Zynga's The Ville Accused of "Blatant Mimicry" by Sims Social Creators

Electronic Arts ("EA") today announced that it filed a lawsuit on behalf of its Maxis Label against Zynga for infringing EA's copyrights to its Facebook game, The Sims Social.

In the Complaint, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California today, EA claims that in Zynga's recently-released Facebook game The Ville, Zynga willfully and intentionally "copied and misappropriated the original and distinctive expressive elements of The Sims Social in a violation of U.S. copyright laws."

The Sims Social, launched in August 2011, brought the distinctive universe of EA's world-renowned franchise, The Sims, to the social gaming audience on Facebook.  An instant hit, The Sims Social rapidly gained tens of millions of users, and maintains a current user base of several million active players on Facebook.

Lucy Bradshaw, General Manager of EA's Maxis Label, commented on the lawsuit in a statement posted to EA's website, www.ea.com:

"As outlined in our complaint, when The Ville was introduced in June 2012, the infringement of The Sims Social was unmistakable to those of us at Maxis as well as to players and the industry at large. The similarities go well beyond any superficial resemblance. Zynga's design choices, animations, visual arrangements and character motions and actions have been directly lifted from The Sims Social. The copying was so comprehensive that the two games are, to an uninitiated observer, largely indistinguishable. Scores of media and bloggers commented on the blatant mimicry.

"This is a case of principle. Maxis isn't the first studio to claim that Zynga copied its creative product. But we are the studio that has the financial and corporate resources to stand up and do something about it. Infringing a developer's copyright is not an acceptable practice in game development. By calling Zynga out on this illegal practice, we hope to have a secondary effect of protecting the rights of other creative studios who don't have the resources to protect themselves.

"Today, we hope to be taking a stand that helps the industry protect the value of original creative works and those that work tirelessly to create them."

Harley-Davidson Loses Bid to Dismiss Artist's Case Based on Long Delay

Harley-Davidson has lost an early bid to dismiss a Complaint filed against it by a freelance artist who claims the motorcycle maker used his logos outside of the scope of a license.

Wayne Wm. Peterson, a freelance commercial artist, had produced numerous well-known logos for the Harley-Davidson companies between the mid-1970's and the mid-2000's. 

The famous "LIVE TO RIDE, RIDE TO LIVE" eagle was one of Peterson's creations.

The decision explained that the Court could not rule that Peterson's delay, while admittedly long, constituted an unreasonably long delay barring all relief, on its face.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), whenever a Defendant moves to dismiss a Complaint for failure to even state a claim, all the facts specifically plead in the Complaint are assumed to be true, and all reasonable inferences in the Complaint are construed in the Plaintiff's favor.

Harley-Davidson had argued that, even viewed in this favorable light, the Plaintiff's long delay in bringing suit constituted a disabling estoppel by laches, and violated a statute of limitations that should be applied to his copyright claims for conduct occurring before 2009.

However, the District Court stated that any dismissal would not be warranted solely on the basis of the Complaint alone, in the absence of the parties conducting discovery, because laches is an affirmative defense that Harley-Davidson bears the burden of proving.

Harley-Davidson is now free to develop a full record through discovery to establish the proposition that the Plaintiff's long delay was indeed inexcusable and caused it prejudice.

Why Don't Presidential Candidates Seem to Respect Intellectual Property?

Gage Skidmore / Wikimedia Commons

It seems like many candidates for President of the United States just don't seem to understand how to avoid being accused of copyright infringement.  Here are a few cases in point:

Presumptive Republican candidate Mitt Romney recently launched a YouTube campaign advertisement depicting President Obama, and using the song "Happy Together," without authorization from the songwriter.  The ad is pulled by YouTube as an alleged copyright infringement.  


Earlier in the race, Newt Gingrich used Survivor's "Eye of the Tiger" without permission and was sued for copyright infringement.  In 2010, Rand Paul received a cease and desist letter from Canadian rock band Rush's lawyers for similar behavior with respect to their songs.  And Senator John McCain was sued by Jackson Browne for using the song "Running on Empty" in his 2008 campaign.

Daniel Schwen / GNU Free Documentation License 

But artists aren't only targeting Republicans.  In 2008, President Obama's campaign received a cease and desist letter from duo Sam and Dave about the song "Hold On, I'm Coming."


NPR correctly points out that a blanket license from ASCAP/BMI/SESAC for the particular venue that the candidate is using may already license the song for the copyright royalties covering public performance.


However, not to be outsmarted, the artists have alleged a less clearly-defined trademark infringement theory.  They cleverly contend that the unauthorized use of their music falsely suggests endorsement, sponsorship or approval by the musician.


In any event, what the trend signifies is not so much that the Presidential candidates are a bunch of copyright thieves as it demonstrates that the legal lines between commerce, the First Amendment, politics and copyright/brand protection can be quite murky, as we have previously noted.

Off-Broadway Show Accused of Infringing Three's Company Copyrights

Public Domain / Wikimedia Commons

Playwright David Adjmi's off-Broadway play “3C” has been accused of being nothing more than blatant copyright infringement by DLT Entertainment, the company that owns the copyright to the popular 1970's television series.

According to a report in the New York Times, Adjmi received a detailed cease-and-desist letter from DLT Entertainment's lawyers, accusing him of copyright infringement, and listing numerous points of similarity between the play and the sitcom.  A stage adaptation of "Three's Company" is apparently in the works and DLT alleges that Adjmi's play was damaging to it.

According to the New York Times, Donald Taffner Jr., president of DLT Entertainment, said the company was “very protective of the overall brand” because the show continued to earn substantial revenues from syndication on TV Land and on home video.

3C used a scenario similar to that of "Three's Company," but explored darker implications of American culture in that period.  The now-closed production ran June 6-July 14 at the Rattlestick Playwrights Theater.

A representative for the Dramatists Guild was quoted in Playbill.com as saying: "the right of authors to make fair comment on pre-existing work (whether through parody or other forms of fair use) is a First Amendment safety valve in the copyright law, and one we wholeheartedly support, as do the courts. If the author contacts us, we will discuss the issue with him and see how we can help."

Adjmi's plight apparently caught the attention of those within the New York theater community, who cited the actions of DLT Entertainment as bullying (a common thread), stating that they believe that Adjmi's play clearly fell under the umbrella of parody — which is protected by the First Amendment.

Other playwrights have explored similar territory, including Bert V. Royal's Dog Sees God, which centers on the teen years of the Peanuts gang.

Tony Award-nominated playwright Jon Robin Baitz penned an open letter explaining why it was important that members of the New York theater community rally behind Adjmi's work and First Amendment rights, calling 3C "clearly and patently and unremittingly parody."

Playbill notes that Rattlestick's marketing materials never drew any direct links to 3C and "Three's Company," describing the play as being "inspired by 1970's sitcoms, 1950's existentialist comedy, Chekhov, and disco anthems," adding that it was a "terrifying yet amusing look at a culture that likes to amuse itself, even as it teeters on the brink of ruin."

"I am not a lawyer, but David may need one, and I am currently investigating the willingness of a respected First Amendment firm to take this case on pro-bono," Baitz stated in his open letter.

"That an Off-Broadway playwright should be bullied by a Wall Street law firm over a long-gone TV show, is, in and of itself, worthy of parody, but in fact, this should be taken seriously enough to merit raising our voices in support of Adjmi and his play, which Kenyon & Kenyon is insisting be placed in a drawer and never published or performed again.  Whether one appreciates the work or not is immaterial; the principle at stake here is a basic one. Specious and spurious legal bullying of artists should be vigorously opposed, and that opposition must begin first and foremost with all of us in the New York Theatre community."

Among the notable individuals to add their names in support were Stephen Sondheim, Tony Kushner, Andre Bishop, Joe Mantello, Terrence McNally, Kenneth Lonergan, John Guare, Terry Kinney, Stephen Adley Guirgis and John Patrick Shanley.

Kate Spade on Receiving End of Infringement Complaint

The estate of the late artist Vera Neumann has filed a federal copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of New York against designer Kate Spade. According to the complaint, the estate owns the copyright to a design entitled “Poppy Field" created by Neumann in 1978. The complaint claims that Kate Spade admitted that she had been inspired by Neumann's designs: "Kate Spade has indicated, at least several years ago, that among the items and products that have inspired her designs are the silk-screened scarves of Vera," which Spade referred to in her book “Style by Kate Spade.”  

The estate is seeking "an amount not as yet known, but believed to be in excess of one million dollars plus interest" in damages. This amount purportedly represents "all gains, profits and advantages derived by Spade's use of the infringement of Neumann's copyright."

Neumann's "Poppy Field"

Kate Spade's alleged infringement