Elisabeth Moriarty

Contact Elisabeth

This Christmas, my mother-in-law gave my dog-obsessed daughter a gadget that (ostensibly) allowed her to view life through the eyes of our dog, Olive. It was a digital camera that attached to Olive’s collar, and it randomly snapped a picture every minute or so as Olive roamed around our yard and went about her daily, um, business (no, thankfully, it didn’t photograph what was going on at that end of the dog…). Well, we got a lot of pictures of grass and her food bowl, and a couple of catawampus views of our agapanthus and geraniums, which were cool in a canine fun-house sort of way. But I definitely wouldn’t have put any of them in a frame. I mean, I love my dog, but Ansel Adams she ain’t.

Well maybe I should reconsider. You see, a fantastic self-portrait taken by a monkey has been sweeping the internet, and causing quite a ruckus in certain copyright circles. (How is this macaque already better at self-portraits than 95% of people posting their pictures on Facebook?) Apparently, when award-winning nature photographer David Slater momentarily walked away from his tripod while filming black macaques in Indonesia, one of the monkeys took over, snapping hundreds of pictures. It isn’t quite Shakespeare, but the now-famous grinning self-portrait of the chimp is pretty remarkable.

Remarkable enough, it seems, that Slater is trying to steal credit for it. And while this has set off an interesting debate online as to whether, and under what law, Slater might have copyright rights in the macaque’s work, I’m more curious as to what rights the macaque himself ought to have. Continue reading the full story . . . »

Matt Galsor

Contact Matt

Q: A production company optioned my script. They wanted a few changes, and they paid me to do a rewrite. I liked some of their changes, but many I didn’t. So I only made the changes that I liked. I think the script is much stronger now, but they let the option expire. I thought that I can now sell the script to someone else, but a friend told me that, because I had a separate writing agreement, the production company owns my rewrite. How can that be?

A: Unfortunately for you, your friend could be right. This is easier to discuss around a concrete example. Let’s say your original script was a Raymond Chandler style film noir about a pair of unshaven LA cops named Bill and Bob who have a drinking problem, drive a hugentic SUV, and date two women named Betty and Barbara who smoke and have jealous husbands. The production company loves it but feels the story would work even better if re-imagined as a buddy comedy in which Bill and Bob are clean-shaven security guards at a Cleveland shopping mall who have a drinking problem, drive a tinicious Smart Car, and date two women named Betty and Barbara who don’t smoke but still have jealous husbands. And the best part is the production company will actually pay you to rewrite it this way. So you go to work, and in a few short weeks Bill and Bob wreak hilarious havoc at the mall.

Just as you finish the rewrite, the production company gets a new owner who decides to produce nothing but straight-to-Cinemax “documentaries.” Your Red State buddy comedy doesn’t fit this vision so the production company lets the option on your script expire without exercising it. You think you’re now free to sell your laugh-out-loud Ohio buddy comedy to the highest bidder. Continue reading the full story . . . »

Lisa Y. Wang

Contact Lisa

WTForever21 is a blog devoted to poking fun at some of the more ridiculous clothing items offered by well-known clothing store Forever 21. While the author, Rachel Kane, admits that most of her closet is comprised of Forever 21’s “tasteful, trendy and totally awesome selection,” the blog focuses on those items that go “horribly awry.” If you’ve ever stepped into a Forever 21, you KNOW what she is talking about. While there are tons of great items for cheap, there are also some pieces that look like they were designed by Dame Edna (take this tired, ruffled, print jumpsuit, or this gem, or these floral, woven harem pants).

Apparently, Forever 21 isn’t big on humor – it sent Ms. Kane a cease and desist letter claiming that, because her website makes use of its federally registered trademark and product photographs, it constitutes trademark infringement, copyright infringement, unfair competition and dilution (these are all concepts Forever 21’s legal team is intimately familiar with since the company has been the subject of multiple suits from others claiming those exact same legal theories). The letter also noted that her website’s title refers to an abbreviation (WTF) that the general public might find offensive (or hilarious – it is a fine line). Unfortunately, my lawyers have advised me that I shouldn’t curse in this blog, so if you don’t know what WTF stands for, you may just have to Google it (and you need to get the F out more often). Continue reading the full story . . . »

Jesse Saivar

Contact Jesse

Q: I read in the trades that Fox bought the rights to the nonfiction book The Floor of Heaven which is based on an historical figure during an historical event. If historical events/figures are open game for the public to write about, when is it necessary to secure nonfiction book rights? Holy Blood Holy Grail was used in the research for Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code — they sued him and lost. So I’m really confused as to when it applies. And am asking because I have a script based on an historical figure and used one particular book heavily in my research — should I inquire about the rights? If not legally necessary, is there any benefit in doing so?

A: We get two types of questions very frequently. The first, of course, is: “are you single?” The second involves the making of movies based on historical people or events. I had no idea so many filmmakers were interested in making movies that are generally incapable of a sequel. What’s the point of making movie if you can’t follow it a few years later with a derivative, unimaginative rehash? I’m still waiting for Thirteen Days 2: The Bangkok Missile Crisis but I’m pretty sure it’s never going to happen. Continue reading the full story . . . »

Dan Nabel

Contact Dan

Because I’m a lawyer, everyone in my family thinks I know everything about every esoteric law that has ever been written. As much as I wish I could recite the statute my Aunt Cookie swears she has heard of which would prohibit her neighbor’s cat from using her backyard as a litter box, I usually can’t help them without having to spend a Saturday doing some good ol’ legal research (for which I’d charge full rates, of course). So imagine my surprise when my brother started a new business and started coming to me with questions about “mainstream” legal issues with which I am actually familiar! He recently started a t-shirt company out of our parents’ garage (of course) and, while he has done a great job coming up with original t-shirt designs, every so often he consults me regarding “fair use,” and, specifically whether or to what extent an existing work of art can be transformed into something “new” on one of his t-shirts. Continue reading the full story . . . »

Jesse Saivar

Contact Jesse

Q: I’d like to use some audio from an old radio show. My research so far reveals the show…like many old radio shows…was never copyrighted. How does one determine the copyright status of something like a radio show?

A: Let’s first talk about where copyright law is today with respect to the need for copyright registrations. Remember those old SAT questions where they asked you to find the two pairs of things that were most alike? Well, under current U.S. copyright law, copyright registrations are to copyright owners as permanently affixed Bluetooth earpieces are to morons. You don’t have to have a copyright registration to be a copyright owner, but if you do have a registration, you’ve put the public on notice that you are, indeed, a copyright owner. Continue reading the full story . . . »