Ex-Employee Sues James Cameron Alleging Theft of Avatar Script

When submitting an idea to a producer, it is always a good idea to get a non-disclosure agreement and an acknowledgement that the person understands that the idea is yours.  Too many times, inventors or authors simply submit their ideas blindly to producers in the hopes of selling or licensing the idea to an entity with the resources to see it through to market.  Because of this, many companies will not open and will return any mail that appears to have an idea submission without some sort of agreement between the parties about the use or ownership of it.

The situation changes slightly when the person submitting the idea is an employee of the producer and that person's job description includes creation of such ideas.  Employees who invent something or create an idea as part of their employment generally do not own their rights to that invention or idea (this is somewhat of an oversimplification) because employers will have what is called a "shop right" in the invention or idea.  A "shop right" is essentially a license created by law from the employee to the employer.

Given the foregoing, it is interesting that a former employee of a production company is suing James Cameron and his former employer, Lightstorm, for "stealing" his story about an "environmentally-themed 3-D epic about a corporation's colonization and plundering of a distant moon's lush and wondrous natural setting."  Hmmmm, sure sounds like the plot for Avatar.

Now, before jumping to conclusions, it is conceivable that James Cameron or one of his "people" came up with the idea independently of the Lightstorm's employee, and therefore, there would be no copyright infringement.  This one may be a fun one to keep an eye on.

Pitbull Takes a Bite Out of Lohan

                So, apparently, Lindsay Lohan did not like Pitbull’s lyric: “got locked up like Lindsay Lohan.”  The lyric appears in Pitbull’s song, “Give Me Everything.”  Clearly, her legal bills must be mounting because she sued Pitbull in New York state court for royalties for the use of her name.  It is unclear why Ms. Lohan claims she is a resident and citizen of New York when she has been a guest of California prisons, is subject to probation in California, has been under house arrest in California, has been ordered to community service in California, and, according to documents filed by Pitbull, has been living in California since 2004.  Based on the foregoing, Pitbull wants to move the lawsuit to the federal courts in California.  Looks like he may have a good argument given the multitude of run-ins with the law Ms. Lohan has had recently—all in California.  Pitbull has set forth the multitude of run-ins with the law in his countersuit against Lohan.  [Insert Michael Buffer’s “Let’s Get Ready to Rumble” call here].  

                Lohan asserts that the lyric by Pitbull is defamatory.  The tort of defamation protects a person’s interest in his or her reputation or character.  In order to qualify as defamation, the statement made must be false.  Yes, you read that right, truth is a defense to defamation.  Hard to argue that Pitbull’s lyric is false when there is ample support in the public record detailing Lohan’s criminal exploits.  She has been incarcerated, she has been placed on house arrest, she is on probation, and she has most recently been admonished by a California State Court Judge for failing to participate in and complete her court-ordered community service.  Moreover, one must wonder what “reputation” Lohan is actually attempting to protect.  Her recent legal troubles do not lead to the conclusion that Lohan has a “good reputation.” 

                It appears clear that Lohan was both forum shopping (filing in New York) and was hoping to get a pay day from Pitbull. However, Pitbull is fighting back.  He is not being nice about it, either.  He may have the better argument for both moving the litigation to California and defending against Lohan’s defamation claim.  Stay tuned.   

The U.S. Copyright Office Advises Congress to Phase Out Statutory Licenses

                The United States Copyright Office ("CR Office") advises Congress regarding copyright issues.  Recently, the CR Office proposed phasing out the cable/satellite statutory licenses--an item which Hollywood wishes to repeal.  In 1976, Congress amended the Copyright Act.  As part of that amendment, Congress established a statutory compulsory license allowing cable/satellite operators to distribute broadcast television signals upon payment of the license fee to the Copyright Royalty Board.  This Board act in much the same way as ASCAP and BMI by allowing persons wishing to license certain works to pay the license to one entity rather than hunting down and paying each copyright owner to license that owner's portion of an entire work.  In return, the Copyright Royalty Board distributes the fees to the copyright owners (i.e. Hollywood studios, sports leagues, etc.). 

            The suggested change of eliminating the compulsory license will mean that cable/satellite providers would have to negotiate individually with each copyright holder.  In most instances there will be more than one copyright holder for an entire audio-visual work.  Each copyright holder will only own the copyright to a particular portion of the work (i.e. a movie's music score).  For example, for a song, there are usually two copyright holders:  the owner of the sound recording and the owner of the words and music to the song.  As you can imagine, this will undoubtedly increase the cost of cable/satellite programming which means, of course, the end users of cable/satellite services (the viewers) will ultimately pay more for those services.  Another by-product of implementation of this suggestion by the CR Office would be to increase copyright disputes.  After all, with so many rights holders for one work, missing getting permission from one of them would mean a headache for the cable/satellite companies.  Increases in disputes means an increase in operating costs for these companies. 

            The statutory license provision related to cable/satellite transmissions has been under attack by the CR Office for quite some time.  However, should Congress ever phase out this portion of the Copyright Act, it could mean that the copyright owners will be able to earn more for licensing their content, but that would mean the consumer will ultimately pay the price. 

Lady Gaga vs. LadyGaga.org . . . The “Real” Gaga Loses

                In my earlier post, I discussed fan sites in the context of copyright law.  Well, Lady Gaga challenged a fan site, LadyGaga.org, under a trademark theory.  Lady Gaga sought to shutdown the fan site because she claimed that the owner of the domain LadyGaga.org was cybersquatting.  The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (part of the Lanham Act which is the Federal law on trademarks) was enacted in 1999 in response to persons seeking to sell famous domain names to their rightful trademark owners.  California has its own cyberpiracy statute which is slightly different than the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”).  However, both statutes create civil liability for anyone who registers a domain name that is the same or “substantially and confusingly similar” to the name of another living person without that person’s consent.  The cybersquatter must have the specific intent of profiting by selling the name to that person or a third party.  This is where Lady Gaga’s fight went awry.

                While Lady Gaga was able to prove that her mark was sufficiently famous to allow her to claim common law trademark rights, she was unable to convince the National Arbitration Forum (where she filed her complaint) that the fan site was exploiting Lady Gaga’s trademark for its own gain.  As currently constituted, the fan site is a blog dedicated to the singer.  There were no advertisements displayed, there was no merchandise sold, or any other commercial activity related to the site.  As stated by the arbitration panel:  Lady Gaga “cannot have fame without fans, and fans cannot have fan sites without referring to the objects of their adoration.”  In other words, the panel seemed to believe that the fan site owner was not using the Lady Gaga’s name or trademark in a trademark sense, but merely in a way to describe the object of the site’s “adoration.”  It also helped that the fan site contained a number of disclaimers, especially making clear that the site was not an “official” Lady Gaga site. 

                What does this mean for fan sites? Clearly, if you are going to have a fan site, then have a fan site.  The moment the fan site becomes a vehicle to attempt to turn a profit or make money, then it may be subject the owner of the site to an ACPA lawsuit, as well as various trademark claims.  In fact, the arbitration panel said as much—just not in so many words.  To wit, the arbitration panel warned that should the fan site attempt to make a profit in the future, then the result may different and Lady Gaga may re-file and win her complaint.  Disclaimers help in making it clear to consumers that the site is not related, sponsored by, affiliated with, etc. to the object of the site. It is always wise to consult an attorney if you are ever unsure as to whether your site crosses a line.