Are “Digital Actors” Protected By Copyright?

A com­pany called Digi­con Media, LLC has issued a press release, claim­ing that it has obtained a copy­right reg­is­tra­tion for the “dig­i­tal per­sona” of a “vir­tual Mar­i­lyn Mon­roe.”  Digi­con appears to be claim­ing that the reg­is­tra­tion broadly cov­ers the exclu­sive right to a dig­i­tal rep­re­sen­ta­tion of Mar­i­lyn Monroe’s per­sona or performance.

It seems to me that Digi­con is grossly over­stat­ing its rights (at least its rights under copy­right law).  Last time I checked, nei­ther “dig­i­tal actors” nor “dig­i­tal per­sonas” were classes of works pro­tected by copy­right.  Indeed, the reg­is­tra­tion cited by Digi­con is a VA reg­is­tra­tion, mak­ing it likely that the reg­is­tra­tion cov­ers a par­tic­u­lar dig­i­tal ani­ma­tion as an audio­vi­sual work.  If so, the reg­is­tered copy­right (as opposed to any poten­tial right of pub­lic­ity issues) would not pre­vent oth­ers from cre­at­ing their own dig­i­tal ani­ma­tion fea­tur­ing a vir­tual Mar­i­lyn Mon­roe, so long as the sec­ond ani­ma­tion was not sub­stan­tially sim­i­lar to Digicon’s ani­ma­tion (i.e., dif­fer­ent cloth­ing, move­ment, dia­logue, etc.).

There are some other inter­est­ing points about the reg­is­tra­tion.  First, the reg­is­tra­tion claimant is not Digi­con, but rather is an indi­vid­ual by the name of Peter F. Paul.  Mr. Paul is an inter­est­ing char­ac­ter in his own right, with a col­or­ful per­sonal back­ground that includes jail time and sev­eral unsuc­cess­ful bids to wrest the rights to sev­eral Mar­vel Comics char­ac­ters away from Mar­vel and Stan Lee.  Also of inter­est, the reg­is­tra­tion record notes that Copy­right Office cor­re­spon­dence is part of the record.  I would imag­ine that the issues raised in that cor­re­spon­dence are very inter­est­ing, indeed!

Version Control Blues: Failure to Keep Copy of Registered Version of Source Code Dooms Copyright Infringement Claim

HTML Code
Creative Commons License photo credit: Sebas­t­ian Fuss
A recent First Cir­cuit deci­sion high­lights the impor­tance of keep­ing records of revi­sions to com­puter soft­ware in copy­right infringe­ment cases.  The court affirmed sum­mary judg­ment against the plain­tiff because the source code it used to prove infringe­ment was from a later ver­sion of the soft­ware than the one reg­is­tered.  The court rea­soned that with­out com­par­i­son to the source code of the ver­sion actu­ally reg­is­tered, the plain­tiff could not prove that the copied code came from the reg­is­tered ver­sion. [Read more…]

District Court Applies Irrebutable Presumption Of Ownership From False Authorship Claim On Registration

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In what can only be described as a stun­ning case of con­fu­sion between the Sec­tion 410 evi­den­tiary pre­sump­tion afforded cer­tain copy­right reg­is­tra­tions and a fraud on the Copy­right Office chal­lenge to the under­ly­ing valid­ity of a copy­right reg­is­tra­tion, a court in the Cen­tral Dis­trict of Cal­i­for­nia refused to even con­sider a defendant’s chal­lenge to the plaintiff’s copy­right own­er­ship merely because the plain­tiff had obtained a reg­is­tra­tion falsely list­ing itself as the author of a fab­ric design.

[Read more…]

Recording Artists Set To Recapture Rights To Classic Albums

The upcom­ing war between record­ing artists and their slave­mas­ters, er, I mean record labels, con­cern­ing ter­mi­na­tion of copy­right trans­fers and the related work made for hire issue is a topic near and dear to my heart.  [Read more…]

Seventh Circuit: Modifications to Architectural Plan Made at Direction of Commissioning Party Held Not Sufficiently Original to Engender Copyright Protection

holidayinn05
Creative Commons License photo credit: John­nie Utah

On July 26, 2011, the Sev­enth Cir­cuit affirmed the dis­missal on sum­mary judg­ment of an archi­tec­tural copy­right infringe­ment claim in Nova Design Build, Inc. v. Grace Hotels, LLC.  The plain­tiff archi­tec­tural design firm sued a for­mer client, alleg­ing that the owner of a Hol­i­day Inn Express loca­tion infringed the plaintiff’s “design copy­right” (what­ever that is) by build­ing the hotel based upon the plaintiff’s plans after fail­ing to pay all of the money allegedly due for those plans.

The dis­trict court had dis­missed the case on the ground that the iden­ti­fy­ing mate­ri­als sub­mit­ted with the plaintiff’s copy­right appli­ca­tion were not “bona fide” copies and there­fore the reg­is­tra­tion was invalid.  The court found that the orig­i­nal plans had been bur­gled from its offices (!) and there­fore it had to re-construct the plans from mem­ory.  The dis­trict court held that this fact was suf­fi­cient to inval­i­date the reg­is­tra­tion, fore­clos­ing any relief for copy­right infringe­ment. [Read more…]