Oscar Nominee Sued For Copyright Infringement

Less than one week before the Academy Awards, Guillermo del Toro, Fox Searchlight and others associated with the nominated film “The Shape of Water” are being sued for copyright infringement. Specifically, the children of late Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Paul Zindel claim the film is “indisputably derived” from the 1969 play “Let Me Hear You Whisper.” The play’s main narrative focuses on a lonely cleaning woman who bonds with then attempts to rescue a dolphin from a research facility where she works. Identically, an inter-species romantic relationship develops between the main character of “The Shape of Water,” Elisa, and “The Asset” in the film. The complaint also cites shared minor but memorable elements. Plaintiffs allege the film’s producer Daniel Kraus has previously stated on the record that he envisioned the concept for the movie the same year an adaptation of “Let Me Hear You Whisper” aired on national television. Moreover, Guillermo del Toro collects original drawings by Stephen Gammell, the illustrator for the 1974 publication of the play. However, del Toro claims to have never read nor seen the play. The complaint alleges defendants never sought to obtain a license from plaintiffs of motion picture and ancillary rights to the play nor was Zindel credited. Fox Searchlight issued a statement asserting the baselessness of the claims and noting the interesting timing right before the Oscars voting cycle ends, suggesting the suit is a mere attempt to pressure the studio to settle quickly. #omnilegalgroup #copyright #academyawards

Taylor Swift Shakes Off Copyright Infringement Suit

A California District Court judge granted a motion by Taylor Swift to dismiss the action against her for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, suggesting the singer may be able to shake off this lawsuit. Songwriters Sean Hall and Nathan Butler brought this copyright infringement suit against Swift alleging she stole the lyrics to their 2000 song “Playas Gon’ Play” and included them in her 2014 hit song “Shake It Off.” The songwriting duo, who have collaborated with the likes of Justin Bieber and Pink, do not allege any musical elements, such as rhythm or melody, were usurped by Swift. In particular, “Playas Gon’ Play,” written for the girl group 3LW, includes the lines “Playas, they gonna play” and “Haters, they gonna hate,” while “Shake It Off” features the iconic chorus “Cause the players gonna play, play, play, play, play / And the haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate.” In dismissing the action, the judge asserted neither of the respective lyrics were creative enough to warrant copyright protection. The Copyright Act protects only “original works of authorship.” According to the Court, “by 2001, American popular culture was heavily steeped in the concepts of players, haters, and player-haters…The concept of actors acting in accordance with their essential nature is not at all creative; it is banal. The alleged infringed lyrics are short phrases that lack the modicum of originality and creativity required for copyright protection.” The plaintiffs have been allowed leave to amend their complaint to include more cited similarities between the two compositions but the Court expressed it “is extremely skeptical” as to their ability to do so successfully. #omnilegalgroup #copyright #TaylorSwift #ShakeItOff

All You Need Is Love…And IP

Roses are Valentine’s Day’s signature flower. Indeed, these are the most often sent flower on the holiday and the subject of the first plant patent issued by the USPTO. This “Climbing Rose,” invented by Henry F. Bosenberg of New Jersey, is characterized by its champagne-colored roses and everblooming quality. Interestingly, Mr. Bosenberg was not even a plant breeder but rather, a landscape gardener. Under patent law, the inventor of a plant is the person who first appreciates its distinctive qualities and asexually reproduces it. Since this first plant patent in 1931, the USPTO has granted nearly 6,000 plant patents overall. Overall, roses account for over 4% of issued plant patents. In 2016 alone, 80 plant patents were granted for new and distinct types of roses. In 1944, John H. Bonhard from Illinois was the first to patent a carnation. The invention began as a pink carnation and was propagated through multiple generations to achieve a new variety known for early blooming, a rich bright “Castillian Red coloring,” and “unusually large blooms with heavy petalage.” Flowers and other Valentine’s-themed intellectual property constitute a popular category at the USPTO in the form of not only patents but also a number of trademark registrations. Hallmark owns trademark rights for its signature gold crown emblem. Moreover, Godiva and Russell Stover chocolates, and Sweethearts conversation heart candy are all covered by trademark registrations. Turns out, for these individuals and entities, all they need is love…and intellectual property rights. #omnilegalgroup #patents #trademarks #ValentinesDay

Omid Khalifeh Selected As a Top 3 Patent Attorney in Los Angeles by ThreeBestRated

Omid Khalifeh, Omni Legal Group’s Principal Patent Attorney, was recently selected as a Top 3 Patent Attorney in Los Angeles by ThreeBestRated®. Three Best Rated is an independent, third party business review site that utilizes a 50-point inspection system to identify top businesses in a city. This system compiles its ratings based on reputation, history, complaints, ratings, satisfaction, nearness, trust, cost, and general excellence. Three Best Rated focuses on purely local businesses rather than large corporations with local offices. Moreover, the service is free and companies do not pay to be listed. As a result of being awarded this top honor, Omid Khalifeh is near featured on his own profile page on the ThreeBestRated.com website and Omni Legal Group has been provided with a badge indicating it is a top-rated law firm in Los Angeles.

Did you know?

Amazon was recently awarded two patents for a wristband capable of pinpointing the location of warehouse workers and their hand movements in real time. Originally filed back in 2016, the invention proposes to utilize ultrasonic technology placed around a building, such as a warehouse, and on the wristband itself allowing a management module to provide haptic feedback in order to steer the employee toward the proper area. While commentators are concerned that Amazon is merely trying to track employees’ toilet breaks, the tech giant claims the invention is designed solely to facilitate the process of checking inventory and fulfilling orders by “free[ing] up their hands from scanners and their eyes from computer screens.”

AI and IP

Artificial intelligence is quickly propagating across all industries. With these technological advances comes the requirement that businesses refocus their intellectual property strategies to accommodate these changes. While the situation is not quite as dire as that depicted in Blade Runner’s dystopian future where bioengineered humans are running about, the futuristic world of AI is here. Indeed, Aiva is an artificially intelligent music generator capable of composing emotional soundtracks for films, video games, commercials, and the like who learned the art of music composition by reading through works created by Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, and other great composers. Aiva, in addition to other AIs, will likely generate millions of original works. However, the current United States legal regime does not provide clear protection for works created by a computer.

The Intellectual Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution expressly aims “to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” Thus, this idea of encouraging the production of creative works by incentivizing authors is embedded in our nation’s legal framework. The issue then becomes to whom inventorship can be attributed when it is in fact a computer doing the creating, filming, and ordering of literary, audio, and visual content. One option is to place the works created without human input in the public domain, allowing all to benefit therefrom. Another option includes crediting ownership to those who are most responsible for the arrangements that led to the output by the AI. This latter option would mimic the Copyright, Designs, and Patent Act in the UK which explicitly recognizes computer generated work as copyright protectable and interprets the statute to provide rights to the person who made the arrangements necessary for the work to be produced. It remains clear that the U.S. will need to evolve its IP laws to clarify the position of AI in its regime.

NFL Tackles Professional Counterfeiters

In time for Sunday’s “Big Game,” NFL Properties LLC, New England Patriots LLC, and Philadelphia Eagles LLC have filed suit in federal court in Minneapolis seeking to obtain a restraining order forbidding professional counterfeiters from selling merchandise bearing protected trademarks. Such an order would permit law enforcement to seize any and all counterfeit goods. A trademark is any word, name, symbol, device, or any combination thereof, used or intended to be used to identify or distinguish the goods or services of the owner from those of others. The NFL not only owns the rights to the term “Super Bowl” but also to “Super Sunday” and other “Super” phrases. Similarly, Eagles running back LeGarrette Blount has trademarked “Blount Force Trauma” and Patriots tight end Rob Gronkowski has the rights to the word “Gronk.” Trademark infringement occurs when a likelihood of confusion exists, that is, when a consumer is likely to be confused or deceived as to the source of the goods or services provided by alleged infringers. Named defendants include primarily large-scale counterfeiting companies that do not hold a license to market and sell such products. The NFL does allow some 180 companies to officially use trademarks and logos on clothing and other products. One may obtain a license to use such marks and logos by simply submitting a 36 page application along with an agreement to pay royalties starting in the six figure per year range. Instead, many companies have avoided the issue entirely by using alternative phrases such as “Big Game” and “Birds” in place of official NFL marks, “Super Bowl” and “Philadelphia Eagles.” #omnilegalgroup #trademark #NFL #SuperBowl #Patriots #Eagles

Las Vegas Golden Knights Face Off With U.S. Army Over Trademark

The U.S. Department of Army recently filed a notice of opposition to bar the Las Vegas Golden Knights’ registration of their name in connection with entertainment services and professional ice hockey exhibitions. The Army argues a likelihood of confusion exists as the public may confuse the Army’s Golden Knights as endorsing, sponsoring, or otherwise controlling the quality and nature of the services offered by the NHL team. The Army stresses that its Parachute Team has performed in over 16,000 shows over the last 55 years and that during this time, it has been known as the “Golden Knights” and has employed a color scheme similar to that now used by the Las Vegas team. In contrast to the Army’s lengthy use of the term, the hockey team adopted the name only 14 months ago. Bill Foley, the principal owner of the Golden Knights, is a West Point graduate. Indeed, the team’s manager admitted that the color scheme of black, gold, yellow, and white was intentionally selected for its similarity to that used by the Army at West Point. Nonetheless, the team issued a public statement that they have not received any complaints from game attendees “expecting to see the parachute team and not a professional hockey team.” A panel of three Trademark Trial and Appeal Board administrative judges will evaluate the respective arguments and determine whether the Las Vegas Golden Knights will be granted registration. #omnilegalgroup #trademark #goldenknights

Spotify Sued By Wixen Music For Copyright Infringement

Los Angeles-based company, Wixen Music Publishing, recently sued Spotify for copyright infringement. Wixen handles copyright management and royalty compliance for artists such as Tom Petty, Neil Young, Missy Elliott, Stevie Nicks, the Doors, and Steely Dan. Seeking $1.6 billion in damages and a ruling preventing Spotify from playing these songs until properly negotiated with the rights holders, the publishing company alleges the music streaming giant provided tens of thousands of songs to its users without proper licenses or compensation. In particular, Spotify failed to obtain a license from Wixen that would permit it to reproduce and distribute the songs. U.S. copyright law provides two separate copyrights for every recorded song: one for the musical composition (the words and musical notation) and one for the actual sound recording. In some instances, Spotify took the easy route by obtaining only the sound recording copyrights in the songs but failed to obtain equivalent rights for the accompanying compositions. This case is not a first for Spotify as only last year, it settled multiple other lawsuits under very similar facts. Nonetheless, Spotify maintains it is not always able to determine the identity of the rights holders. Ultimately, Wixen’s complaint contends, Spotify has developed into a multibillion dollar company built “on the backs of songwriters and publishers” and these parties have been wrongfully denied their fair share in Spotify’s success. #omnilegalgroup #copyright #Spotify