Opening Pandora's Box: Supreme Court Allows Archaic Copyright Infringement Cases to Proceed

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court opened Pandora's Box.

The decision that the Supreme Court may come to regret involved a copyright infringement lawsuit surrounding the script to the movie Raging Bull, which was released in 1980.  In the film, Oscar-award winning actor Robert DeNiro played boxer Jake LaMotta.  

An heir to the co-author of a 1963 screenplay about the life of the boxer apparently waited until 2009 to file a copyright lawsuit, claiming that the 1980 movie had copied portions of her father's screenplay without authorization.

The District Court in Los Angeles and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals applied the equitable doctrine of "estoppel by laches," borrowing the 3-year statute of limitations in the U.S. Copyright Act.  Those Courts both found that the writer's heir had deliberately waited to file suit, prejudicing MGM which had released the film thirty-four years ago.

However, on Monday, in an unusual 6-3 split not along ideological lines, Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority, finding that the significant delay will not bar the heir from seeking damages or an injunction on a rolling basis, going forward.

The majority reasoned that each time a new Raging Bull DVD is printed and sold, there is a new independent act of copyright infringement potentially violating the heir's copyrights. Every new DVD that is printed, every time the film is broadcast on television or the film is re-mastered or re-released, is effectively a new act of infringement subject to the 3-year window going forward, not backward.

The end result is that copyright disputes that originated thirty or forty years ago -- or even in the more distant past -- can be resurrected and instituted now.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts dissented, holding that the precedent would upset settled doctrine, and open up years of litigation over old wounds.

70-year old Jimmy Page, Robert Plant and others in Led Zeppelin presumably agree with the dissent's point of view.

In 1971, Zeppelin released the now iconic "Stairway to Heaven."  According to some estimates, the song has earned at least $562 million since its release, a number poised to rise higher since Zeppelin is set to release new versions of its albums this summer.

Relying on Monday's Raging Bull decision from the U.S. Supreme Court, Time magazine reports that a new copyright infringement lawsuit has now been filed by representatives of the band Spirit, which released an instrumental song "Taurus" in 1968.  According to the newly-filed lawsuit, Zeppelin opened for Spirit in the late 1960's, and was inspired to write the now famous guitar introduction to Stairway.

Direct evidence of copying may nonetheless be difficult to gather.  Spirit's lead guitarist Randy California died in 1997 and documents showing copying, if any, were presumably lost to the mists of time.

Isn't it Time for the U.S. Supreme Court to Broadcast Oral Arguments?

It is 2014, and much of the planet is becoming technologically accessible online.

With respect to the U.S. federal government's daily operations, the Library of Congress' card catalog is available online, Congress' floor debates and Committee hearings are broadcast 24/7/365 on C-SPAN and online, the White House has an active website and even Pope Francis has a fully interactive website and Twitter account.

Yet, one branch of the U.S. federal government has crept more slowly into the 21st Century than others.

After 200 years of regular sessions, the routine oral arguments of attorneys before the United States Supreme Court remain a cloistered, closed-door affair, for the most part.

Audio recordings of all oral arguments heard by the Supreme Court are available to the public at the end of each argument week and are posted online.

However, all other recording devices are strictly forbidden by Court rules.  This issue made headlines recently, when a rare event occurred--a public protest inside the U.S. Supreme Court, recorded by a visitor armed with a hidden camera phone.

The unruly visitor who demonstrated was arrested, but the individual who recorded the session surreptitiously cannot be prosecuted, as the Court's rules do not carry the force of law.

Indeed, if put to a vote before Congress, it is not clear that the Court's preference for such closed door access would be affirmed by both Houses, or signed by the President.

Indeed, fourteen trial courts have been selected for a "pilot study" to evaluate the merits of television cameras in courtrooms, and some of the more technologically-savvy Courts of Appeal (such as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California) broadcasts their oral arguments online the day after they are held.

The Coalition for Court Transparency is a group of public interest and media organizations demanding open access to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Their compelling argument is that the Supreme Court's decisions affect the lives of Americans everywhere, and that a large majority of the citizenry believe the oral arguments should be televised.  (Their video clip is embedded below).



Perhaps it is time for the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider its rules and put the matter to a Congressional vote.

Toy Company Sues Beastie Boys, Claiming Parody Protects Its Viral Ad

Screenshot from GoldieBlox's website

A progressively-themed company that makes and sells toys that will supposedly help young girls overcome gender stereotypes has become embroiled in a high-profile copyright litigation with the Beastie Boys.  Toy company GoldieBlox says on its website: 

"In a world where men largely outnumber women in science, technology, engineering and math...and girls lose interest in these subjects as early as age 8, GoldieBlox is determined to change the equation.  Construction toys develop an early interest in these subjects, but for over a hundred years, they've been considered "boys' toys".  By designing a construction toy from the female perspective, we aim to disrupt the pink aisle and inspire the future generation of female engineers."

In its recent viral video commercial touting the ingenuity of young girls who build an elaborate contraption that can change the television channel, GoldieBlox intentionally utilized the music and parodied the lyrics from the Beastie Boys' song Girls.

The Beastie Boys were apparently not pleased with GoldieBlox's unauthorized use and sent a cease and desist letter, alleging copyright infringement and demanding that GoldieBlox end its campaign.

Rather than complying with the demands, GoldieBlox countered by filing a Declaratory Judgment Complaint against the Beastie Boys in Los Angeles federal district court, asserting that its usage was parody and fully protected by the First Amendment.

Given the Beastie Boys' recent unhappy experience with copyright litigation, one suspects that GoldieBlox's executives were well aware that this dispute would erupt, and intentionally developed a strategy inducing litigation to fuel its viral campaign to garner "free" publicity.  Whether the gambit works or not is yet to be seen.

Legally, the controlling analysis here is the Supreme Court's decision in 1994 in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., interpreting the "fair use" defense to musical parodies used in a commercial context.

In that case, the members of the rap music group 2 Live Crew had created a parody of Roy Orbison's iconic "Pretty Woman," called "Big Hairy Woman."  Roy Orbison's estate sued the rap group, alleging that the group's use was not fair or protected free speech, but was an unprotected commercial use.

After years of litigation, the Supreme Court ultimately held that 2 Live Crew's commercial parody may very well be a fair use within the meaning of § 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act, which states:

"In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—




(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;


(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;


(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

On appeal, the Supreme Court found the aforementioned four factors must each be applied to every situation on a case by case basis, and that the fact that the parody was used in a commercial context alone was not dispositive.

When looking at the purpose and character of 2 Live Crew's use, the Supreme Court found that the more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of the other three factors.  The court found that, in any event, a work's commercial nature is only one element of the first factor enquiry into its purpose and character.

Justice Souter, writing for the majority of the Court, then moved onto the second § 107 factor, "the nature of the copyrighted work", finding it has little merit in resolving this and other parody cases, since the artistic value of parodies is often found in their ability to invariably copy popular works of the past.

The Court found the third factor integral to the analysis, finding that the Ninth Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals had erred in holding that, as a matter of law, 2 Live Crew copied "excessively" from the Orbison original.

Justice Souter reasoned that the "amount and substantiality" of the portion used by 2 Live Crew was reasonable in relation to the band's purpose in creating a parody of "Pretty Woman".

The majority reasoned "even if 2 Live Crew's copying of the original's first line of lyrics and characteristic opening bass riff may be said to go to the original's 'heart,' that heart is what most readily conjures up the song for parody, and it is the heart at which parody takes aim." 

The Supreme Court then looked to the new work as a whole, finding that 2 Live Crew thereafter departed markedly from the Orbison lyrics, producing otherwise distinctive music.

Looking at the final factor, the Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in finding a presumption or inference of market harm.

Parodies in general, the Court said, will rarely substitute for the original work, since the two works serve different market functions.

While Acuff-Rose found evidence of a potential "derivative" rap market in the very fact that 2 Live Crew recorded a rap parody of "Oh, Pretty Woman" and another rap group sought a license to record a rap derivative, the Supreme Court found no evidence that a potential rap market was harmed in any way by 2 Live Crew's parodic rap version.

In fact, the Supreme Court found that it was unlikely that any artist would find parody a lucrative derivative market, noting that artists "ask for criticism, but only want praise."

Applying this same analysis in the newly-filed Beastie Boys case, the courts will need to evaluate each of these same factors to determine if Goldiblox's usage was appropriate or improper.

In the meantime, the GoldieBlox commercial has gone viral, and received nearly 8 million views.

Texas Roadhouse Sues to Protect Its Restaurants' Country Western Style

Can the style of a country western restaurant function as a valid trademark?

Texas Roadhouse believes that it can -- and does, and has sued to block other rustic-themed restaurants with similar country western motifs and names located in Indiana, Illinois and Michigan.

Texas Roadhouse is an American chain restaurant headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky, that specializes in steaks and barbecue fare, and promotes a rustic country western theme.  The chain operates over 300 locations in nearly every state.  The restaurants are known for their rough and ready look, with steel buckets of peanuts on every table.

The company is now demanding that a federal court order competing restaurant chains Texas Corral and Amarillo Roadhouse to cease their uses of confusingly similar names and themes, claiming that consumer confusion is likely.




According to the lawsuit filed in the Western District of Michigan, Texas Corral operates a Western-themed, casual, family restaurant that is "markedly similar in appearance to the Texas Roadhouse concept."




In an interview with the press, the senior director of public relations for Texas Roadhouse claimed that instances of actual confusion have occurred, with "even delivery drivers going to the wrong location on occasion."

Texas Roadhouse is claiming exclusive ownership of "the overall appearance" of its restaurants, including wooden booths and tables with light brown stain and green bench seat cushions, dish shaped, green metal light fixtures hung over individual tables, galvanized metal pails filled with free peanuts on the tables, and upbeat country music playing over speakers.

Texas Roadhouse's argument is not unprecedented.  Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has unequivocally held that federal trademark law can protect the theme of a restaurant.

Taco Cabana operated a chain of fast food restaurants in Texas which served Mexican food. Taco Cabana described its Mexican-themed trade dress as "a festive eating atmosphere having interior dining and patio areas decorated with artifacts, bright colors, paintings and murals. The patio includes interior and exterior areas with the interior patio capable of being sealed off from the outside patio by overhead garage doors. The stepped exterior of the building is a festive and vivid color scheme using top border paint and neon stripes. Bright awnings and umbrellas continue the theme."

Subsequently, a Two Pesos restaurant opened in Houston.  Two Pesos adopted a motif very similar to Taco Cabana's trade dress.  Two Pesos' restaurants expanded rapidly in Houston and other markets, but did not enter San Antonio.  In 1986, Taco Cabana entered the Houston and Austin markets and expanded into other Texas cities, including Dallas and El Paso where Two Pesos was also doing business.

A Texas jury found that Taco Cabana owned a distinctive concept as a form of "trade dress," that taken as a whole, was non-functional, and that there was a significant likelihood of consumer confusion between the two restaurants based on Two Pesos' intentional copying of the distinctive Mexican motif.

In 1992, a unanimous Supreme Court affirmed the lower's court's finding that the restaurant concept was indeed distinctive, and upheld the jury's finding of intentional infringement.

Texas Roadhouse is no stranger to litigation over its "style."

In recent years, it faced EEOC charges that hiring managers at the company allegedly told jobseekers ages 40 and older that “we need the young, hot ones who are ‘chipper’ and stuff” and that they were “basically looking for young teenagers.” 

The company has also been sued for underpaying its waitstaff, allegations which it reportedly settled by paying millions.

Additionally, the company has also faced litigation when one of its customers claimed to have slipped on peanut shells and suffered injuries, and been sued by one of its customers who allegedly found hair in their steaks.