IPL Copyright

7/25/2019 IPL Copyright

1/19

IPL (Copyright) - E

1. Lipton vs The Nature Company (1995)Terms of Venery

Facts:

James Lipton had a copyright over his booktitled n E!altation o" Larks#$ In partic%lar& at

iss%e in this case 'as a compilation o" termso" venery$ collective terms "or identi"yingcertain animal gro%ps 'hich Lipton gathered inhis book#

he de"endant& ein& *led "or copyrightregistration o" a compilation o" animal terms&representing that the 'ork 'as original to him#+e man%"act%red and sold posters o" thecompilation to vario%s ,oos& libraries& and otherentities# +e approached the at%re Company& aretailer speciali,ing in prod%cts abo%t theenvironment& to market his compilation#

Lipton *led a complaint "or copyright

in"ringement and %n"air competition againstein and at%re#

ein denies copying any edition o" Lipton.sbook and claims that the terms %sed on theein poster and the /%ltit%des prod%cts 'erecopied "rom a banner or scar" (the scar"$) thathe received in the late 0123.s 'hile 'orking asan advertising e!ec%tive in e' 4ork City#

ssue: hether or not there is copyrightin"ringement#

!e"#: 4es# s%ccess"%l claim o" copyrightin"ringement p%rs%ant to the Copyright ct& 056#7#C# 8 930 et se#& re%ires proo" that (0) theplainti; had a valid copyright in the 'orkallegedly in"ringed and ((a) o" the Lanham ct&claiming that the de"endant committedreverse passing o;#$

ssue: hether or not there is reverse passingo;#

0 P a g e


2/19

IPL (Copyright) - E

!e"#: 4es# Gne o" the deceptive practicesactionable %nder section K>(a) is that "orm o""alse designation o" origin kno'n as Freversepalming o;F or Freverse passing o;#F

In reverse passing o;& the 'rongdoer sellsplainti;s prod%cts as its o'n# It contrasts 'ith

passing o;& 'here the 'rongdoer sells itsprod%cts as the plainti;s# phonograph recordalb%m creating the "alse impression thatde"endant rather than plainti; 'as theprincipal per"ormer constit%tes reverse passingo;& actionable %nder section K>(a)#

In the case at bar& the evidencedemonstrates the likelihood o" plainti;s.s%ccess on their claim that Landoll hascommitted the Lanham ct tort o" reversepassing o;# I base that concl%sion %pon thesimilarities bet'een the str%ct%re& te!ts andill%strations o" the competing adaptations:similarities that are too striking to ascribe to

coincidence# he arrangements o" chaptersmirror each other in each pair o" books#

he Landoll books do not attrib%te theireditorial str%ct%re& te!ts and ill%strations tothose individ%als 'ho created them# Gn thecontrary: the Landoll books identi"y di;erentindivid%als as the adapters and ill%strators=they display on their covers the Landoll logo=and the inner pages contain a Landoll notice o"copyright 'hich& in the circ%mstances o" thecase& m%st be regarded as "alse# his cond%ctconstit%tes reverse passing o;# Landoll isselling the aldman prod%cts as Landoll.s o'nand %nder Landoll.s name#

*. +avi# %oo#s vs ,ourne Co. (1995)

inatamad ako idigest# Pakibasa na lang"%llte!t belo'# hanksM

. -irtsaen vs ohn %i"ey / 0ons ($1*)

Facts2

In


3/19

IPL (Copyright) - E

Facts2

J Prod%ctions Inc# (JPI) 'as the holder o"copyright over the sho' Hhoda and /e# It holdsrights over the sho'Ds "ormat and style o"presentation# In 0110& JPIDs president?rancisco Joa%in sa' on R HP 1Ds sho' ItDs a

ate& 'hich is basically the same as Hhoda and/e# +e event%ally s%ed abriel Sosa& themanager o" the sho' ItDs a ate# Sosa laterso%ght a revie' o" the prosec%torDs resol%tionbe"ore the 7ecretary o" J%stice (?ranklin rilon)#rilon reversed the *ndings o" the *scal anddirected him to dismiss the case against Sosa#

ssue2 hether or not there is copyrightin"ringement#

!e"#2 o# he essence o" copyrightin"ringement is the copying& in 'hole or in part&o" copyrightable materials as de*ned anden%merated in 7ection < o" P# o# K1

(Copyright La')# part "rom the manner in'hich it is act%ally e!pressed& ho'ever& theidea o" a dating game sho' is a non-copyrightable material# Ideas& concepts&"ormats& or schemes in their abstract "ormclearly do not "all 'ithin the class o" 'orks ormaterials s%sceptible o" copyright registrationas provided in P# o# K1# hat is covered byJPIDs copyright is the speci*c episodes o" thesho' Hhoda and /e#

?%rther& JPI sho%ld have presented themaster videotape o" the sho' in order to sho'the linkage bet'een the copyright sho'(Hhoda and /e) and the in"ringing sho' (ItDs a

ate)# his is based on the r%ling in (as amended& dated 7eptember 0N&01K5) entitled .H%les o" Practice in thePhilippines Patent Gce relating to the

Hegistration o" Copyright Claims. prom%lgatedp%rs%ant to Hep%blic ct 029& provides amongother things that an intellect%al creation sho%ldbe copyrighted thirty (>3) days a"ter itsp%blication& i" made in /anila& or 'ithin the(23) days i" made else'here& "ail%re o" 'hichrenders s%ch creation p%blic property#F (7antosv# /cC%llo%gh Printing Company& 0< 7CH >


4/19

IPL (Copyright) - E

3 to install& operate and maintaina nation'ide + satellite service and isobligated %nder by C /emorand%m Circ%laro# K-3N-NN& 7ection 2#< o" 'hich re%ires allcable television system operators operating ina comm%nity 'ithin rade $ or $ conto%rsto carry the television signals o" the a%thori,edtelevision broadcast stations (m%st-carry

r%le$)#

7-C *led a complaint 'ith Intellect%alProperty Gce (IPG) "or violation o" la'sinvolving property rights# It alleged that P/7IDs%na%thori,ed rebroadcasting o" Channels < and in"ringed on its broadcasting rights andcopyright and that the C circ%lar only coverscable television system operators and not +satellite television operators# /oreover& CCirc%lar K-3N-NN violates 7ec# 1 o" rt# III o" theConstit%tion beca%se it allo's the taking o"property "or p%blic %se 'itho%t payment o" B%stcompensation#

P/7I arg%ed that its rebroadcasting o"Channels < and is sanctioned by/emorand%m Circ%lar o# 3K-3N-NN= that them%st-carry r%le %nder the /emorand%mCirc%lar is a valid e!ercise o" police po'er#

Iss%e: hether or not there 'as copyrightin"ringement#

+eld: o# P/7I does not in"ringe on 7-CDsbroadcasting rights %nder the IP Code as P/7I

is not engaged in rebroadcasting o" Channels Bourne.@ W)en Leonard announced t)at it 7ould continue to pa( Bourne t)e ro(alties for t)esereprints, Callicoon licensed Warner Brot)ers #u!lications instead to reprint arran6ements of t)e Son6.Callicoon 9or t)e 5arr( Fo A6enc( as Callicoon?s a6ent: also issued s(nc) licenses for use of t)e Son6in various ne7 television pro6rams. Callicoon also 6ranted ne7 s(nc) licenses, similar to an epiredlicense ori6inall( issued !( Bourne prior to termination, for use of t)e Son6 in an episode of >


11/19

IPL (Copyright) - E

#u!lic performances of t)e Son6 as contained in movies, television pro6rams and sound recordin6scontinue to 6enerate su!stantial ro(alties. Since Callicoon eercised its termination ri6)t in April G0,Callicoon )as continued to receive from ASCA# t)e aut)or?s *M s)are of performance ro(alties, 7)ic)s)are is not disputed.W)at is disputed is t)e pu!lis)er?s s)are of ro(alties for several cate6ories of post$termination pu!licperformances of t)e Son6.


12/19

IPL (Copyright) - E

33. Discussion


13/19

IPL (Copyright) - E

t)e 6rant from Sn(der, and since t)at 6rant 7as no7 terminated, all mec)anical ro(alties s)ould revert toSn(der?s )eirs. +0 F.0d at +.terminated 6rant,@ t)e last t7o 7ords in t)eDerivative Wor-s 'ception, must refer to t)e ori6inal 6rant from aut)or to pu!lis)er. 6rant@ in t)e sin6le sentence of t)e Derivative Wor-s'ception must lo6icall( refer to t)e same 6rant. /E U.S. at E/$E*, * S.Ct. at E/*. ItJ)e / 6rant from Sn(der to "ills epressl( 6ave "ills t)e aut)orit( to license ot)ers toma-e derivative 7or-s.@ 3d. at E*, * S.Ct. at E/E. 3t t)en concluded t)at >a fair construction of t)ep)rase under t)e terms of t)e 6rant as applied to an( particular licensee 7ould necessaril( encompass!ot) t)e Iori6inalJ 6rant Ifrom aut)or to pu!lis)erJ and t)e individual license Ito record producersJeecuted pursuant t)ereto.@ 3d. at EE$E+, * S.Ct. at E/E. Because t)e com!ination of t)e t7o 6rantsdirected record companies to pa( ro(alties to "ills, and "ills in turn to pa( *M of t)e amount collected toSn(der, t)e Court )eld t)at "ills 7as entitled to retain its *M s)are of mec)anical ro(alties on sales ofrecords produced !efore termination !ut sold durin6 t)e etended rene7al term. 3d. at +G, * S.Ct. atE*0."ills "usic is, of course, !indin6 upon us./ "ills "usic appears to re=uire t)at 7)ere multiple levels oflicenses 6overn use of a derivative 7or-, t)e >terms of t)e 6rant@ encompass t)e ori6inal 6rant fromaut)or to pu!lis)er and eac) su!se=uent 6rant necessar( to ena!le t)e particular use at issue. See5o7ard B. A!rams, W)o?s Sorr( &o7


14/19

IPL (Copyright) - E


15/19

IPL (Copyright) - E

ar6ues t)at t)e G arran6ement alle6edl( used in t)e Delta Faucet commercial, as 7ell as all ot)erBourne$aut)oriHed arran6ements, 7ere derivative 7or-s. Because onl( t)e first piano$vocalarran6ement, t)e G arran6ement and ot)er Bourne$aut)oriHed arran6ements 7ere ever commerciall(eploited, Bourne concludes t)at an( 6iven performance of t)e Son6 is >more li-el( t)an not@ aperformance of a Bourne$aut)oriHed derivative 7or-.derivative 7or-.@+ U.S.C. .musicalarran6ement@ as one t(pe of derivative 7or-, must !e read in conjunction 7it) t)e second sentence?sre=uirement of >modifications 7)ic), as a 7)ole, represent an ori6inal 7or- of aut)ors)ip.@ G/ F.Supp.

at 0.


16/19

IPL (Copyright) - E

7or-s from t)e same underl(in6 7or-.@ 4racen v. Bradford 'c)an6e, EG F.0d , * 9+t) Cir.G:.As t)e 4racen court eplained in discussin6 t)e ori6inalit( re=uirement for a paintin6 derived from a

p)oto6rap), t)ere must !e >sufficientl( 6ross difference !et7een t)e underl(in6 and t)e derivative 7or- toavoid entan6lin6 su!se=uent artists depictin6 t)e underl(in6 7or- in cop(ri6)t pro!lems.@ EG F.0d at*.


17/19

IPL (Copyright) - E

a. dou!tless pla(ed t)e son6 for Berlin 7)en )e!rou6)t it into t)e firm.@:.su!stantial.@ At trial, !ot) Callicoon andBourne presented epert testimon( on 7)et)er t)e differences 7ere >su!stantial variations@ reflectin6deli!erate aest)etic c)oices or merel( >trivial@ c)an6es dictated, for instance, !( appl(in6 conventionalrules of )armon( to t)e melod( in t)e lead s)eet.


18/19

IPL (Copyright) - E

!.


19/19

IPL (Copyright) - E

t)an not t)at unidentified performances are performances of Bourne$aut)oriHed derivative 7or-s.

Documents

IPL Copyright