Law Commons^™

The Proof Is In The Data: How Ethereum And Efficient Audits Can Reduce Litigation In The Streaming Era, Keri Ogden

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

No abstract provided.

Revisiting The License V. Sale Conundrum, Nancy S. Kim

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

This Article seeks to answer a question that has become increasingly more important as commerce moves from the tangible to the intangible—to what extent may a business use a contract to control the use of a fully paid product? The characterization of a transaction as a license or a sale determines what may be done with a product, who controls how the product may be used, and what happens in the event of a dispute. The past generation has seen a seismic shift in the way businesses distribute their products to consumers. Businesses often “license” rather than “sell” their products, …

The Copyright Act’S Mandatory-Deposit Requirement: Unnecessary And Unconstitutional, Drew Thornley

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

Many people are unaware of a federal copyright statute that requires owners of material published in the United States to furnish the federal government with two copies of each item published. Section 407(a) of the Copyright Act of 1976 (17 U.S.C. § 407) states that “the owner of copyright or of the exclusive right of publication in a work published in the United States shall deposit, within three months after the date of such publication—(1) two complete copies of the best edition; or (2) if the work is a sound recording, two complete phonorecords of the best edition, together with …

Blurred Justice, Allen Madison, Paul Lombardi Ph.D

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

This article discusses a recent controversial copyright case involving inspiration. Marvin Gaye’s family, who owns the copyright to “Got to Give It Up,” claimed that “Blurred Lines,” made famous by Robin Thicke, infringes on the family’s copyright. The Gaye family prevailed at trial. At summary judgment, the Federal District Court permitted the case to go to trial without determining whether there were elements to “Got to Give It Up” that were unprotected as unoriginal, commonplace musical ideas, or musical building blocks. Had the court made such a determination, it is doubtful the case would have gone to trial. The summary …

Revoking The "Get Out Of Jail Free Card": How Mavrix Photographs, Llc V. Livejournal, Inc. Could Revolutionize User-Generated Safe Harbor Protections Under § 512(C) Of The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Caitlin Oswald

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Sui Generis System Of Protection For Exceptionally Original Fashion Designs

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

Despite the robust nature of the fashion industry, which has been largely unprotected by copyright, there is a clamor among certain sectors for stronger protection for fashion designs and the apparel manufactured from these designs. This article acknowledges that full-dress copyright protection is unnecessary, impracticable, and harmful; however, it proposes a middle-ground: a sui generis system of protection that only protects fashion designs and pieces of apparel that are exceptionally original, and does so only against other articles that are substantially identical.

This article provides a standard (“exceptionally original”) that will protect a fashion design only if it meets certain …

"If That's The Way It Must Be, Okay": Campbell V. Acuff-Rose On Rewind

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

The 1994 Supreme Court case Campbell v. Acuff-Rose established broad protections for parody in U.S. copyright law. While the case is well known, the facts behind the case are not. None of the three courts that heard the case were told that the alleged parody by 2 Live Crew appeared only on a “sanitized” version of the group’s controversial album. Thus the work had a heightened commercial purpose: filling up a meager album so that album could serve as a market stopgap for its controversial cousin. Although commercial purpose is a key factor in the fair use calculus, no court …

With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: Gary Friedrich's Battle With Marvel For Artist Rights, Alexander L. Simon

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

Recently, in Gary Friedrich Enterprises v. Marvel Characters, Inc., Gary Friedrich (“Friedrich”) sued Marvel Characters, Inc. (“Marvel”) for infringement on his copyright of the “Ghost Rider” comic book character. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Marvel stating that Friedrich had assigned any rights he had to Ghost Rider to Marvel in a work-for-hire agreement six years after the initial publication. Friedrich appealed this action in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the Second Circuit remanded the case to the District Court for issues of fact, including the ambiguous terms of the work for-hire agreement, renewal rights …

Copyright's Vicious Triangle: Returning Author Protections To Their Rational Roots, Robert Shepard

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

Copyright protections encourage the production of intellectual property by temporarily restricting free public access, a constitutional design that Justice Stephen Breyer has called a “two-edged sword.” Yet, the Copyright Clause really enshrines a triangular relationship among authors, consumers, and commodifiers, a third constituency that has always interposed itself between author-creators and consumer end-users. Though the Copyright Triangle is nothing new, a fundamental reordering of these constituencies is in progress, with digital commodifiers such as Google assuming a dominant role. Though they sometimes proclaim themselves champions of free public access to culture, these commodifiers have instead aggrandized themselves at the expense …

Abracadabra! - Why Copyright Protection For Magic Is Not Just An Illusion, Janna Brancolini

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

In early 2012, a Dutch magician did something unthinkable within the secretive and tight-knit magic community: he posted a YouTube video of himself performing a fellow magician’s illusion, and offered to reveal the secret to his viewers for a $3,050 fee. The illusion, however, was not just any old trick; it was the signature move of Raymond Teller, one half of the famous magic duo “Penn & Teller.” In April 2012, Teller took the unusual step of filing a lawsuit in federal court, alleging copyright infringement and unfair competition, to protect the secret behind his illusion. It is not clear, …

Attack Of The Clones: Copyright Protection For Video Game Developers, Brian Casillas

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

This comment focuses on the case Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc. and uses it to explore how video game developers’ original innovations are protected under copyright law so as to fully restrict those wishing to “clone” these innovations for their own financial gain. The comment begins by outlining relevant copyright concepts and statutes, using case examples, and detailing the analytical framework courts use to evaluate claims asserted under copyright law. It then discusses the accommodations by both the video game industry as well as online marketplaces in order to protect original content from being cloned. After evaluating these …

Batches Of Mismatches Regarding Laches: A Copyright-Focused Analysis Of Laches When The Statute Of Limitations Has Not Yet Run, Scott M. Salomon

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

This comment analyzes the Circuit split regarding whether laches can bar copyright infringement claims prior to the statute of limitations running and offers a recommendation for a resolution when the United States Supreme Court rules in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. The comment is split into five sections. First, it provides background information, including historical and general information on copyright, laches, the statute of limitations, and the difference between equitable and legal remedies. Next, the comment analyzes cases from each Circuit to understand where they lie on the spectrum of the Circuit split, ranging from complete prohibition of laches to allowing …

Adapt Or Die: Aereo, Ivi, And The Right Of Control In An Evolving Digital Age, Johanna R. Alves-Parks

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

The advent of the Internet has had a great effect on the production, distribution, and consumption of television programming. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to ABC, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. and will now review the issue of unlicensed digital distribution of copyrighted programming in its Spring 2014 term. This Comment will first briefly examine the origins and interconnection between television and digital media, culminating in a discussion of the repercussions of allowing unlicensed over-the-top retransmissions of network broadcast programming to continue to stream over the Internet. It will then examine the decisions in WPIX v. IVI, Inc., ABC, Inc. v. …