<\/p>\n
Dear Sinapse Readers,<\/span><\/p>\n The information age brought with it mounds of new perspectives and facts and copyright infringement claims. So, we bring you a quick look at all the major Intellectual Property related happenings (copyright infringement suits) of 2014.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Multi-starrer movie Gulaab Gang gets into trouble with activist\/leader Sampat Pal Devi of Gulabi Gang challenging the release of the movie before the Delhi High court, though Sampat Pal Devi succeeded in getting an order of stay initially but was later vacated by the division bench of the same court.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Before the release of Bhootnath Returns, starring Amitabh Bachchan, produced by Bhushan Kumar, Krishan Kumar, Ravi Chopra and co-produced by Ajay Kapoor, Sushant Supriya, writer of the short story Bhootnath had dragged the producers of the film, Bhootnath Returns, to the Delhi High Court alleging that the new film is a copy of his work, which was published in 2007 in a popular Hindi magazine, Aaj Kal.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n In 2011, Rebecca Francescatti, filed a lawsuit against Lady Gaga, claiming that Gaga\u2019s hit single \u2018Judas\u2019 from the album, Born This Way, was copied from her 1999 song \u2018Juda\u2019. After three years of filing the lawsuit against Gaga, US District Judge, Marvin E. Aspen, while deciding this copyright (infringement) dispute, held that Francescatti failed to prove that the songs were sufficiently similar. In other words, the learned Judge opined that, \u201cthe Francescatti song and Gaga song are so utterly dissimilar that reasonable minds could not differ as to a lack of substantial similarity between them.\u201d Though the near exact titles of both songs were acknowledged by the Judge, it was held that there was no sufficient evidence to give rise to a finding that the Gaga song had captured the total concept and feel of the Francescatti song \u2018Juda\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n DHOOM 3 found itself smack in the middle of the most newsworthy lawsuit just before its Sony Entertainment Television Premiere. The makers of the blockbuster film were sued for Copyright Infringement by a professional film script writer and author of a script titled \u201cOnce\u201d, Mansoob Haider (Plaintiff). The Plaintiff claimed that the third of the series in the Dhoom franchise story is about bank robberies and that it infringed the copyright on his script, Once, which is a murder themed series. Although the Plaintiff only sought that his name be included in the credits of the title of the film in the main suit, he recently moved a notice of motion\/interim application praying for injunction to restrain the Defendants. The Hon\u2019ble Judge held that the Plaintiff failed on all three counts and held that the Plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case for the grant of interim relief. The two works were entirely different, each original in its own way and therefore held that Dhoom 3 was not and could not possibly be a copy of the Plaintiff\u2019s work, Once. Mere use of certain well established and commonly used motifs, themes or elements or even perhaps the co-incidental placing of these in a certain juxtaposition in both works, did not give the Plaintiff the right against the rival work. To Discourage persons from \u201ctaking their chances\u201d in making frivolous (copyright infringement) claims of this kind, the Plaintiff was fined a token amount of INR 1.<\/span><\/p>\n YouTube fashion celebrity Michelle Phan was sued by Electronic Dance Music Labels, Ultra Records and Ultra International Music Publishing (Plaintiffs), alleging that beauty blogger\u2019s videos infringe their copyrights in nearly 50 cases. The Plaintiffs contended that Phan profited from the use of their artists\u2019 tracks and compilations. Despite being informed that she did not have a licence, Phan continued to willfully infringe in blatant disregard of the Plaintiffs\u2019 rights of ownership. Plaintiffs sought an injunction to stop Phan\u2019s use of the music and either maximum statutory damages of $150,000 for each infringed work or unspecified damages yet to be determined.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Three weeks prior to its scheduled release, DVD quality print of Sylvester Stallone\u2019s III edition of action series \u2013 The Expendables, was leaked online, uprooting expectations of distribution giant, Lionsgate. The pirated movie appeared to have been ripped off from a screening DVD. Nearly two weeks after the pirated copy of the film was leaked online, Lionsgate, the distributors of the film, was granted a Temporary Restraining Order against several torrent sites hosting the pirated film. The Order restricted people associated with the torrent sites from infringing Lionsgate copyrights or participating in any activity that would promote such infringement including hosting, linking to, distributing, reproducing, performing, selling, offering for sale, making available for download, streaming or making any other use of the pirated copy of the film. Further, the Order even commands all financial organizations including banks, loan associations, payment processors etc., funding the Defendants, to immediately cease such transfer of funds on reception of the Order.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Take-Two Interactive Software Inc. and Rockstar Games, the makers of the video game Grand Theft Auto V (GTAV), were sued by Lindsay Lohan for wrongful use of her likeness and persona by the game company in the video game Grand Theft Auto V. According to Lohan a character named \u201cLacey Jonas\u201d in the game was based on her persona. She had further cited various references to her star turn in Mean Girls, paparazzi chases and the West Hollywood hotel where she once lived. According to Lohan, character Lacey Jonas in the game is an unauthorized commercial use of her image, thus violating her rights under the New York right of publicity law. New York Civil Rights Law \u00a7\u00a750-51, prevents the use of a \u201cname, portrait, picture or voice\u2026within [the state of New York] for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade without \u2026 [prior] written consent].\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 2014 saw the largest blatant violation of privacy scandal which includes a high-profile hack of dozens of female actresses\u2019, models\u2019 and athletes\u2019 intimate photos from their Apple accounts and being posted online.<\/span><\/p>\n Rapper\/musician, Eminem\u2019s, Detroit-based publishing company, Eight Mile filed (copyright infringement) proceedings in the High Court at Wellington against a New Zealand political party, the National Party, alleging that they used music from Eminem\u2019s hit song, Lose Yourself, in a Political ad Campaign for current Prime Minister, John Key. The (copyright infringement) allegation was that John Key and his Party used said Grammy and Academy award-winning song in their Political campaign without Eminem\u2019s permission. <\/span><\/p>\n A New York City Judge dismissed the (copyright infringement) suit by artist Roger Dean against James Cameron. British artist William Roger Dean known for his album art featuring fantasy landscapes created for rock bands such as Yes, Uriah Heep, and Asia accused Cameron of copying fourteen original pieces of artwork created and owned by him, including the fictional planet of Pandora. Dean singled out his painting Floating Islands as the inspiration for Avatar\u2018s Hallelujah Mountains and pointed to his other paintings of naturally-occurring stone arches and flying creatures as further evidence of Copyright Infringement. The (copyright infringement) Complaint asked for US$ 50 million in damages, alleging that \u201cthe similarities of each such work are substantial, continuing, and direct so as to rule out any accidental copying or similarity in scenes common to the genre\u201d. Further, he also claimed that, \u201cthe works are indisputably similar insofar as they present the natural world in a fantastical way by depicting airborne land masses\u201d.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Disney owned Marvel managed to level out one of the major bumps that threatened to cause an obstruction in its otherwise smooth journey, in comics, films and other multi-million dollar projects. Jack Kirby, popularly called the King of Comics, much adored by comic fans all over for his participation in the creation of characters such as the Fantastic Four, The Incredible Hulk, The Mighty Thor, Spider Man, Iron Man, The X-Men, The Avengers, Ant Man, Nick Fury, The Rawhide Kid. Due to Marvel\u2019s status as \u201cauthor\u201d under the work-for-hire doctrine, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held in favor of Marvel in July, 2011, that the termination notices by the Kirby Heirs were of no force and effect as Kirby\u2019s works were only works of hire. This decision was later affirmed by United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in August, 2013. The Kirby Heirs filed for (copyright infringement) review before the US Supreme Court on March 21, 2014. However, the Heirs have now requested to dismiss the (copyright infringement) petition, following the amicable settlement reached between Marvel and the Kirby Heirs on September 26, 2014.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n On November 3, 2014, the US Supreme Court made it clear that Sherlock Holmes was no longer the estate\u2019s monopoly, but belonged to the world. In July, 2014, Justice Elena Kagan had dismissed the Emergency Petition filed by the Conan Doyle Estate Ltd. to block publication of a new collection of stories based on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle\u2019s famous detective, Sherlock Holmes. Doyle\u2019s heirs claim that \u201cSherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson were not static but dynamic literary characters who changed and developed throughout the Sherlock Holmes canon\u201d. The Doyle heirs have been successfully guarding all literary, merchandising and advertising rights of his works. Anyone wanting to use Sherlock or his friend Dr. Watson had to typically pay the estate a license fee.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Lingaa, film starring superstar Rajinikanth, was accused of plagiarism of aspiring film-maker K R Ravi Rathinam\u2019s yet-to-be-released Tamil film, \u201cMullai Vaanam 999\u201d. Consequently, Ravi Rathinam filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court. Justice M Venugopal of the Madras High Court, dismissed the writ petition and held that the matter in question was a \u201cprivate dispute\u201d that could be solved only by initiating civil or criminal proceedings and not by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Image: from here<\/a>\u00a0(governed by Creative Commons License CC BY-SA 3.0<\/a>)<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The post offers an analytical review of major copyright infringement suits in 2014, especially in the entertainment sector. Key cases and judicial outcomes are discussed with an emphasis on legal clarity and accurate reporting.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":30,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,7],"tags":[6984,6986,31,6632,51,6983,6985,5],"class_list":["post-17775","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-intellectual-property","category-media-and-entertainment-law","tag-2014-legal-cases","tag-copyright-disputes","tag-copyright-infringement","tag-copyright-law-india","tag-entertainment-law-2","tag-film-lawsuits","tag-high-court-decisions","tag-intellectual-property"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17775","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17775"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17775\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":132718,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17775\/revisions\/132718"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17775"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17775"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17775"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}1. Gulaab Gang in legal trouble!<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n
2. Even Bhootnath can get dragged to Court!<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n
3. Mother Monster reigns in Copyright (infringement) dispute!<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n
4. Dhoom 3 triumphs in Copyright <\/strong><\/span>(infringement) <\/strong>Suit!<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n
5. YouTube star sued for Copyright Infringement!<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n
6. Lionsgate granted TRO against Expendables-3 Pirates\/Infringers<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n
7. Lindsay Lohan Sues \u2018Grand Theft Auto\u2019 Makers<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n
8. High-profile Privacy Hacking: Failure of Digital Copyright Protection?<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n
9. Eminem loses himself in Copyright Infringement suit against NZ\u2019s National Party<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n
10. James Cameron wins Avatar Copyright <\/strong>(infringement) <\/strong>Lawsuit<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n
11. Dust finally settles in the Marvel-Jack Kirby Case<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n
12. Sherlock Holmes\u2019 copyright (mis)adventures land him in the Public Domain<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n
13. Rajini\u2019s Lingaa clears legal hurdles; All set for blockbuster release on his birthday!<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n