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…]

Copyright Registration Alert: Copyright Office Extends Interim Rule for Expedited Registration

The Copy­right Office has extended its interim rule allow­ing (in lim­ited cir­cum­stances) free con­ver­sion of a reg­u­lar appli­ca­tion to the expe­dited “spe­cial han­dling” track if the reg­u­lar appli­ca­tion has been pend­ing with­out Copy­right Office action for over six months.

The Copy­right Office’s tran­si­tion from an anti­quated and byzan­tine “paper” pro­cess­ing sys­tem to a stream­lined elec­tronic sys­tem has been, well, inter­est­ing.…  One unin­tended con­se­quence has been a back­log, par­tic­u­larly with respect to appli­cants who for what­ever rea­son choose to still use the old paper appli­ca­tion process.  In recog­ni­tion of this issue, the Copy­right Office issued an interim rule in 2009, allow­ing appli­cants caught in that back­log for over six months to con­vert a reg­u­lar appli­ca­tion to spe­cial han­dling sta­tus (mean­ing that the appli­ca­tion will typ­i­cally be acted upon within one week) with a waiver of the spe­cial han­dling fee.  Although spe­cial hand­ing (if you choose it and pay the fee) is avail­able upon a show­ing of com­pelling need due to (1) pend­ing or prospec­tive lit­i­ga­tion; (2) cus­toms mat­ters; or (3) con­trac­tual or pub­lish­ing dead­lines, an appli­cant may only take advan­tage of the fee waiver upon show­ing that the appli­cant is about to file suit for copy­right infringement.

This interim rule was set to expire on July 1, 2011, but the Office has now extended it for another year until July 1, 2012.

Here is the Fed­eral Reg­is­ter notice: