Intellectual Property

            Intellectual property and how to protect that property is a concern in the entertainment business. The following are three examples from the Hollywood Reporter of current lawsuits that have been filed, and my opinion as to what the outcome might be.

Justin Bieber has been sued by RC3, a company that created the Joustin’ Beaver mobile app game. RC3 claims that the use of the name Joustin’ Beaver is in their First Amendment rights. (Gardner, 2012) In addition to using the name Joustin’ Beaver is also a parody of Justin Bieber. The game uses characteristics associated with Justin Bieber such as: his hairstyle, purple sweater, and attention from photographers and fans. (Gardner, 2012)

To me this is a tough case. I want to agree with Justin Bieber and his representatives because Joustin’ Beaver was created to make money off of Justin Bieber’s fan base. This game is diluting Bieber’s trademark by allowing others to associate Bieber with the Joustin’ Beaver game. However, I believe that Joustin’ Beaver is a parody because it is commenting on how crazy Bieber’s life is. The question is which criteria in most important in determining if this is trademark infringement. I believe Justin Bieber will win this case because the dilution of his trademark affects his livelihood.

The next article is about an artist, Maya Hayuk, who is suing RCA Records and Sony Music over her work being shown in Elle Varner’s music video “I Only Wanna Give It To You.” (Gardner, 2012) Hayuk created the piece of art for Rye Rye and M.I.A. for their music video “Sunshine.” (Gardner, 2012)

I believe that Hayuk does have a case here for copyright infringement, and she should win. She did not give permission to RCA and Sony to use her art in the music video. RCA and Sony are in fact using her work commercially by making money off of the video stream revenue. Hayuk deserves credit and compensation for her contribution to the music video.

This last article is about a lawsuit between The Velvet Underground and the Andy Warhol Foundation. The issue is whether or not the banana album case was in the public domain and if Andy Warhol had the right to license it. (Gardner, 2012)

This is an interesting case because the album was released in 1967 before the copyright law was amended in 1978. (Gardner, 2012) If the album cover was in the public domain why would Andy Warhol have to have a license for the copyright? Both The Velvet Underground and the Andy Warhol Foundation claim that the copyright has acquired a secondary meaning associated with each party. Furthermore, Gardner (2012) says:

According to the facts in record, MGM Records paid both the band and Warhol $3,000 to furnish the image for use on the 1967 album cover. If the record label paid the money as a work-for-hire agreement, the true "author" of the image, under the law, would be the record label.

If that is the case then nether The Velvet Underground or the Andy Warhol Foundation have any claim to the use of the album cover. I feel that this case will be dismissed as being in the public domain because it is following the rules set by the laws of 1967.

References

Gardner, E. (2012, February 27). Justin Bieber sued by creator of 'Joustin' Beaver' game (exclusive docs). In Hollywood, Esq.. Retrieved March 1, 2012, from http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/justin-bieber-sued-joustin-beaver-video-game-295548

Gardner, E. (2012, February 27). Artist sues Sony over background used in music video (exclusive). In Hollywood, Esq.. Retrieved March 1, 2012, from http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/Maya-hayuk-lawsuit-sony-295409

Gardner, E. (2012, February 27). Velvet Underground files new complaint in odd banana album cover case. In Hollywood, Esq.. Retrieved March 1, 2012, from http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/velvet-underground-lawsuit-banana-album-warhol-foundation-294801