Jesse Saivar

Contact Jesse

If you read the paper, watch TV, listen to the radio or use the Internet, it’s been tough to avoid SOPA recently.  (If you don’t, well, you’re probably hand-writing angry missives in a cabin and not reading this.)  What we’ve seen thus far are two widely-popular, well-funded industries passionately going toe-to-toe with one another, with one widely-unpopular but well funded group of politicians playing referee.  After some low blows, eye gouging and hair pulling, the anti-SOPA team has prevailed, at least temporarily.

Unfortunately, after listening to both sides of the debate, I’m convinced the vast majority of the debaters and their audience lacked a strong understanding of exactly what SOPA says and what its true implications would be.  Because we’re dealing with powerful industries with enormous soap boxes, the majority of the “discussions” presented to the public have been severely slanted by the presenter’s personal stake in the contest.  As with most heated political topics, this is great for sound-bites and overbroad, black-and-white ways of looking at things, but not so great if you actually want to understand the proposed legislation.  So as any good humanitarian should do, I’m going to attempt to sum it up from a relatively-neutral legal perspective.  Even if SOPA itself is no longer on the table (for now), the fight it started can give us insight into the sides’ respective concerns and the future skirmishes we’re likely to see. Continue reading the full story . . . »

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Elisabeth Moriarty

Contact Elisabeth

In honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., last Monday my husband and I found ourselves with three glorious hours to kill midday, while our daughter visited a friend.  We could have cleaned out the garage, but instead we went to lunch at a new-ish bar and grill which prides itself on serving over 100 beers on tap.  As I perused the vast beer menu, I was struck by the creativity (and in some cases absurdity) of the names these breweries had invented for their ambers and ales.  There were a few that were a bit embarrassing (“Flying Dog Doggie Style Pale Ale?”  Seriously, I don’t think I can’t ask for that without blushing, so it better be good).  Some made me laugh out loud (I thought “Unibroue Ephemere Cassis” was hysterically punny, until I learned that “Unibroue” is the actual name of the Quebec-based brewery).  Few names were conventional and many were downright clever.

I knew vaguely about the ancient and globe-spanning trademark dispute between American brewer Anheuser-Busch and the Czech beer producer Budejovicky Budvar over the right to use the trademarked name “Budweiser” — a battle which has been brewing since 1870.  But with so many beers and so many creative names and logos, I wondered, as even slightly tipsy lawyers tend to do, how often breweries found themselves in a legal kerfuffle over their beloved (and lucrative) alcoholic beverages.  Aren’t these guys supposed to be mellow and laid back (well, except, perhaps, for the guys who make Arrogant Bastard Ale)?  They make beer, for Pete’s sake.

Well, it turns out that brewers stir up litigation more often than you might think. Continue reading the full story . . . »

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Jesse Saivar

Contact Jesse

Q:  I’ve been negotiating an option on a book for a few weeks and we’re about to the point where we’re going to sign the paperwork.  The book is a pretty standard detective novel.  The other day the author happened to mention that he had already sold one of his books to a studio.  It turns out that the book he already sold shares the main character (the detective) with the book I’m interested in.  If the plots are completely different between the two books, does this even matter?

A:  Unfortunately, it likely does matter.  Generally, when a studio or producer acquires “movie” rights to a book, it acquires “character” rights.  In other words, in your case, the author likely granted to the studio, among other things, the exclusive right to make movies containing the characters in that book.  Therefore, you may infringe upon the studio’s rights if you make a movie based on the book you’re optioning, because it will contain the character the studio already exclusively “owns.” Continue reading the full story . . . »

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Rachel Wilkes Barchie

Contact Rachel

This blogger is proud to say that I have never watched any show featuring a member of the Kardashian family (okay, okay, unless you count their step-brother Brody Jenner…you know I could never resist The Hills).  I normally try to pretend to steer clear of anything Kardashian, as I fall into the camp of people who wonder, “why the heck is she famous, anyway?”  (Yes, that’s a rhetorical question — I know it’s because of her video debut.)  But I can’t resist writing an update about the Old Navy commercial we posted about back in March 2011.  (Extra shout-out to fellow blogger Megan Rivetti for anticipating Kim K.’s lawsuit, which wasn’t actually filed until July.)

Kim’s lawsuit claims that Old Navy and its parent company The Gap Inc. violated her right of publicity and misled and confused consumers, and seeks $15­–20 million in damages.  (For more on the right of publicity, see here; for more on consumer confusion, see here; for more on how the actress who starred in the Old Navy commercial is totally re-living Kim Kardashian’s life in other ways, see here.)  But now The Gap’s lawyers are moving in on Kim’s “private life” (and the use of air quotes has never seemed more appropriate).  Among other things, they have sought financial records that show how much stores Bebe and Sears earned by making deals with Kim and why Bebe dropped Kim, and information about “Kim Kardashian’s reputation as a singer and dancer.”   As Eriq Gardner of THR, Esq. points out, one reason The Gap may be seeking information about Kim’s business dealings is to make out an argument — often used in defamation cases — that the plaintiff is “libel-proof” because her reputation is so ruined that no additional damage could be caused.

So let’s take a look at the contours of the so-called “libel-proof” defense. Continue reading the full story . . . »

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Dan Nabel

Contact Dan

The famous Czech writer Milan Kundera once wrote that “business has only two functions — marketing and innovation.”  But some industries — like the alcohol industry — have pretty much hit the limit on innovation (unless you consider things like a tequila bottle top which doubles as a shot glass “innovative”).  This means that the entire business is marketing.  Which is probably why I enjoy drinking the same beer as the most interesting man in the world and think Guinness is good for me.  Just kidding.  But seriously, I do prefer those beers.

As we all know, marketing plans can go awry.  For example, in 2008, a Tustin-based alcohol importer called Sans Wine & Spirits Co. decided to rebrand its tequila “to position it as a luxury brand.”  The “brand enhancement” plan required the Mexican distiller to “use an industrial hand-blown bottle for the tequila,” “a wooden bottle stopper with cork veneer to match other luxury brands of tequila,” and to have a bottle-maker mold an image of an agave agricultural worker into the back of the bottle.  Lastly, Sans Wine & Spirits hired a Mexican design firm to upgrade the label design that the distiller had been using since 2004.  Unfortunately for Sans Wine & Spirits, it turned out that the original label design and the new label design both copied a José-Pablo Fernández photograph sin permiso.  Mr. Fernández was muy molesto (bothered) when he found out and sent Sans Wine & Spirits a cease-and-desist letter.

Now, Sans Wine & Spirits is suing Fernández, preemptively, for a declaratory judgment that the label design is not infringing, and more importantly, if it is infringing, then for a declaration that Sans Wine & Spirits was an “innocent infringer.”

Let’s break down the “innocent infringer” defense. Continue reading the full story . . . »

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Rachel Wilkes Barchie

Contact Rachel

If our dear readers look at my past blog posts, you might think I’m vying for a Bloggie Award* for “Most Posts Related to Social Media.”  As someone who personally spends a fair amount of time keeping up with my friends/news outlets/favorite restaurants through social media, many of the legal disputes that catch my eye examine the intersection of free speech and social media — after all, it’s good to know where the line between lawful and actionable is drawn, even though I don’t think I’m likely to step over it.  (Plus, I think I’m now allowed to bill my workplace Facebook/Twitter time as “researching blog post.”)

Usually, when something goes legally haywire with social media, it’s because Courtney Love defamed someone on Twitter again.  Last month, though, a Maryland federal court has shined a (27-page) light on the criminal law of cyberstalking.  Under a semi-obscure provision of the Violence Against Women Act — codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2261A for you legal eagles out there — federal law makes it a crime when an individual “uses the mail, any interactive computer service, or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that causes substantial emotional distress” to someone “with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person in another State.”

This law may have come as some surprise to defendant William Lawrence Cassidy, who was charged with cyberstalking based on his more than 8,000 posts on blogs and Twitter about Alyce Zeoli, a Buddhist leader (and quite the avid Tweeter herself).  The court’s recitation of facts describes Alyce Zeoli, or “A.Z.” as a “reincarnate llama,” but I’m pretty sure the court really meant lama (as in Tibetan teacher of the Dharma) rather than llama (as in South American camelid).  In any event (actually, probably especially if she is, indeed, an alpaca), Ms. Zeoli — the so-called “Buddha from Brooklyn” — is already quite the controversial figure.

Cassidy’s posts and Tweets ranged from threatening comments (“ya like haiku?  Here’s one for ya: ‘Long, Limb, Sharp Saw, Hard Drop’ ROFLMAO”**) to criticism of Zeoli as a religious figure (“[A.Z.] is a demonic force who tries to destroy Buddhism”) to just vague creepiness (“owl and raven feathers separate….tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock”).  Cassidy moved to dismiss the charges against him, and on December 15, the court granted his motion, holding that Cassidy’s speech was protected by the First Amendment and that the restriction didn’t pass scrutiny and dismissed the charges against him.

So what lessons can you take from Cassidy’s case the next time you’re ready to dive into the Twitterverse? Continue reading the full story . . . »

Be Sociable, Share!

•