Adding color to the legal woes of the controversial American Apparel chief is the identity of the lawyer suing him, Keith Fink, Esq., who’s known for getting negative tidbits about his Hollywood adversaries into the papers. (Alex Ebner, Hollywood Interrupted, Nov. 30; WSJ law blog, Nov. 12). Earlier here, etc.
Turns out there’s a city in southeastern Turkey by the name of Batman. And its mayor wants royalties. “‘The royalty of the name “Batman” belongs to us … 
There is only one Batman in the world. The American producers used the name of our city without informing us,’ [Mayor Hüseyin] Kalkan told to the Dogan news agency”. Per a local newspaper, one problem for expatriate Batmanites who operate shops and restaurants in countries like Germany is that using their hometown in business names might invite unfavorable attention from Hollywood IP lawyers. (Safak Timur, Hurriyet, Nov. 7; io9; Defamer). Image: Bryce Edwards, Flickr via Wikimedia Commons, Creative Commons Attribution 2.0. More: WOW Report, Brian Doherty (”disturbingly Borat-esque”).
It’s not often that patent litigation furnishes the subject of a new Hollywood film; inventor-side attorneys must be hoping the David-and-Goliath theme of the Universal Pictures release Flash of Genius redounds to their benefit. (Brian Baxter, AmLaw Daily, Oct. 3). The original New Yorker article on which the film is based is by no means devoid of balance, and includes a discussion of the late Jerome Lemelson, a longtime Overlawyered favorite (John Seabrook, The New Yorker, Jan. 11, 1993). Unrelatedly, a patent attorney turns up as the lead character of a fiction thriller in Paul Goldstein’s “A Patent Lie” (Stephen Albainy-Jenei, Patent Baristas, Sept. 29).
Prof. Obbie (LawBeat) wonders (Oct. 7) whether an NPR interviewer could have been bolder in challenging the owner of Rin Tin Tin Inc. when she asserted that her trademark lawsuit against a Hollywood studio was not about the you-know-whats.
“Well, that didn’t take long. One day after RealNetworks releases its DVD copying software, lawsuits are filed. Who’s right, who’s wrong, and where do movie fans fit in?” And are movie industry lawyers going to replace RIAA’s as a target at the center of customers’ dartboards? (Robert X. Cringely, InfoWorld, Oct. 1). More: Cory Doctorow, BoingBoing on the peculiar press-anonymity of some of the lawyers (h/t commenter Orval).
The “Borat” star, per AFP, “has sold Fox film studios a comedy, ‘Accidentes,’ about an ambulance-chaser-turned-hero, which he will produce and possibly star in, Variety magazine said Tuesday. The film is about a personal injury lawyer who becomes a hero among Los Angeles Hispanics for successfully defending a worker against a wealthy employer, but who in the process becomes the enemy of the city’s elite.” And see Defamer Australia with related graphic: “El Mejor Abogado”.
With the new Christian Bale/Heath Ledger Batman movie, “The Dark Knight,” opening at midnight tonight, it’s worth linking to our popular post of three years ago about how Gotham City must have had substantial tort reform to permit a sequel to go forward without Bruce Wayne being bankrupted…
(And I have to say that Stark Industries would be subject to similar shareholder lawsuits after “Iron Man” this year.)
The act of making available movies for P2P copying should itself give rise to damage liability, with no need for a showing that anyone actually came along and availed themselves of the illicit property, Hollywood moviemakers are arguing. “It is technologically infeasible to determine whether the public is copying an open share folder, although the RIAA makes its own downloads from defendants’ share folders, produces screen shots and, among other things, captures an IP address. An Arizona judge ruled last month in a different case that those downloads count against a defendant, a one-of-a-kind decision being appealed on grounds that the RIAA was authorized to download its own music.” Infringement penalties can run to $150,000 per copyright violation. (David Kravets, “MPAA Says No Proof Needed in P2P Copyright Infringement Lawsuits”, “Threat Level” blog, Wired.com, Jun. 20). More: Ars Technica.
The other nanny suing Hollywood figures Rob and Sheryl Lowe “was going to settle with the Lowes but then she too wound up being represented by [attorney Gloria] Allred”. So Laura Boyce now finds herself at the center of big legal and publicity hoopla:
Boyce’s claims don’t target Rob Lowe at all but focus on Sheryl Lowe for such off-putting behavior as walking around naked — in her own home — and making “numerous sexually crude, lascivious and racially derogatory comments,” which led Boyce to quit her job. Sheryl Lowe has denied the allegations.“The home is a workplace for the people who are working in it — the nannies, the chefs, the drivers,” says Allred. “Celebrity employers do not have special rights. They are not insulated from liability because they are in their home. Celebrities are not above the law. They don’t have license to commit sexual harassment because it’s in their home.”
Lowe has pre-emptively sued Boyce and the other Allred-represented nanny, Jessica Gibson. (Rachel Abramowitz, “Rob Lowe’s privacy, nanny woes”, Los Angeles Times, Jun. 4).
Can’t-they-both-please-lose? dept.: Columbia’s Tim Wu is confident that excepting 15 seconds of Lennon’s Imagine for purposes of criticizing it will count as fair use, which one may hope would be true without necessarily predicting that the courts will agree (WSJ law blog, May 20; earlier).
“Kristen” from the Spitzer affair wants $10 million, saying the notorious video series photographed her when she was 17, not the requisite 18 — it seems likely that she had a hand in this deception herself — and now owes her $10 million for injury to her “business, reputation and good will”. (Curt Anderson, “Spitzer call girl sues ‘Girls Gone Wild’ for $10 million”, AP/Philly.com, Apr. 28; WSJ law blog, Apr. 29).
The entertainer and her father/manager are being sued by video maker Speedfit over her refusal to give approval for the release of a tape in which she starred in a multi-million contract. Speedfit owner Alex Astilean says that by blocking the video’s distribution, “They are hurting millions of fat people in America.” (”Page Six”, New York Post, Feb. 19).
Our roundup link to a discussion of the classic jury-deliberation movie stirred up a considerable discussion among David Bernstein, Ilya Somin, Orin Kerr and commenters at the Volokh Conspiracy.
A popular blog meme is the Mingle blog rating (e.g. Bainbridge, Opinio Juris). You won’t see it here: movie ratings are trademarked by the Motion Picture Association of America, and they come down like a hammer on those who use the trademarks, and this blog-meme not only uses the letter rating, but the actual MPAA symbol. Unfortunately, US trademark law forces the MPAA to take a heavy-handed approach, because of the alternative: forty years ago, they did not seek trademark protection for their new “X” rating and as a result, the rating became a generic symbol for hard-core pornography (and infantilized the commercial moviegoing public: because now most theaters and brick-and-mortar video stores refuse to offer anything rated harder than “R”, we no longer get such movies, unlike the early 1970s when major studios would make X-rated movies with stars like Marlon Brando or Dustin Hoffman).
(And how well does the blog meme work? Well, the gizmo shares the MPAA’s left-leaning sensibilities: we got bumped to a “PG” because of multiple uses of the word “gun.”)
Here’s a Hollywood-themed edition of our irregularly-scheduled roundups:
Now, Birkhead is suing Opri for conversion, fraud and malpractice. He claims that she took at least $650,000 of money owed to him for various appearance fees and has refused to return it; he also claims that Opri told him she was going to represent him for free in exchange for the publicity she’d receive, and then turned around and billed him hundreds of thousands of dollars. No, I’m sure this won’t turn into (yet another) media circus. (AP, TMZ.)
A few months in, Eckler says she’s worn out by the litigation. “Here’s what it comes down to: 1) Being a writer, especially a Canadian one, without access to an unlimited bank account, sucks. 2) Copyright infringement is highly technical and difficult to prove. 3) Universal/Apatow know they have resources I do not have, and that every time they simply do not return my lawyer’s phone call, it costs me money.
She also complains about her treatment at the hands of her first lawyer, who was referred to her by Apatow’s lawyer. (WSJ law blog; commentators at Volokh seem skeptical of the merits of her claims.)
Did you ever watch a movie and think, “I could have made that movie”? Well, if actually making the movie proves to be too difficult, here’s an alternative strategy: you could just write to the Internet Movie Database and demand that they give you credit for having produced it. But, unfortunately for those of you who like to take shortcuts, it turns out that IMDB has this silly policy of only crediting people for their work on a movie when those people appear in the movie credits.
So, there’s always Plan B: sue IMDB. That’s what David Kronemyer did. He wanted to be credited as executive producer of hit movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding, B-movie Wishcraft, and TV-movie Stand and Be Counted. (I’m ashamed to admit that I’ve actually seen Wishcraft; I think the people who should sue are the ones who did get blame credit for making it.)
Fortunately, this story had a reasonably happy ending: Kronemyer was sanctioned by the California judge hearing the case for bringing a SLAPP suit, and ordered to pay $6,270 to the IMDB to compensate it for attorney’s fees. (Although, as Shaun Martin notes, that probably doesn’t fully compensate the IMDB.) The fact that Kronemyer had virtually no evidence to support his demands presumably didn’t help his case; he had a document showing that at one time he might have been involved with My Big Fat Greek Wedding, and nothing at all for the other two movies. But this complete lack of evidence didn’t seem to deter Kronemyer; he actually appealed the lower court’s dismissal of his lawsuit. The court of appeals wasn’t impressed (PDF).
Kronemyer represented himself, so it might seem unfair to blame lawyers for this one — except that Kronemyer’s a lawyer himself. Well, sort of; he actually resigned from the bar with unspecified disciplinary charges pending.
Bowing to pressure from 32 state attorneys general to curb the depiction of smoking in movies, the Moving Picture Association of America has just conceded “the basic principle that public-health lobbyists and politicians should have a big role in deciding what people will see, instead of letting the industry merely cater to its audience.” But state governments “have no more business determining what appears on movie screens than they do in deciding what goes into Judy Blume’s next novel. …The MPAA’s response validates the politicians in their intrusions, and beckons them to find new ways to regulate art and other matters that are supposed to be exempt from their control.” (Steve Chapman, syndicated/Orlando Sentinel, May 21). More: Michael Siegel, May 11, May 16, May 17; Jacob Sullum, May 16. Earlier: Sept. 1, 2003.
Point of Law Volokh
