Kelly Denato, of Brooklyn,  is suing a New York-based animated cartoon studio, alleging she’s been denied royalties she’s entitled to for designing a character that became the namesake of a Cartoon Network show, Ellen’s Acres. She says in the suit that she was due 25% of all revenues stemming from book sales, merchandising and animated motion pictures like television shows. The suit seeks damages in excess of $1 million.

Via the Wall Street Journal.

Of  notable interest. The LA Times’ Culture Monster did a quick search of YouTube to see which artists and works of art have succeeded in evading YouTube’s nudity standards policy. According to the Monster,

YouTube, which is owned by Google, officially forbids users from posting videos to its site that feature sexually explicit content. It also forbids “most” nudity — that is to say, “if a video is intended to be sexually provocative, it is less likely to be acceptable for YouTube,” according to the company’s rules. “There are exceptions for some educational, documentary and scientific content, but only if that is the sole purpose of the video and it is not gratuitously graphic.”

Check out Culture Monster’s other findings here, with hyperlinks to videos with nudity!

If you’re interested in artists’ rights, this is right up your alley and in time for good summer reading.

The Journal of Biocommunication, a journal dedicated to serving as a showcase of proven and experimental procedures in medical art and illustration, print, photography, film, television, computer, multimedia systems, and other communication modalities applied in the health sciences, has a remarkably interesting and timely special issue that focuses on aspects of artists’ rights, including articles that discuss more recent issues surrounding existing copyright law, copyright registration, artists’ rights, and the current U.S. Orphan Works legislation.

This issue features five outstanding articles beginning with Terrence Brown’s “Historic Rights Issues in American Illustration.” Mr. Brown traces the development of American illustration during the post Civil War period, as book, newspaper, and magazine publishers successfully used artists’ sketches and illustrations to accompany their printed text and advertisements. These artists became more and more important to the publisher’s success, and the demand for their illustrations grew. Ownership of original art and issues relating to secondary usage rights culminated in the formation of the Society of Illustrators in New York in 1901. Many historical illustrations are included as examples of these amazing illustrators.

Read the rest of this entry »

If you keep up with College Football you’ll probably understand why this is a huge issue for universities. If not, can you say, money? Just note the huge hoopla this past summer over the potential coup by certain Big 12 football teams (read: Texas Longhorns) to the Pac 10. It basically boiled down to media agreements. Anyhow, in last week from Kansas University Sports:

Kansas University is one of 27 schools coming to the aid of a fellow school ensnared in a long court battle over trademarks. The 27 universities have filed a motion in the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to submit a “friend of the court” brief in support of the University of Alabama. That school sued Daniel Moore, a sports artist, alleging in 2005 that Moore violated trademark law in painting scenes from football games by showing Crimson Tide players in their crimson and white uniforms without permission.

In a nutshell: A district court ruled against Moore, who previously had a licensing agreement with Alabama. The district court ruling disallowed his use of Alabama’s trademarks on items such as T-shirts and coffee mugs, but allowed the sale of Moore’s paintings. The University of Alabama is appealing that decision. More background here.

Activists, The Yes Men, sick of having the videos depicting their critiques taken down through copyright complaints, have put their latest full-length video, The Yes Men Fix the World, up as a torrent file through VODO, a site resistant to censorship and easy to get. From their VODO site:

THE YES MEN FIX THE WORLD is a screwball true story about two gonzo political activists who, posing as top executives of giant corporations, lie their way into big business conferences and pull off the world’s most outrageous pranks. This peer-to-peer special edition of the film is unique: it is preceded by an EXCLUSIVE VIDEO of the Yes Men impersonating the United States Chamber of Commerce. Because the Yes Men are being sued for this stunt, p2p is the only way that this film will get seen.

Thanks to BoingBoing for the heads-up!

I was just commenting on this subject this week. Well, two related subjects actually. One, that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is, well, on its own circuit, and two, on the Mattel vs. MGA litigation (aka- Barbie vs. Bratz) and the need for clear work-for-hire agreements.

Lo and behold, today, in a stunning reversal worthy of a Boston Legal episode, today, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit quashed an injunction that had prevented MGA from selling the dolls and said a new trial is likely because of flawed jury instructions at the original district court proceeding. The opinion, written by chief circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, asserts that because of errors in jury instructions, the entire case will need be retried. You can read more on this story and download the opinion at The American Law Daily. This is stunning. You can read the background as well as related drama here. According to the blog, Las Vegas Trademark Attorney, “for copyright fans, the decision also includes an interesting discussion regarding the fine line between copyrightable expression and unprotectable ideas.” Will the madness ever end?

Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court finding that Ashes to Glory producers Deborah Novak and John Witek had insufficient evidence to prove that We Are Marshall contained significant similarities to their Emmy Award-winning documentary. Basically, no substantial similarity between films, and the correct finding US Copyright laws do not protect historical facts.

Producers of the film “We Are Marshall” did not infringe on copyright laws as alleged by the makers of the documentary “Ashes to Glory,” judges for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth District found.

“The district court, for its part, conducted a meticulous, almost frame-by-frame analysis of the two works and concluded that the Producers had failed to raise a triable issue of substantial similarity,” the opinion says. “Having reviewed the two works ourselves, we agree with the district court that the works are not substantially similar.” Although coinciding facts form the basic plot lines of both productions, copyright laws do not protect historical facts, the court found. Therefore, producers of “We Are Marshall” legally could use the same facts as those found in “Ashes to Glory” in their film, the judges opined.

Via the West Virginia Record.