section 101 of Patent Act . . .
![Page 15: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
“Character test”
• Can a character, standing independent from plot, be copyrighted?
• If so, how? And how far would that copyright reach?
![Page 16: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
“Stock Characters”
• Low-comedy ethnic characters
• Example of “scenes-a-faire” – standard “setups” or scenes
• Drunken Irishman, nosy neighbor, irritating mother in law, comic sidekick, etc etc
![Page 17: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Play it Again, Sam
![Page 18: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Ideas cannot be protected
• “[Plaintiff’s] copyright did not cover everything that might be drawn from her play; its content went to some extent into the public domain . . .”
• P. 486
![Page 19: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
SHELDON V. MGM (1936)
• Does the motion picture “Letty Lynton”infringe the play “Dishonored Lady”?
• How would you distinguish this case from Nichols?
• Note the judge is the same: Learned Hand
![Page 20: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp.
Factual Story Play(P) Book Movie(D)
MadeleineL’AngelierG-Man+20
MorenoFarnborough
Brennan
McLeanEkebon
G-Man+20
RenaulDarrow
PublicDomain
Copyrightedwork
Owned by D AllegedInfringing
Work
Access
SubstantialSimilarityProng One
Access
Prongs Oneand Two
Owned by D
Prongs Oneand Two
![Page 21: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures, Inc.
• New Yorker cover, movie poster
![Page 22: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
![Page 23: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
![Page 24: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
![Page 25: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
![Page 26: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Elements
• Ownership
• Copying
– Access
– Improper Appropriation
![Page 27: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Analysis
• Lay Observer
• Common sense’ side-by-side comparison
![Page 28: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
![Page 29: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Similarities and Differences
• 4 block view
• Details of distant city?
![Page 30: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
What do you compare?
• The whole of the copied portions of the Plaintiff’s work, including individually uncopyrightable elements like ideas and scenes a faire?
• OR only the copied portions that are copyrightable?
![Page 31: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Sampling
• Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 410 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2005).
![Page 32: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Bridgeport Music
![Page 33: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
George Clinton: The Funkadelics
![Page 34: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
NWA
![Page 35: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
![Page 36: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
![Page 37: Copyright Infringement II Intro to IP – Prof Merges 2.23.09.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081516/56649cfe5503460f949ceb4f/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
The letters may have been taken more as a means of capitalizing on the interest in Salinger than in providing a critical study of the author. (Salinger v. Random House, 811 F.2d 90 (2d Cir. 1987).