Way back in November, GoldieBlox, Inc. sued the Beastie Boys and a host of others, asking a court to declare that their use of a “parodied” version of the Beastie Boys song “Girls” in their commercial was legal as a protected fair use. After some open letters back and forth, it looked like the case was going away, before the Beastie Boys fired back in December with an Answer and a whole host of counterclaims, essentially accusing GoldieBlox of shameless appropriation in the name of corporate profits (I was interviewed for my thoughts at the time, no big deal). Looked like the parties were entrenched, but now, settlement on the horizon? [Read more…]
As you may have heard, tattoo artist Victor Whitmill is suing Warner Brothers in an attempt to gain money damages and enjoin the release of their film, The Hangover Part 2. Why? Because he put a tattoo on Mike Tyson’s face, and that same tattoo ends up on the face of Ed Helms’ character in the movie. Wow. It’s taken me a little while to process the awesome ridiculousness of this situation. One of the reasons I love copyright law is because all the seminal cases deal with terrific subject matter (A 2 Live Crew song called Hairy Woman? Yeah, that’s precedent.), but I never could have seen this one coming. Let’s delve a little deeper into the issues at play (with full complaint below)…
A couple days ago I posted all of the appellate briefs filed by the parties and intervenors in what has surely become the most important of the file-sharing cases. By now I’m sure you’ve had the time to carefully peruse the hundreds of pages of dense legal arguments, so I’m not going to belabor the points made by rehashing them here (I swear I’ve read the briefs… well, a good chunk of them anyways).
Instead, what I’d like to do is go through and offer some commentary on the day’s proceedings, including the arguments, the attorneys, and the panel of judges. So without further ado…
This morning oral arguments in Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum took place in the First Circuit Court of Appeals. I was one of the many that braved the cold and rainy Boston morning to go watch (and I got a front row seat!), so some analysis of the proceedings will be forthcoming. For the time being, though, I thought I’d go ahead and post the appellate briefs and reply briefs from Mr. Tenenbaum, the RIAA, the United States, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. So if you really want to get into the nitty gritty of today’s arguments, or you just want to see what hundreds of hours of work looks like in written form, read on.
Today Ford Motor Company sued Ferrari in federal court in the Eastern District of Michigan. I haven’t really had a chance to go through and get a handle on the case yet, but this is shaping up to be very interesting. Click through to read complaint in its entirety. Thus far, my favorite quote is, “Ferrari’s misappropriation of the F-150® trademark, or counterfeits, copies, reproductions, or colorable imitations thereof, has been, and continues to be done, with the intent to cause confusion, mistake, and to deceive consumers concerning the source and/or sponsorship of Ferrari’s products and services.” I think Ford’s come a long way over the last couple years, but something tells me Ferrari is not trying to get consumers to associate them with trucks. In any case, the complaint’s below: