COPYRIGHT - A Few Important Cases

 FEW IMPORTANT CASES

THE HANGOVER PART II (2011)

THE LAWSUIT: S. VICTOR WHITMILL VS. WARNER BROS.

In April 2011, tattoo artist S. Victor Whitmill sued Warner Bros. for copyright infringement in the film The Hangover Part II. In the film, Stu (Ed Helms) wakes up after a night of debauchery in a Bangkok hotel with a replica of Mike Tyson’s tribal face tattoo. The plaintiff designed the tattoo specifically for Mike Tyson and therefore claimed it was a copyrighted work. Whitmill claimed that Warner Bros. had no right to put his work in the film or in any promotional materials attached to The Hangover Part II.

The lawsuit almost affected the release of the film, and there was the possibility that if the two parties couldn’t come to an agreement, the face tattoo would have to be digitally lifted from Helms’ face for the home video release. Ultimately, Warner Bros. settled Whitmill’s claim for an undisclosed amount, and The Hangover Part II went on to gross $581.4 million worldwide.

AVATAR (2009)

THE LAWSUIT: WILLIAM ROGER DEAN VS. JAMES CAMERON, TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX, ET AL.

In June 2013, album cover artist William Roger Dean filed a lawsuit against James Cameron and Twentieth Century Fox under copyright infringement for the alien planet design in Avatar. Dean claims that Pandora’s look is extremely similar to the fantasy landscapes depicted in his artwork on the books Magnetic Storm, Views, and Dragon’s Dream. The lawsuit cites a number of examples from Cameron’s 3D film, including the alien world’s foliage, floating islands, stone arches, and creature design.

William Roger Dean worked on the album covers for best-selling rock bands including Yes and Asia. Dean is seeking upwards of $50 million in damages, an injunction against distribution, full accounting, and a court order that makes it clear that James Cameron ripped off his work. He also wants those rights enforced and posted on current and any future Avatar projects.

AVATAR (2009)

THE LAWSUIT: WILLIAM ROGER DEAN VS. JAMES CAMERON, TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX, ET AL.

On Sept 17th 2014, the Judge called several of Dean's claims "misguided," noting that as evidence, the artist included images from "books about or derived from Avatar" rather than the film. The judge also noted that images from the film were cropped, rotated and otherwise taken "out of context" in an attempt to make them look similar to Dean's paintings, which were in turn also manipulated by the artist.

Cameron previously won multiple Avatar idea theft cases, including one brought by a man who claimed the film ripped off one of his short stories and an artist who also alleged his work inspired the film. 

PIXAR ANIMATION

THE LAWSUIT: LUXO VS. WALT DISNEY COMPANY

In 2009, Norwegian lamp manufacturers Luxo sued the animation studio Pixar and its parent company Walt Disney for copyright infringement. Although Luxo had turned a blind eye to Pixar’s use of their design since John Lasseter’s short film Luxo Jr. in 1986, the company filed a complaint when Pixar started to sell replicas of the Luxo Jr. lamp with a special Blu-ray release of the film UP without their permission. The lawsuit also cited the use of the Luxo brand name on a six-foot-tall animatronic lamp at Hollywood Studios inside Florida's Walt Disney World.

A few months later, Disney and Luxo reached a settlement and the lawsuit was withdrawn. For the time being, Luxo has no problems with any “artistic renditions” of their iconic lamp. Luxo Jr. has been Pixar’s mascot since 1986.

GEORGE HARRISON VS BRIGHT TUNES MUSIC CORP.

George Harrison’s ‘My Sweet Lord’ was released on January 15, 1971, and hit the charts on January 23, 1971, as George Harrison’s first solo single. It was released under the Apple label and enjoyed the number one spot originally for five weeks, then in 2002, again for one week. It remained on the charts for a total of twenty-seven weeks. All of this is the good news. 

The not so good news involves a song called “He’s So Fine” recorded by the Chiffons in 1962 and then moved under the Bright Tunes Music Corp label in 1971. The Chiffon’s song did well in the United States and received a lukewarm reception in the UK.

February 10th, 1971, Bright Tunes filed a suit against George Harrison inclusive of his English and American companies. The suit also included Apple Records, BMI and Hansen Publications. Though an out of court settlement was approached, including an offer of 148,000.00, but it never reached fruition before the court case proceeded, as the attorneys for Bright Tunes Music Corp. wanted seventy-five per cent of the royalties and the surrendering of the copyright for My Sweet Lord.

The case waited to be heard for five years, during which time George Harrison’s attorneys continued to try to settle out of court. The case was heard in court for the first time, in February of 1976, George Harrison’s attorneys tried to prove out the difference between the two songs, but with little success. The judge found that though he didn’t believe George Harrison purposefully plagiarized the song, the two songs were essentially the same, only displaying minor differences in note and chord. George Harrison was found guilty of ‘subconscious plagiarism’ and a judgment was filed against him in the amount of $587,000.00 of which the full amount was paid and the judgment dismissed in 1981. 

MICHAEL BOLTON VS THE ISLEY BROTHERS

The Isley Brothers aren’t as well known a name as Michael Bolton, but unfortunately for Mr Bolton, they share a song with the same name and some of the same lyrics. The Isley Brothers song was released in 1966 under the name “Love is a Wonderful Thing, Michael Bolton’s song was released in 1991. 

A suit was brought against Michael Bolton by the Isley Brothers for allegedly lifting parts from their original song of the same name and in 1991 Despite Michael Bolton and the co-author of the song’s argument that there was insufficient evidence supporting the jury’s findings, the district court found in favour of the Isley Brothers and left the largest award in history for plagiarism in the music industry intact. The Isley Brothers were awarded 5.4 million dollars, the calculation based on sixty-six per cent of past and future royalties. (Also taken into account was twenty-eight per cent of the past and future royalties of the album Time, Love and Tenderness as Love is a Wonderful thing is contained within that album). 

VANILLA ICE VS QUEEN & BOWIE

Vanilla Ice became a household word for a while, not because of his talent, but because of the copyright infringement that occurred in 1990 when it came to light that he had sampled Queen and David Bowie’s “Under Pressure” without consent or license. Ice Ice Baby hit number one on the charts in the United States and Vanilla Ice became the one ‘under pressure’. Vanilla Ice altered the rhythm of the baseline thinking he would thereby avoid any question of credit, royalties, license or even permission. This case never went to court as it was clear that Vanilla Ice had stolen the sample without permission. He settled out of court with Queen and David Bowie for an undisclosed but very likely very high amount. Ice Ice Baby has been released in many different versions, since then, with all of the legal procedures followed. 

A&M RECORDS VS. NAPSTER

For those who don't remember, Napster was a popular peer-to-peer file-sharing network that launched in 1999. It had an amazingly large fan base of music lovers who shared .mp3s. 

However, two years later the company was involved in a joint lawsuit filed by various record companies.

They didn't like the large-scale distribution of their music for free, and so sued the company for infringement on their intellectual property. This is what makes this case one of the most famous copyright infringement cases in history.

The court ruled against Napster and the company was forced to shut down the site after making a public apology and paying $26m in damages. It was their lack of effort to reduce infringement, mixed with the fact that the company financially benefitted from it that set the decision in stone.

APPLE VS MICROSOFT

The battle between these tech giants started with a simple question: who invented the graphical user interface (GUI)? The company that controls the interface of the next major operating system will have the ability to set the standards for application software, so it's unsurprising that Apple tried to stop Windows from becoming a major operating system.

It seemed that although Microsoft helped develop Macintosh, Jean-Louis Gassée, who had taken over from Steve Jobs at the time, refused to allow Microsoft to use their software. Bill Gates pressed on nonetheless, deciding to add in features of its own to early prototypes of the Macintosh. 

When Gassée noted the software, he was enraged. However, he didn't want a lawsuit and ended up agreeing to license the Mac's visual displays. But Windows 2.0 turned out to be almost identical, and Gassée believed it to be a breach of contract, only having allowed their software to be used for 1.0 and not future versions.

So, without warning, Apple filed a lawsuit against Microsoft in 1988. Apple’s case included 189 contested visual displays that violated its copyright. This led to a six-year-long battle.

In 1989, the court ruled that 179 of the 189 disputed displays were covered by the existing license. Furthermore, the other ten were not violations of Apple’s copyright due to the merger doctrine, where the idea-expression divide limits the scope of copyright protection by differentiating an idea from the manifestation of that idea.

The lawsuit was decided in Microsoft’s favour on August 24, 1993.

APPLE VS GOOGLE

Apple is no stranger to the court, especially when it comes to Google. After all, there are several companies that are making phones using Google's Android software. Steve Jobs repeatedly called the Android a "stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this.”

Apparently, things got so heated between Apple and Google that former Google CEO (and current chairman) Eric Schmidt stepped down from his position on Apple's Board of Directors.

In 2010, Apple sued Samsung. Google had to step in and help Samsung partly due to a 'Mobile Application Distribution Agreement'. A Google lawyer revealed that the company agreed to “provide partial or full indemnity with regard to four patents.”

APPLE VS GOOGLE

And in one of the highest-profile lawsuits in technology, Motorola sued Apple at the same time Samsung was taken to court. Motorola accused Apple of infringing several patents, which included how cellphones operated on a 3G network. On the other hand, Apple claimed that Motorola violated its patent to certain smartphone features.

The case was dismissed in 2012, the year that Google acquired Motorola, on grounds that neither company had sufficient evidence. In fact, frustrated judges have thrown Apple vs Motorola out of court three times, telling them to solve their problems between themselves.

Although Apple hasn't attacked Google, probably due to the fact that Google provides a variety of iOS software. Instead, the company chooses to go for the company selling Android devices, but it seems that the search giant is intent on defending Android.

It was only on 16 May 2014 that Apple and Google released a joint statement saying that they have agreed to settle all patent litigation between them and that they will also “work together in some areas of patent reform”.