Currently I am studying Entertainment Law and have recently been focusing on various liabilities that affect the industry. What I consider to be probably the most overwhelming legal topic, is the fact that you can be sued for pretty much anything and everything. So, with that in mind, I decided I would discuss a few examples of recent incidents that prove my point, and why it is essential for artists, producers, and everyone in between, to protect their ideas, their deals, and themselves. What do reality TV, the Batmobile, and the movie One Shot starring Tom Cruise, all have in common? They are all currently the center of lawsuits trying to determine who has the rights to what. Let me explain.
Reality TV
A hobby of mine, which will someday be an official and successful business venture, is developing reality television shows, so this case hits close to home. An Australian named Paul Thayil decided to sue a laundry list of networks, companies, and individuals, including Fox, NBC, Sony, EMI, Simon Cowell, Nigel Lythgoe, and Simon Fuller, the creator of American Idol, because he felt that his ideas were stolen and ultimately used as the basis for various reality shows including American Idol, So You Think You Can Dance, Dancing with the Stars, and America’s Got Talent. He claims he developed similar ideas about 15 years ago and tried to pitch several shows to a few people in Australia, but nothing ever came of it. Unfortunately for his sake, when Thayil tried to convince a New York Federal Judge of this claim, he had no proof of ever copyrighting his ideas, so basically, he’s out of luck. Regardless of whether he’s telling the truth, with no evidence of having protected his plans with copyrights, he’s got no grounds to stand on. The lesson? If you have an idea you think is original and potentially valuable, and you don’t want to see someone down the line profiting off that idea that isn’t you, filing a copyright through the United States Patent and Copyright Office is the way to go.
The Batmobile
Another recent instance involving copyright infringement concerns the infamous Batmobile, the widely recognizable car driven by non other than Batman himself (oh, and Justin Beiber, but we’ll get to that in a minute). Just last month, a judge ruled that the Batmobile is eligible and protected by copyright. DC Comics, owner of all things Batman, sued a car dealer named Mark Towles, for selling imitation batmobiles out of his “Gotham Garage”. The sticky part of this lawsuit came when determining why, when other cars can’t be protected under copyright because they are considered “useful articles” under the Copyright Act, but the Batmobile can. The answer? Because according to United States District Judge Ronald Lew, who presided over the case, the Batmobile “grants copyright protection to nonfunctional, artistic elements of an automobile design that can be physically or conceptually separated from the automobile.” Therefore, Towles finds himself in hot water. And also as a result of the judge’s decision, so does Justin Beiber. Beiber had a CTS-V Cadillac Coupe transformed into a Batmobile of his own, which means that technically, Beiber could be sued by DC Comics for copyright infringement next. He should probably get his legal team on that. What’s the lesson here? Same as above, except this time, we see how taking the time to copyright an idea can put you in the driver’s seat, no pun intended!
One Shot
Finally, we have One Shot, and the resulting legal battle that ultimately ensues. Last week, two producers of the thriller were sued by a third producer for due credit and “rightful share of the compensation” they stand to make off the potential franchise. Don Granger and Gary Levinshon, along with their Mutual Film Company, are named defendants in a suit filed by Kevin Messick. Messick claims the three producers entered into an agreement to develop the film together. The problem is, that although Messick worked for more than half a decade on making this film come to life, all of his agreements with Granger and Levinshon were in good faith. So, yes, Granger and Levinshon did axe Messick out. That accusation is not in question. What is in question, is whether Messick is due the equal credit and equal compensation he says he was promised. Although Messick’s lawyers are filing suit alleging “breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment”, most of which I have yet to, or will likely never, learn and understand what they mean, what I can gather is this: If Messick would have forced the duo to sign a contract, this legal battle, and likely his deprivation of participation, wouldn’t exist.
So, in short, from analyzing these three lawsuits, I think my point is clear. If there is one word for the wise, it’s protect, protect, protect!
No comments:
Post a Comment