Tag: copyright infringement

Band Led Zeppelin Says Song Chords Too Common to Copyright

Can you say “Stairway to Heavy Royalties?” You may have imagined the old Led heads, Robert Page and Jimmy Plant, sitting in a grungy garage somewhere back in the seventies striking those iconic four chords for the first time and truly crafting the song “Stairway to Heaven” from whence there was none. Now you may have to change that image and imagine them sitting in the front row of a Spirit concert feverishly jotting chord progressions down on a notepad. That’s what a former member of the band Spirit is claiming in a lawsuit over a song that has allegedly grossed in excess of $525 million.

Led Zeppelin, Music, CopyrightHave you even heard of the seventies band Spirit? Apparently Led Zeppelin used to tour with them back in the 1960’s and former Spirit band members claim they often saw Page and Plant sitting in the front row at their concerts—with perfect front and center seating to rip off a catchy riff. Robert Wolfe, who wrote the song “Taurus,” which opens with the legendary riff, reportedly thought about suing for copyright infringement as far back as the 1980’s, but his family stated he could not afford it. It’s fun to ponder the type of expert vetting we might do in this case: “Did you attend Woodstock?” “Where were you in proximity to the stage?” “Were you able to grasp a true ‘concept and feel’ for the music?” You may find that comical, but that is the exact question the judge pinpointed as the key issue in this matter—“a subjective assessment of the ‘concept and feel’ of the two works”—a determination he believes he is no more qualified to make than a jury, which is why the case is going to trial.

Another interesting aspect of this case is also the age of the music. In 2016, we’re nearing fifty years since “Stairway to Heaven” was written. Meaning, the case could have wide implications for the music industry as a whole. If a ruling comes back that Led Zeppelin ripped off a copyright, it may embolden many other wayward artists out there who may be carrying a long-time grudge and feel their songs were swiped as well. In short, a ruling in favor of Spirit could potentially boost spirits and spark many copyright suits. Established record labels and big icon artists who have been raking in the royalties for decades have plenty to worry about with this trial.

Led Zeppelin has countered, claiming a descending chromatic four-chord progression is so common in the music industry that it simply cannot be copyrighted. Meaning, it doesn’t matter how obviously similar the songs may be or whether they have the same ‘concept and feel,’ because the riff is too common to copyright. If this argument holds, Spirit has nothing to protect. But if you’re playing the intro to “Stairway to Heaven” in your mind right now, I’ll bet you find it unique enough to try to defend.

If you can’t conjure the song on your own, I’ll bet you’re eager now to hear the two songs side-by-side? So is the jury. Go on. You can jam out on the job as long as it’s still considered “work.” Give it a listen.

ARTICLE BY Annie Dike of IMS ExpertServices

© Copyright 2002-2016 IMS ExpertServices, All Rights Reserved.

Short Samplings of Songs May Not Be Considered Copyright Infringement After All

song samplingThe Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just decided that song sampling without permission does not necessarily infringe the copyright. Many artists have built careers by sampling an old song to create a new work. Until now, courts have told the artist to “get a license or do not sample.”

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decided in 2005 that there is no de minimus exception to sampling. The de minimus exception, which applies to the copyright law generally, states that if an artist borrowed an insignificant portion of an existing work, the artist did not infringe. The Sixth Circuit held that this exception did not apply to sampling. This meant that if an artist sampled a portion of a song that lasted a fraction of a second, the artist nonetheless infringed.

Now, the Ninth Circuit in VMG Salsoul, LLC v Madonna Ciccone (“Salsoul”)took “the unusual step of creating a circuit split” and decided that thede minimus exception does apply to sampling. In Salsoul, Madonna sampled a 0.23-second “horn blast” from a disco song and incorporated the blast into her 1990 song “Vogue.” The Ninth Circuit explained that Madonna did not infringe because “a reasonable juror could not conclude that the average audience would recognize the appropriation of the horn sound.” Therefore, her sampling was de minimus and did not infringe.

This Ninth Circuit decision will impact the music world and likely lead to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarifies the legal limits of unauthorized sampling.

ARTICLE BY Todd A. Davidovits of Polsinelli PC
© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California

Google Tries “Pretty Woman” Tactic in Oracle Copyright Suit

I’m not sure Julia Roberts’ use of that blonde wig and eighties cut-out dress when she Google versus Oracleleaned against Richard Gere’s car in Pretty Woman should be considered “fair use,” but perhaps a court might say otherwise. How does Julia’s transformation from wayward to womanly in that iconic 1990 film come into play in a fight between tech giants Google and Oracle over the use of copyrighted java? Because they both hinge on “transformative use.”

Google’s going to trial again? Say it isn’t so. I have to wonder how many lawyers Google, alone, employs. But, if you’re going to stand as one of the front-runners in today’s fast-paced, internet-driven services market, you have to be prepared for lawsuits. Google has been fending off some serious claims by Oracle in a copyright suit filed in San Francisco since 2010, but when the focus of the debate turned to expert witness testimony, we wanted to highlight the matter for discussion and debate. Oracle initially sued Google claiming improper use of copyrighted Java, particularly Google’s use of its application programming interfaces (“APIs”) on its Android platform, to allow developers who are familiar with Java to quickly convert their web apps to Android.  Oracle is now reportedly seeking royalty damages in excess of $8 billion.

Initially Google argued, and the trial court agreed, that APIs were not subject to copyright. That ruling, however, was overturned by the Federal Circuit on appeal, which means Google’s remaining defense is whether its use of the APIs was “transformative,” which would make it acceptable under the Fair Use Doctrine. What standard of “transformative use” are the parties looking to?  2 Live Crew and their ripping parody of “Pretty Woman” in their 1989 album, “As Clean As They Wanna Be.” Please tell me you’re envisioning that iconic cover right now. Apparently the Supreme Court in a 1994 ruling, Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., found 2 Live Crew’s version of “Pretty Woman” so creative and original that it qualified as “fair use,” not copyright infringement. Oracle is arguing the opposite by claiming Google’s use of the Java APIs did nothing to transform the code. Google simply plugged it into to a larger body of work, but in no way altered it, which does not qualify, according to Oracle, as transformative.

Oracle has sought to exclude the testimony of Google’s computer science expert from opining that Google’s use of the Java code altered it sufficiently to qualify as a transformative use, claiming his opinion “flies in the face” of the Federal Circuit’s finding that Google was wrong in claiming its use was transformative simply because it incorporated other elements in the Android system. Google has fought back, stating the Federal Circuit never decided whether the work was transformative and specifically remanded the case so that issue could be decided by a jury. Are you finding both of those arguments a bit rambling and repetitive? Apparently so did the trial court judge when he lamented his role as the gatekeeper who has to “excise every detail of expert testimony on a granular level.” With reams of lawyers on either side fighting over every detail and every dollar, however, that is probably precisely what he will have to do.

If you feel it may be hard, not being a computer science guru, to make a determination as to whether Google’s use of the Java at issue was “transformative,” imagine how the jury is going to feel. In May, 2012, a jury found Google had infringed Oracle’s copyrights but they could not decide whether use of the code in question was “fair.” This will be the second trial and second jury that attempts to answer this question. It will require an expert with exceptional communication skills, who is as persuasive as Julia, to effectively break this Java jumble down and win over the potentially tech-savvy, but stubborn “Richards” in the jury box. That’s the expert we would find for them, anyway, if Google gave us a call.

ARTICLE BY Annie Dike of IMS ExpertServices

© Copyright 2002-2016 IMS ExpertServices, All Rights Reserved.

Copyright Suit Alleges Huckabee Campaign Lacks "Eye of the Tiger"

Mike Huckabee’s poor performance in the Iowa caucuses – leading to his subsequent withdrawal from the race – isn’t his only concern lately. Huckabee’s presidential campaign organization faces a lawsuit for playing Survivor’s “Eye of the Tiger” without permission during a rally for Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis, who was released from jail for contempt of court stemming from her refusal to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples in the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling. (See Rude Music, Inc. v. Huckabee for President, Inc., No. 15-10396 (N.D. Ill. filed Nov. 18, 2015)). The plaintiff, Rude Music, Inc., owned by Survivor’s guitarist Frank M. Sullivan III, and the publisher of the musical composition, filed a copyright infringement action against Huckabee for President, Inc. in November of 2015. According to the complaint, as Huckabee led Davis from the detention center, a clip from Survivor’s Grammy-winning song “Eye of the Tiger” was used for dramatic effect. Rude Music alleged that this public performance infringed its copyright, and is seeking an injunction barring future unauthorized performances and monetary damages.

Made famous in Rocky III and regularly blasted from stadium speakers to stoke up the home team and the crowd, “Eye of the Tiger” was a number one hit on the Billboard Hot 100 Chart for six weeks in 1982 and features a catchy melody with lyrics that inspire listeners to prepare for life’s battles. In the movie, the song plays over dramatic scenes of Rocky battling opponents in the boxing ring before his triumphant match against Clubber Lang. Not to be outdone, Huckabee’s rally for Mrs. Davis attempted to use these same themes to paint a virtuous battle between a defiant state court clerk versus the federal government.

Like trash talk at a pre-fight weigh-in, Sullivan was quick to respond to the rally on his Facebook page: “NO! We did not grant Kim Davis any rights to use ‘My Tune — The Eye Of The Tiger. I would not grant her the rights to use Charmin!”….” After the suit was filed, Mike Huckabee responded, calling the lawsuit “very vindictive” and renewed his support for Mrs. Davis’s position. Unsurprisingly, Sullivan expressed his opposing view and went on to state that he does not “like mixing rock and roll with politics; they do not go hand in hand.”

In his Answer to Rude Music’s complaint, Huckabee asserted several affirmative defenses to the infringement claim, including fair use (arguing that his alleged use of a one-minute clip of the song during a noncommercial and religious rally should constitute fair use). Interestingly, Huckabee also counterpuched that the rally for Kim Davis was not a campaign event at all, rather a religious assembly within the meaning of Section 110(3) of the Copyright Act. Certain provisions of the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 110(3)) create an exemption to copyright requirements for the “performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work or of a dramatic-musical work of a religious nature, or display of a work, in the course of services at a place of worship or other religious assembly.”  Huckabee claims that because “Eye of the Tiger” isn’t incorporated or performed in musical theater, it is a nondramatic musical work for purposes of the Copyright Act. Therefore, because he considers the Davis rally to be a “religious assembly,” the alleged improper use of the song does not constitute infringement under the Copyright Act.

Apparently “Eye of the Tiger” is a popular tune along the campaign trail, as this isn’t the first time that Rude Music filed a lawsuit against a presidential candidate for using its song at a rally. Newt Gingrich was sued by Rude Music in 2012 after Rude Music claimed that Gingrich played “Eye of the Tiger” at events going back as far as 2009. In any case, Huckabee will still need to start “risin’ up to the challenge of [his] rival,” only now his opponent is an 80s rock star instead of other Republican hopefuls, since, as the Iowa Caucus results proved, Huckabee wasn’t a Survivor after all.

© 2016 Proskauer Rose LLP.

Copyright Suit Alleges Huckabee Campaign Lacks “Eye of the Tiger”

Mike Huckabee’s poor performance in the Iowa caucuses – leading to his subsequent withdrawal from the race – isn’t his only concern lately. Huckabee’s presidential campaign organization faces a lawsuit for playing Survivor’s “Eye of the Tiger” without permission during a rally for Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis, who was released from jail for contempt of court stemming from her refusal to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples in the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling. (See Rude Music, Inc. v. Huckabee for President, Inc., No. 15-10396 (N.D. Ill. filed Nov. 18, 2015)). The plaintiff, Rude Music, Inc., owned by Survivor’s guitarist Frank M. Sullivan III, and the publisher of the musical composition, filed a copyright infringement action against Huckabee for President, Inc. in November of 2015. According to the complaint, as Huckabee led Davis from the detention center, a clip from Survivor’s Grammy-winning song “Eye of the Tiger” was used for dramatic effect. Rude Music alleged that this public performance infringed its copyright, and is seeking an injunction barring future unauthorized performances and monetary damages.

Made famous in Rocky III and regularly blasted from stadium speakers to stoke up the home team and the crowd, “Eye of the Tiger” was a number one hit on the Billboard Hot 100 Chart for six weeks in 1982 and features a catchy melody with lyrics that inspire listeners to prepare for life’s battles. In the movie, the song plays over dramatic scenes of Rocky battling opponents in the boxing ring before his triumphant match against Clubber Lang. Not to be outdone, Huckabee’s rally for Mrs. Davis attempted to use these same themes to paint a virtuous battle between a defiant state court clerk versus the federal government.

Like trash talk at a pre-fight weigh-in, Sullivan was quick to respond to the rally on his Facebook page: “NO! We did not grant Kim Davis any rights to use ‘My Tune — The Eye Of The Tiger. I would not grant her the rights to use Charmin!”….” After the suit was filed, Mike Huckabee responded, calling the lawsuit “very vindictive” and renewed his support for Mrs. Davis’s position. Unsurprisingly, Sullivan expressed his opposing view and went on to state that he does not “like mixing rock and roll with politics; they do not go hand in hand.”

In his Answer to Rude Music’s complaint, Huckabee asserted several affirmative defenses to the infringement claim, including fair use (arguing that his alleged use of a one-minute clip of the song during a noncommercial and religious rally should constitute fair use). Interestingly, Huckabee also counterpuched that the rally for Kim Davis was not a campaign event at all, rather a religious assembly within the meaning of Section 110(3) of the Copyright Act. Certain provisions of the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 110(3)) create an exemption to copyright requirements for the “performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work or of a dramatic-musical work of a religious nature, or display of a work, in the course of services at a place of worship or other religious assembly.”  Huckabee claims that because “Eye of the Tiger” isn’t incorporated or performed in musical theater, it is a nondramatic musical work for purposes of the Copyright Act. Therefore, because he considers the Davis rally to be a “religious assembly,” the alleged improper use of the song does not constitute infringement under the Copyright Act.

Apparently “Eye of the Tiger” is a popular tune along the campaign trail, as this isn’t the first time that Rude Music filed a lawsuit against a presidential candidate for using its song at a rally. Newt Gingrich was sued by Rude Music in 2012 after Rude Music claimed that Gingrich played “Eye of the Tiger” at events going back as far as 2009. In any case, Huckabee will still need to start “risin’ up to the challenge of [his] rival,” only now his opponent is an 80s rock star instead of other Republican hopefuls, since, as the Iowa Caucus results proved, Huckabee wasn’t a Survivor after all.

© 2016 Proskauer Rose LLP.

BMI Wins Summary Judgment of Copyright Infringement After Restaurant Owner Fails to Respond to Requests for Admission

Plaintiff Broadcast Music, Inc. (“BMI”), a music rights management organization that offers licenses to a massive catalogue of popular songs on behalf of copyright owners, brought suit for copyright infringement against the owners of the La Roue Elayne restaurant for unlicensed performance of live cover versions of eight songs in a single evening. This suit was part of a series of suits brought by BMI for copyright infringement against restaurants in Connecticut. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of BMI for copyright infringement, permanently enjoining further copyright infringement and awarding $6,000 in statutory damages and an additional unspecified amount for attorneys’ fees.

Drew Friedman, the only defendant who appeared in the case, had opposed summary judgment on the grounds that a fact issue remained as to whether he had sufficient control over the restaurant and the cover band to support vicarious liability for copyright infringement. Mr. Friedman claimed to have been cut out of the management and control of La Roue Elayne before the night in question. Interestingly, his failure to object or respond to BMI’s Requests For Admission (RFAs) doomed his opposition. Mr. Friedman never responded to RFAs asking him to admit or deny that he hired the offending cover band and that he had the right to supervise persons employed by the restaurant.

In fact, Mr. Friedman’s opposition failed to address the issue of the ignored RFAs and he never moved for leave to provide untimely responses. On that basis, the Court held that the RFAs must be deemed admitted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. The Court appeared reluctant to deem the RFAs admitted, but indicated that after a diligent search it failed to find any precedent for a sua sponte withdrawal of a represented party’s response to RFAs where the party failed to even acknowledge the existence of the request.

The case is Broadcast Music, Inc. v. The Hub at Cobb’s Mill, LLC. A copy of the Court’s Order is available here.

ARTICLE BY Anthony Cataldo of Proskauer Rose LLP
© 2015 Proskauer Rose LLP.

Sarah Palin and North Jersey Media Group Battle Over “Fair Use” of Famous 9/11 Photo

Image

 

The iconic “Raising the Flag at Ground Zero” photo of firemen raising an American flag on September 11, 2001, which appeared on the cover of The Record newspaper and other newspapers on September 12, is at the heart of a lawsuit filed in Federal District Court in New York. The Complaint, filed by the owner of the copyright in the photograph, claims copyright infringement and false designation of origin for the unauthorized reproduction of portions of the photograph on the website for Sarah Palin’sfederally registered political action committee, www.sarahpac.com,  and on her Facebook page,www.facebook.com/sarahpalin.

The suit claims that the photograph is being used by Palin and the other Defendants to raise money for her political action committee. The PAC website solicits and accepts financial contributions from supporters and accepts requests for Sarah Palin to make paid appearances at events, including media and campaign events, and Palin’s Facebook page provides links to this website. The owner of the copyright in the photograph also alleges that the use of the photo falsely designates the origin of the photograph and that its appearance on the PAC website and Palin’s Facebook page is likely to cause confusion mistake or deception as to the source or ownership of the photograph, falsely representing that Palin or the PAC owns the copyright when they do not.

Defendants have responded to the Complaint by moving to dismiss it on grounds of improper venue, failure to state a viable claim for false designation of origin, and fair use of the copyrighted photograph.  Defendants’ content that their alleged “commercial use” is no different from the conduct of Google in its Google Books Project, which was recently held by the same court in which suit was filed to favor a finding of fair use despite Google’s general commercial focus. They argue further that since the photograph in question is “an iconic depiction of a compelling and unforgettable historic moment” that there is a public interest and demand for such newsworthy photographs, making its reproduction a fair use. As to the remaining fair use factors, it is argued that the cropped and altered version of the original photograph was used only “to provide a visual context for the accompanying text” conveying the message that the day should not be forgotten, and that the use has had no effect on the market for or value of the photograph itself.

Palin is not the first politician to be sued for copyright infringement in connection with political activities. As we have reported to you in the past, politicians in recent and not so recent campaigns have also been brought to task for the unauthorized use of copyrighted works.

It remains to be seen how this issue will be decided, and we will report back to you with all further developments.

 

Article by:

Susan Neuberger Weller

Of:

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Federal Court Narrows Claims Surrounding “HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU” Copyright Suit

MintzLogo2010_Black

Following up on a previous post regarding the lawsuit winding its way through federal court seeking clarity on whether the music publisher Warner Chappell owns or has the exclusive right to license the copyright in the ubiquitous “Happy Birthday to You” song, U.S. District Judge George H. King (Central District of California) has ordered that certain tangential claims be stayed until further notice, while the case will move forward on the central claim, essentially whether Warner’s copyright in the song is valid and enforceable or not.

Judge King’s order confirms the parties’ agreement at an October 7th hearing to bifurcate (separate) the central claim from the remaining claims (seeking an injunction against Warner, and a variety of related claims such as unfair competition, false advertising, and breach of contract) at least through the summary judgment phase of the central claim.  The central claim alone will proceed for the time being allowing the parties and the Court to focus on what is truly the dominating question in this case.

In his order Judge King also declined to apply a four-year statute of limitations to the central claim instead of the traditional copyright infringement three-year period.  Plaintiffs claimed that unlike a traditional copyright infringement action where a plaintiff alleges a defendant infringed its copyright, this is a “declaratory judgment” action involving a copyright, that is to say one where plaintiffs are preemptively bringing suit so the Court can decide whether Warner even has rights it can assert.  Basically instead of asserting its purported rights, Warner is being forced into a suit to defend its rights.  Despite the procedural change however, the analysis and issues are very similar to a traditional copyright infringement action.  The question Judge King has to resolve was, since the Declaratory Judgment Act (which permits this type of suit) does not contain its own statute of limitations, plaintiffs argued that the Court should instead use the four-year period applicable to California’s unfair competition claims (one of those ancillary claims Judge King stayed in this same order).  Judge King declined, holding that because the Declaratory Judgment Act is merely a procedural vehicle and the substantive rights being challenged are copyright-based under the Copyright Act, the best statute of limitations period is not California’s four-year period, but rather the Copyright Act’s three-year period.  He therefore dismissed two plaintiffs whose claims were time-barred by the new shorter period and gave them three weeks to re-file if they can/chose to.

Judge King’s order is clearly going to focus the parties and the court on the central issue, whether Warner has a valid enforceable copyright in the “Happy Birthday to You” song.  We will continue to closely watch this one as it proceeds.

Article By:

 of

Gossip Mag’s “Fair Use” Claim in Publishing a Celebrity’s Wedding Photos Rejected

The National Law Review recently published an article regarding “Fair Use” of Celebrity Wedding Photos, written by Sarah Bro of McDermott Will & Emery:

 

The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Maya Magazines and Maya Publishing Group (collectively Maya), finding that the media company did not meet its burden of establishing that its publication of previously unpublished photos of a celebrity couple’s wedding constituted fair use. Monge  v. Maya Magazines, Case Nos. 10-56710, 11-55483 (9th Cir., Aug. 14, 2012) (McKeown, J.) (Smith, J., dissenting).

Latin American celebrities, Noelia Lorenzo Monge and Jorge Reynoso (the couple), filed an action against Maya in the district court for copyright infringement and misappropriation of likeness based on Maya’s publication of previously unpublished photographs of the couple’s 2007 secret Las Vegas wedding in the Spanish-language celebrity gossip magazine TVNotas.

Maya purchased the six wedding photos at issue from a paparazzo, who was also an occasional driver for the couple. The paparazzo had previously tried to “sell” the photos to the couple to relieve a debt he owed to one of them. The photos were on a memory chip containing hundreds of photos of the couple that were unrelated to the nuptials.  In addition to publishing one of the wedding photos on the cover of TVNotas, Maya also published a two-page spread within the magazine showing all six wedding photos interspersed with captions. Due to the privacy of the wedding (to protect Monge’s image as a single pop star), the six photos were the only published images of the nuptials.

Because federal registration of a copyright is required before bringing an infringement action, after learning of Maya’s publication of the photographs, the couple registered copyrights in five of the images. The couple’s lawsuit was filed shortly thereafter.

The district court dismissed the misappropriation of likeness claims and granted Maya’s motion for summary judgment based on its affirmative defense of fair use of the copyrighted photographs. On appeal, the sole issue was whether the district court properly granted summary judgment based on the fair use doctrine. Accordingly, the court analyzed the four fair use factors under copyright law, finding that none of them topped in favor of Maya.

1.  The Purpose and Character of the Use of the Copyrighted Work

Although it agreed that the wedding photos were newsworthy, the 9th Circuit reaffirmed that news reporting alone is not “sufficient itself to sustain a per se finding of fair use.” Thus, the commercial nature of the use of the photographs was determined to weigh against a finding of fair use. The Court also found that the reproduction of the photos as a two-page montage with captions was not a sufficient transformation of the original works to allow Maya to properly claim fair use.

2.  The Nature of the Copyrighted Work

The 9th Circuit explained that photographs—even those that are not highly artistic in nature—are entitled to copyright protection.  Even though the unpublished status of a work does not bar a finding of fair use, the court cited Harper & Row v. Nation Enters., stating that the couple’s right to control the first public appearance of its copyrighted photographs outweighed Maya’s claim of fair use.

3.  The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used in Relation to the Work as a Whole

With respect to the third fair use factor, the 9th Circuit noted that the only existing photos of the couple’s wedding and wedding night were used in the magazine, and that Maya’s minimal cropping of the photos meant that the “heart” of each copyrighted photograph was published. Because “Maya used far more than was necessary to corroborate its story,” this factor also weighed in favor of the couple.

4.  The Effect Upon the Potential Market for the Copyrighted Work

Finally, the court found that Maya’s unauthorized publication of the photos “substantially harmed” and “completely usurped” the couple’s potential market for the photos.  The court disagreed with the district court’s claim that there was no potential market for the photographs because the couple did not intend to sell their publication rights in the images.

Instead, the court explained that the potential market for the photos existed independently of the couple’s intent to market the photos. Specifically, the court focused on the fact that the couple was in the business of selling images of themselves and that Maya had previously paid Monge to pose for one of its publications and had also paid Reynoso for pictures of his prior marriage.  Therefore, the court determined that Maya’s purchase of the photos from the paparazzo confirmed the potential market for the photographs.

The Dissent

The dissent argued that the decision of the panel majority was inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent and undermined the fair use doctrine and free press. In particular, the dissent stated that it would have affirmed the district court’s ruling with respect to at least three of the photographs that “directly proved” the couple’s marriage. The dissent also noted that the nearly 400 photos on the memory chip (which were unrelated to the couple’s wedding) constituted a “compilation” and that Maya’s use of only five of those 400 photos was not a substantial portion of the work in relation to the whole.

© 2012 McDermott Will & Emery

When Can You Claim A Color As Your Trademark?

In its recent decision in Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America, Inc., the Second Circuit held there was no “per se rule that would deny protection for use of a single color as a trademark in a particular industrial context.”  The Court found that the single color red on the sole of a women’s shoe that contrasted with the color on the upper portion of the shoe could be protected as a trademark in the fashion industry. A Federal District Court in California ruled recently, that a company’s use of the color orange for markings and text on its medical syringe could not be protected as a trademark since the color was “functional” when applied to that product. It determined that the color orange was functional in the medical industry because it signifies that a device is for oral use. So, how does this color-as-a-trademark work?

Many companies have successfully obtained trademark protection for a single color, for example,  United Parcel Service’s registration for the color brown for transportation and delivery services, Reg. 2901090; Tiffany’s multiple registrations for a particular color of  blue used on bags, boxes and various other products and services, Reg. Nos. 4177892, 2359351, 2416795, 2416794, 2184128; 3M’s registrations for yellow as a trademark for telephone maintenance instruments and POST-IT® notes, Reg. Nos. 2619345, 2390667; and Owens Corning’s registrations for the color pink for masking tape, insulation, and other products used in the building and construction industry, Reg. Nos. 3165001, 2380742, 2380445, 2090588, 1439132.

In Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., the U.S. Supreme Court held that color alone may be protected as a trademark, “when that color has attained ‘secondary meaning’ and therefore identifies and distinguishes a particular brand (and thus indicates its ‘source’).” The Court held color may not be protected as atrademark when it is “functional”. There are two types of functionality: “utilitarian” and “aesthetic.” A color is functional under the utilitarian test if it is essential to the use or purpose of the product, or affects the cost or quality of the product.  A  color is aethestically functional if its exclusive use “would put a competitor at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage”.   If color “act(s) as a symbol that distinguishes a firm’s goods and identifies their source, without serving any other significant function,” it can be protected as a trademark. So, how do you know if a color you are using or plan to use in your business can be protected as a trademark to the exclusion of your competitors?

Protecting color as a trademark can be a very powerful advantage if the color has no particular function or meaning in the industry in which it is used. However, in order to claim color as a trademark, the color must be showcased as a source indicator for products or services in its marketing campaigns and advertising materials. Good examples of this are UPS’s reference to itself as “brown” in its advertising and Owen Corning’s blatant use of the color pink in its advertising.  Both companies very clearly highlight a color in their ads and identify it strongly with their respective products and services. This type of careful and clever planning, implementation, and marketing strategy is critical to developing a strong, unique and highly recognized color trademark.

Whatever color is used, it must not be “functional” in any respect in the industry in which it is used. Various “functionality” tests have been developed by the courtsover time, and  some include:

  • whether the design (or color) yields utilitarian advantage
  • whether alternative designs (or colors) are available
  • whether advertising touts utilitarian advantages of the design (or color), and
  • whether the particular design (or color) results from a comparatively simple or inexpensive method of manufacture.

Functionality is evaluated within the context of the specific industry in which the goods or services for which color is claimed as a trademark will be offered. Had the markings on the medical devices been red instead of orange in the case before the Federal District Court in California mentioned above, it is possible that there would not have been a finding of functionality. Thus, know your industry before selecting a color on which to focus your marketing and advertising efforts.

Thinking outside the box when selecting trademarks and planning marketing strategy is critical in any industry. The explosion of social media and changes in traditional advertising and marketing methods have changed the way products and services are recognized. Companies need more unique and  nontraditional approaches for a competitive edge. Promoting non-traditional trademarks such as a color, or other unique source indicators such as sounds, scents, flavor, and product shapes, may provide a fresh method to attract and entice a wider audience.

So, get out those color wheels and start plotting a new course.

©1994-2012 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.