Copyright Law Summaries
Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., et al.
No. 06-4222,
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 06/17/2008
Holding: In this advertising dispute, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that the digital wire-frame models of Toyota sedans used in a 2004 promotional campaign were not entitled to copyright protection for Meshwerks, Inc., the company that was hired to create them. Citing a basic rule that a work must be independently created and possess some degree of creativity for it to receive copyright protection, the Tenth Circuit held that plaintiff-appellant Meshwerks, Inc. merely copied Toyota’s designs in creating digital, wire-frame models of Toyota’s vehicles. Therefore, the car models reflected, no more than the depiction of the vehicles as vehicles, the designs of which actually owed their origins to Toyota, not to Meshwerks, and no unique or original expressions were added to the automobiles. With its digital models not sufficiently original, Meshwerks had no valid copyright over them, and no judgment of infringement could issue.
More...
Derek Andrew, Inc. v. Poof Apparel Corp.
No. 07-35048,
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 06/11/2008
Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit resolved a novel issue: whether the Copyright Act, particularly 17 U.S.C. § 412, bars an award of statutory damages for post-registration infringements when the initial act of infringement occurred prior to the effective copyright registration date. Here, plaintiff-appellee, Derek Andrew, Inc. (“Andrew”), accused defendant-appellant, Poof Apparel Corp. (“Poof”), of copyright and trademark infringement relating to its garment hang tags. The District Court awarded default judgment against Poof, along with statutory damages and attorneys’ fees. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s $15,000 statutory damages award because the infringing activity occurred before the effective registration date of the copyright at issue; similarly, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s award of attorney’s fees under the Copyright Act for the same reason. Separately, the Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court’s award of attorneys’ fees related solely to Lanham Act claims.
More...
See also related commentary by Kendall T. Jones, Esq..
Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.
Case No. C07-1189RAJ,
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle, 05/20/2008
Holding: The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington held that the plaintiff second buyer of defendant Autodesk’s (“Autodesk”) copyrighted AutoCAD design software could legally auction such product on eBay, thus overruling Autodesk’s objection that its copyright prohibited resale. In particular, the District Court declared the transfer of the software packages from Autodesk to a first buyer was a sale with contractual restrictions only on the product’s use and transfer. The first sale doctrine, codified in statute, allows a buyer to resell the product even if he had contractually agreed not to do so. According to the District Court, subsequent sales do not constitute copyright violation, contractual prohibitions against succeeding transfers notwithstanding. In the second buyer’s action for declaratory relief to prevent the restraint of his business by Autodesk, the District Court denied Autodesk’s motion to dismiss the action.
More...
Paul Oravec v. Sunny Isles Luxury Ventures, L.C., et al.
No. 06-14495,
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 05/14/2008
Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that a twin high-rise condominium complex built by developer Donald Trump and others (“defendants-appellees”) did not infringe architect Paul Oravec’s (“plaintiff-appellant” or “Oravec”) copyrighted architectural designs. In affirming the District Court’s ruling, the Eleventh Circuit found differences between plaintiff-appellant’s designs and those of the defendants-appellees’ buildings. Such differences precluded a finding of substantial similarity. In this regard, the Eleventh Circuit stated that even though the parties’ respective designs might have a number of features in common, those elements were similar only at the broadest level of generality. To rule otherwise would mean that plaintiff-appellant owned a copyright in mere ideas, which consisted of a convex/concave design formula, or the use of three external elevator towers that extend above the roof of a building. On the basis of this analysis, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees.
More...
Litecubes, L.L.C. and Carl R. Vanderschuit v. Northern Lights Products, Inc.
2006-1646,
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 04/28/2008
Holding: A Federal Circuit upheld a district court’s denial of defendant GlowProducts’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on plaintiff Litecubes’ copyright and patent infringement action relating to defendant’s lighted artificial ice cube. According to the Federal Circuit, a plaintiff is able to establish subject matter jurisdiction by having a well pled complaint, even if the defendant is a foreign entity and the infringing activity is potentially outside the U.S. Further, even if a plaintiff fails to prove his infringement claims, it does not mean that federal courts have no subject matter jurisdiction over such claims. Here, plaintiff Litecubes overcame the motion to dismiss by alleging a violation of federal patent and copyright statutes. Additionally, the Federal Circuit sustained the trial court’s jury verdict finding copyright and patent infringement, as the court found no basis for overturning such finding. Specifically, because customers at issue were in the United States when they contracted for the purchase of the infringing artificial ice cubes, and the products were delivered directly to the United States, there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that GlowProducts sold the infringing artificial ice cubes within the U.S.
More...
See also related commentary by Kendall T. Jones, Esq..
Copyright Law Commentaries
Following are Copyright Law Commentaries elaborating on the significance of the most important of the Copyright Law Summaries.
Page 1 of 2 of Copyright Law Commentaries 1 2 >
Robert Jacobsen v. Matthew Katzer, et al.
Posted: 12/16/2008
Commentary: In an opinion seen as a major development in open source jurisprudence, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in Jacobsen v. Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008), open source licenses create conditions on the scope of the license, and failure to comply with those conditions may constitute copyright infringement.
More...
Related summary: Federal Circuit Holds That Open Source Code Licensors Are Entitled to Copyright Protection Governing Use of Code
The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP, et al. v. CSC Holdings, Inc. et al.
Posted: 09/18/2008
Commentary: In Cartoon Network v. CSC Holdings, 536 F.3d 121 (2nd Cir. 2008), the Second Circuit reversed a District Court’s ruling and determined that a remote-storage DVR service does not infringe on the reproduction and public performance rights of copyright holders. This significant holding, which will likely be referenced in a variety of future opinions, offers some interesting ramifications. It offers consumers an opening for increased flexibility in viewing choices, and offers developers of new technology a more generous interpretation of copyright law. Critics contend the ruling opens the door for new defenses for infringers and interprets copyright law in a fashion that impedes traditional copyright protection. Either way, the decision stands at the juxtaposition between existing copyright law and emerging technology.
More...
Related summary: Playback of Films on Cablevision's Remote Storage DVR System Not Copyright Infringement, Second Circuit Rules
Richlin v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures
Posted: 09/11/2008
Commentary: In Richlin v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures, 531 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2008), the heirs of one coauthor of the treatment that served as the basis of “The Pink Panther” series of movies asserted an interest in the motion picture copyright. The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment and agreed with the district court that the coauthor of a story treatment is not necessarily the coauthor of a subsequent movie based on that treatment, and therefore cannot necessarily claim a copyright interest in the movie. Accordingly, renewal of the copyright in the motion picture had no impact on the treatment coauthor’s interest.
More...
Related summary: Ninth Circuit: MGM Pictures, and Not the Creator of Pink Panther, Owns the Copyright to “The Pink Panther” Motion Picture
Derek Andrew v. Poof Apparel
Posted: 08/07/2008
Commentary: Under the Copyright Act, a registered copyright owner has the option to elect to recover either statutory damages or actual damages for infringement. Because actual damages are often difficult to prove, the option to elect statutory damages is extremely valuable. Section 412 of the Copyright Act, however, limits the option of statutory damages available to a copyright owner when infringement occurs prior to the registration of the copyright in question, even if the infringement also occurs after the registration. In Derek Andrew v. Poof Apparel, 528 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2008), the Ninth Circuit Court joined the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Circuit in barring the option of statutory damages for ongoing infringement, that is, where infringement begins pre-registration and continues post-registration. The lesson for copyright owners is clear: get your copyright registered as soon as possible to maximize the types of recovery available to you against infringers.
More...
Related summary: Ninth Circuit Reverses Statutory Damage Award against Apparel Company, But Remands Attorneys’ Fees Award
Litecubes, L.L.C. and Carl R. Vanderschuit v. Northern Lights Products, Inc.
Posted: 05/13/2008
Commentary: The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision in Litecubes LLC v. Northern Light Products clarified some critical elements of IP litigation jurisprudence. Litecubes LLC v. Northern Light Products, ___ F3d ___, 2008 WL 1848659 (C.A. Fed. (Mo.)) The Litecubes Court took the opportunity to clarify a few issues that have been the source of confusion in the IP arena, particularly regarding infringement claims with extraterritorial aspects. Specifically, the Litecubes Court addressed the fact that proof that the infringing activity takes place in the United States is proof of an element of infringement, but it is not relevant to the question of subject matter jurisdiction.
More...
Related summary: Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Findings Against GlowProducts on LiteCubes’ Ice Cube
Page 1 of 2 of Copyright Law Commentaries 1 2 >
