‘The Hunt for Gollum’ Was Just Announced. It Was on YouTube in 2009.; The New York Times, May 22, 2024

Stefano Montali, The New York Times ; ‘The Hunt for Gollum’ Was Just Announced. It Was on YouTube in 2009.

"Early on, he had reached an agreement with the Tolkien estate ensuring that his project would respect its intellectual property, and that it would be freely available and noncommercial. “We were lucky that they looked kindly on it as something that was for the fan community,” Bouchard said.

But YouTube denied the appeal. So, like eagles over Mordor, the Ringers, as the fans are known, swooped in. They wrote articles and posted heated comments on Reddit and other sites, calling the removal “deplorable” and “despicable.” Bouchard noted his disappointment on X.

Bouchard quickly received a follow-up email from YouTube: The movie had been reinstated. In an email, Warner Bros. said it had no official comment. YouTube did not reply to requests for comment."

‘The People’s Joker’ and the Perils of Playing With a Studio’s Copyright; The New York Times, April 1, 2024

 Eric Grode, The New York Times; ‘The People’s Joker’ and the Perils of Playing With a Studio’s Copyright

"The Joker may be the purview of DC Comics, not Marvel, but the fear of running afoul of copyright laws was no less of a concern.

“I kept myself very informed legally in terms of what qualifies as a parody and what fair use really is,” said Drew, referring to the legal doctrine that allows artists to use copyrighted material without permission or consequence depending on the circumstances. The “People’s Joker” poster calls it “A Fair Use Film by Vera Drew.”

Rebecca Tushnet, a professor at Harvard Law School and an expert in fair use, said artistic works find themselves on safer legal ground when they comment on the original material in a transformative way.

“Favored use is critical in that it performs an interpretation,” said Tushnet, who has not seen the film but was willing to discuss it in the abstract. “A parody is the classic example, but it doesn’t have to be funny. If the metaphor that the Joker represents here is a different metaphor, then it might well fall under the category of transformative fair use."”

YouTube reversed my bogus copyright strike after I threatened to write this; Mashable, January 28, 2020

Matt Binder, Mashable; YouTube reversed my bogus copyright strike after I threatened to write this

"“Your case is the most extreme I’ve heard about. Congratulations,” Electronic Frontier Foundation Manager of Policy and Activism, Katharine Trendacosta, said to me in a phone conversation on the issue. “This is the first time I've heard about this happening to something that didn't contain anything. And I have heard a lot of really intense stories about what's happening on YouTube.”...

“Your case is a really extreme example of a fairly common situation in which these major companies send DMCA takedown on a very broad basis,” she explained. “YouTube is far more afraid of being sued by Warner Bros. than being sued by you, so you end up with them being much more cautious and doing things like just allowing DMCA strikes on anything.”

So, what can be done? Apparently, not much."

'Gone With the Wind' and 'Wizard of Oz' protected by copyright in merchandising suit; Los Angeles Times, 11/1/16

David Ng, Los Angeles Times; 'Gone With the Wind' and 'Wizard of Oz' protected by copyright in merchandising suit:

[Kip Currier: This week in my IP and "Open" Movements graduate course we looked at two high profile music infringement lawsuits, Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset and Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum. Good case studies (among others) for thinking about use of copyrighted works by individuals/institutions and copyright enforcement. Timely to see Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset damages assessment and rationale cited in the case discussed below.]

"The defense filed another appeal, but this week, a court upheld the ruling as well as damages amounting to $10,000 for 257 copyright infractions, resulting in an award of nearly $2.6 million.

The judgment “sends a strong message about the risk of engaging in copyright and trademark infringement,” said Frederick J. Sperling, a partner at the law firm Schiff Hardin LLP, who represented Warner Bros.

Valencia, the defendant, didn’t respond to a request for comment sent through a lawyer.

The case was filed in Missouri because some of the licensees selling the products in question were based in the state.

In upholding the damages amount, the appeals court cited a 2012 Capitol Records case in which the label sued an individual for putting copyrighted songs on the Kazaa file-sharing platform. In that case, a court awarded damages of $9,250 per infringed work.

Damages for copyright infringement range between $750 and $30,000 per instance, according to U.S. law.

In its 2011 decision, the 8th Circuit court ruled that characters such as Dorothy and the Scarecrow, as well as Scarlett O’Hara and Rhett Butler, are “sufficiently distinctive to merit character protection under the respective film copyrights.”"

Appeals court upholds Warner Bros.’ Superman rights; ComicBookResources.com, 2/11/16

Kevin Melrose, ComicBookResources.com; Appeals court upholds Warner Bros.’ Superman rights:

"A federal appeals court has again sided with DC Comics and Warner Bros. in the long-running feud over the rights to the Man of Steel.

As first reported by THR, Esq., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday upheld a 2013 ruling that the heirs of Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel relinquished their claim to the character in a 2001 settlement with DC, and therefore are not able to terminate the copyright.

This legal dispute has proved as resilient as the Man of Steel, so we won’t label this a “definitive judgment.” However, the Siegel family would appear to have few options left beyond a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. For now at least, Superman remains in the hands of Warner Bros. and DC."

Suit Filed Against Warner Bros. in Screenplay Theft; New York Times, 10/10/13

Michael Cieply, New York Times; Suit Filed Against Warner Bros. in Screenplay Theft: "In Hollywood, where everyone is eager to claim credit for a great idea, charges of script theft are as common as cocktail receptions, and usually as fleeting. Few lawsuits ultimately prevail, partly because claimants often overvalue an idea’s originality. But the aggrieved keep trying. Just last week, James Cameron was granted dismissal of a suit — one of several similar actions against him — that claimed he had misappropriated material in creating “Avatar.” Two days earlier, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal in a copyright case connected to the 1980 film “Raging Bull.”"

We Aren’t in the Old Kansas, Toto; New York Times, 2/28/13

Brooks Barnes, New York Times; We Aren’t in the Old Kansas, Toto: "...there are also some important differences between the two movies — especially if you’re an eagle-eyed Hollywood copyright lawyer. “Oz the Great and Powerful,” directed by Sam Raimiand arriving in theaters on Friday, is an original story built on material culled from L. Frank Baum’s books. But lifting from “The Wizard of Oz,” a tantalizing notion given its continued popularity, was strictly forbidden. Warner Brothers now owns that 1939 MGM film, and Warner is almost as well known as Disney for aggressively policing its copyrights."

Warner wins key victory in Superman battle; Los Angeles Times, 10/17/12

Ben Fritz, Los Angeles Times; Warner wins key victory in Superman battle: "In a crucial legal victory for the Burbank studio, a federal judge in Los Angeles on Wednesday denied an effort by the heirs of Superman co-creator Joseph Shuster to reclaim their 50% interest in the world’s most famous superhero."

Warner Bros. Claims "Significant Victory" In Superman Lawsuit; ComicBookResources.com, 4/17/12

ComicBookResources.com; Warner Bros. Claims "Significant Victory" In Superman Lawsuit:

"In a significant victory for Warner Bros. in its lengthy and increasingly bitter battle over the rights to the Man of Steel, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that the attorney representing the estates of Superman co-creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster must turn over documents stolen from his office in 2008.

The sensitive papers, which lawyer Marc Toberoff had argued were protected by attorney-client privilege, were taken from his office by disgruntled former associate David Michaels and delivered anonymously to Warner Bros. in December 2008."

Citing Public Interest, Judge Rules for ‘Hangover II’; New York Times, 5/24/11

Noam Cohen, New York Times; Citing Public Interest, Judge Rules for ‘Hangover II’:

"A federal judge on Tuesday allowed the movie “Hangover Part II” to be released for the Memorial Day weekend, rejecting a request by a tattoo artist who says that the movie violates his copyright by using a face tattoo he made for Mike Tyson on a central character in the movie."

Warner Bros. dealt a setback in Superman legal battle: ComicBookResources.com, 4/13/11

ComicBookResources.com; Warner Bros. dealt a setback in Superman legal battle:

"A federal judge on Monday denied an effort by Warner Bros. to gain access to sensitive documents that are alleged to show an agreement between the heirs of Superman creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster not to strike further copyright deals with the studio, Hollywood, Esq. reports."

Harry Potter studio to investigate Deathly Hallows leak; (London) Guardian, 11/18/10

Xan Brooks, (London) Guardian; Harry Potter studio to investigate Deathly Hallows leak: Warner Bros launches inquiry into how pirated footage from latest Harry Potter film appeared across download sites:

"An abridged version of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 has jumped the gun on the film's official release after leaking across download sites on Tuesday night. Warner Bros has launched an inquiry to discover the source of the 36 minutes of pirated footage."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/nov/18/harry-potter-deathly-hallows-leak

Vampire fever is biting hard; Sydney Morning Herald, 10/31/09

Jonathan Dart, Sydney Morning Herald; Vampire fever is biting hard:

"Hamish Fraser, a partner at Truman Hoyle law firm, warned people to not get too fired up by Halloween and start copying ideas that might belong to someone else.

It follows a case in Britain where a single mother was sent a warning letter by Warner Bros over potential copyright breaches, after she planned a Harry Potter themed dinner event.

"What probably went wrong in the United Kingdom in this case was that it might have looked, to Warner Brothers, that this woman was trying to earn money rather than having a fun night," Mr Fraser said.

"The problem is that the copyright law is what it is. If you copy the Harry Potter logo, for instance, you are almost certainly infringing copyright.''

But in a year when vampires are so popular, Mr Fraser said it will be harder for companies to suck the blood out of parties by protecting copyright - recent Twilight-themed parties have been held everywhere from Yass Valley Council Library to the Loft Bar in Darling Harbour."

http://www.smh.com.au/national/vampire-fever-is-biting-hard-20091030-hpqy.html

Harry Potter and the chamber of lawyers; Guardian, 10/26/09

Marmite Lover, Guardian; Harry Potter and the chamber of lawyers:

Warner Bros' lawyers have asked Ms Marmite Lover to rename a 'Harry Potter Dinner' at her Underground Restaurant. What alternative dishes can you suggest for 'Generic Wizard Night'?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2009/oct/26/harry-potter-halloween-warner-lawyers

Muggle lawyers ban Harry Potter feast; Guardian, 10/25/09

Anushka Asthana, Guardian; Muggle lawyers ban Harry Potter feast:

"Warner Bros has banned a woman who runs a restaurant at her home in west London from hosting a Harry Potter Night to celebrate Hallowe'en.

The owner of The Underground Restaurant, who uses the pseudonym Ms Marmite Lover, regularly holds themed evenings and for her latest event she had planned a menu of food and drink enjoyed by Harry Potter and his friends in the JK Rowling stories: from dandelion wine and pumpkin soup to Dumbledore's favourite sweets, such as mint humbugs. Guests were to be taken down Diagon Alley (the side of the house) before entering and would be met by a portrait of the "Fat Lady" to whom they would have to give a password.

However, Warner Bros has written to her warning that it owns all things Harry Potter: the "name, stylised logo, the name of the characters, themes, incidents and other associated indicia from the series of... books and films".

The letter from the company's legal and business department says: "Dear Ms Marmite Lover. While we are delighted you are such a fan of the Harry Potter series, unfortunately your proposed use of the Harry Potter properties... without our consent would amount to an infringement of Warner's rights."

Ms Marmite Lover has now renamed the event, as Warner Bros suggested, "Generic Wizard Night".

The Underground restaurant is one of the first of a new trend of "pop-up restaurants" – dining experiences operated out of people's homes and advertised via Facebook and word-of-mouth. However, the publicity it has generated also brought it to the attention of Warner Bros.

Ms Marmite said: "I understand that you need to protect the rights but this is two dinners, one-offs, from which I am not making a profit, inspired by the books and the mentions of food in them. My daughter is a huge fan, even an obsessive."

Feeling the corporate might of Warner Bros is quite a surprise for the new chef. When she hosted a Marmite night at The Underground Restaurant, with the spread included in every dish, the company was more than a little pleased. Instead of warning her about its copyright position, it made sure she was stocked up with plenty of marmite – and all for free."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/oct/25/harry-potter-lawyers-ban-restaurant

Superman Creator's Heirs Win Rights to Early Stories; Am Law Litigation Daily, 8/14/09

Ross Todd via Am Law Litigation Daily; Superman Creator's Heirs Win Rights to Early Stories:

"A federal district court judge in Riverside, Calif., ruled Wednesday that the heirs of Superman cocreator Jerry Siegel are co-owners of copyrights to the first two weeks of Superman daily newspaper strips and other early Superman material. The ruling is the latest in an ongoing dispute between the heirs and DC Comics and Warner Brothers.

Judge Stephen Larson's decision allows the Siegels to recapture stories of Superman's origins on planet Krypton, his launch as a baby into space, and his crash-landing on Earth. Warner Brothers and DC still own copyrights to other elements of the Superman character, including his ability to fly, some other superpowers, the term "kryptonite," and the villain Lex Luthor. Here's a copy of Larson's 92-page decision."

http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/digestTAL.jsp?id=1202433059625

Should There Be A Penalty For Falsely Claiming Copyright Over Public Domain Material?; TechDirt, 6/26/09

Mike Masnick via TechDirt; Should There Be A Penalty For Falsely Claiming Copyright Over Public Domain Material?:

"Slashdot and The Register point us to a new paper by Jason Mazzone about "copyfraud" -- or the ability of someone to claim copyright on something that is in the public domain. The issue, Mazzone points out, is that there's no penalty for falsely claiming copyright on something, so there's plenty of incentive to claim something is still covered even if it's not."

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090626/1421065375.shtml

Judge Says Fox Owns Rights to a Warner Movie, New York Times, 12/25/08

Via New York Times: Judge Says Fox Owns Rights to a Warner Movie:

“Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the ‘Watchmen’ motion picture,” the ruling said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/25/business/media/25fox.html

Hari Puttar and the case of the film that sounded too familiar - Scotland on Sunday, 9/14/08

Hari Puttar and the case of the film that sounded too familiar:
"The release of Hari Puttar, a children's Bollywood film, has been postponed after Warner Bros complained its name was too similar to Harry Potter.
The Hollywood company filed a lawsuit against Bollywood film-makers Mirchi Movies because the name of the film was "confusing" and could infringe their copyright...
The lawsuit is the latest in a string of legal battles to protect the intellectual property rights of Scottish author JK Rowling's hugely successful creation."
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/entertainment/Hari-Puttar-and-the-case.4489918.jp