Posts

Showing posts with the label Movie

9th Circuit Re-Addresses Copyrightability of Graphically-Depicted Characters in Lawsuit Against Disney Over "The Moodsters" and Characters From "Inside Out" - Applies Towle Test / Warner Brothers Test and Finds the Moodsters Characters Not Copyrightable, Additionally Noting that Using Colors to Represent Emotions is Not Copyrightable

Image
Daniels v. Walt Disney Co. , 20 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4019 (9th Cir. May 4, 2020) Topic: Copyrightability of Graphically-Depicted Characters Literary and graphic characters—from James Bond to the Batmobile—capture our creative imagination. These characters also may enjoy copyright protection, subject to certain limitations. Here we consider whether certain anthropomorphized characters representing human emotions qualify for copyright protection. They do not. For guidance, we turn to DC Comics v. Towle, our court’s most recent explanation of the copyrightability of graphically-depicted characters. DC Comics v. Towle , 802 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2015). Denise Daniels developed a line of anthropomorphic characters called The Moodsters, which she pitched to entertainment and toy companies around the country, including The Walt Disney Company. Under Towle, “lightly sketched” characters such as The Moodsters, which lack “consistent, identifiable character traits and attributes,” do not enj...

"He Didn't Get the Message": Plaintiff's Infringement Claim Over Copyrighted Song Brought Against Spike Lee & Estate of Prince Is Barred By Collateral Estoppel

Image
Topic: Copyright Infringement - Music "Girl 6" Album Cover - www.princevault.com Plaintiff James Brandon owns the copyright for “Phone Sex,” a song created in 1993 by “GOMAD,” a musical group managed by Mr. Brandon. In 2015, Mr. Brandon brought an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that the song “Girl 6”—performed by Prince for Spike Lee’s film of the same name—infringed on the copyright for Phone Sex. The Southern District of Florida dismissed that case with prejudice, holding that Mr. Brandon had failed to state a claim that Girl 6 infringed the copyright for Phone Sex. But Mr. Brandon did not get the message. Instead, he filed this action raising the same claims against a different set of defendants. Because the doctrine of collateral estoppel clearly bars Mr. Brandon from relitigating claims that were previously decided against him, this action, like its subject, is fruitless. Defendants’ motion to dismiss...