IBLT Scholar in Residence Mark Zaid Speaks to Touro Law Cybercrime Students

On October 28, 2013, attorney Mark S. Zaid came to Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center as the first Scholar in Residence for the Center for Innovation in Business, Law and Technology ("IBLT"). As part of his visit, he spoke to the two sections of students taking the Cybercrime course:

You can also listen to audio from Mark's presentation to the Touro Law faculty here.

Warner Bros./DC Comics Win Another Superman Copyright Battle

 (https://www.facebook.com/superman)

On November 22, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the estate of Joe Shuster has no claim to the copyright in the famed Superman comic book character, granting full rights to DC Comics and its parent company Warner Brothers.  Joe Shuster, along with his partner Jerry Siegel, created Superman in the early 1930s but sold their rights to the character in 1938 to Action Comics for a mere $130.  In 1947, the pair sued Action Comics in an effort to re-establish ownership of the intellectual property rights to Superman, claiming that the 1938 contract should be made void.  The court, however, disagreed and upheld the contract.   In 1973, Siegel and Shuster filed another lawsuit against the company (since renamed DC Comics) based on the Copyright Act of 1909.  This Act granted copyrights for 28 years, with allowance for an additional renewal for another period of 28 years.  Siegel and Shuster claimed that they had granted DC comics the copyright for only 28 years, without an allowance for renewal.  Again the court disagreed and ruled in favor of DC Comics.

A few years later, the Copyright Act of 1976 went into effect.  A key clause of the Act provided a window for former copyright holders to reassert their copyright interest in works they assigned prior to 1976.  Though the Act extended the copyright term from 56 years to 50 years beyond the death of the author, the Act stipulated that the original authors or their heirs could reclaim any assigned works once the copyright reached its 56th year, as long as the rights were reasserted within 5 years of that date.  For the Superman character, this meant the window for reassertion would open in 1995.  However, Joseph Shuster passed away in 1992.  That same year, DC Comics entered into an agreement with Shuster’s estate in which the estate would release any and all claims in the Superman copyright and re-grant all of Joe Shuster’s copyright claims to DC in exchange for a lifetime pension of $25,000 a year.  Jerry Siegel was not a member to that agreement.

In 1996, Jerry Siegel passed away.  His estate subsequently filed a copyright termination notice in 1997, with an effective date of 1999.  On October 16, 2001, DC offered the Siegel family a $1 million signing bonus and 6% royalties of DC’s gross profits from the use of the Superman copyright, as well as medical and dental benefits to the Siegel family.  However, DC then offered another agreement, which the Siegel’s promptly refused.  The Siegel estate and DC have since been embroiled in litigation as to which, if any, settlement was binding.  In 2008, the U.S. District Court issued a summary judgment in favor of the Siegel family, awarding them the copyright to Superman.  But, DC quickly appealed and obtained a reversal of this decision in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which found the October 16, 2001 agreement to be binding.  As a result, DC Comics has been assigned Siegel’s 50% interest in the Superman character and Siegel’s estate was awarded its monetary claims under the October 16, 2001 agreement.

In 2003, Shuster’s estate filed a copyright termination notice against DC Comics seeking to reclaim the copyrights to Superman that Shuster had assigned to DC Comics in 1938.  The claim was based on a clause of the Copyright Act, which permitted the filing of copyright termination notices to terminate assignments executed before January 1, 1978.  DC responded in court that the 1992 agreement between itself and Shuster’s estate rendered the termination notice invalid because it superseded the 1938 agreement.  In essence, DC claimed the 1992 agreement created a new assignment and left no pre-1978 assignment to terminate.  A California District Court agreed with DC and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s ruling.

The Court of Appeals’ opinion on Shuster’s claims can be found here.

The settlement agreements between DC Comics and both the Shuster estate and the Siegel estate can be found here.

(Blog entry written by Alex Diamond, IBLT/Carter DeLuca Entrepreneurship Support Fellow for the Fall 2013 semester)

GoldieBlox Backs Down From Beastie Boys' Copyright Claim

                            (www.beastieboys.com)                                              (www.goldieblox.com)

It appears that the legal battle between GoldieBlox and the Beastie Boys is over almost as quickly as it had begun.  The conflict began when GoldieBlox, a toy manufacturer that creates engineering and construction toys specifically targeted to girls, released a viral video parodying the Beastie Boys’ song “Girls.”  The video served as an advertisement for GoldieBlox toys while attempting to inspire young girls to become future engineers.  The parody included an elaborate Rube Goldberg machine with a parody of the song “Girls” playing in the background.  The song featured a new recording of the music and a revised set of lyrics declaring that “(Girls) can engineer that.” 

Shortly after the video was released, the Beastie Boys sent letters to GoldieBlox accusing the company of copyright infringement.  In response, on November 21, 2013, GoldieBlox filed suit against the Beastie Boys in California District Court seeking a declaratory judgment allowing the company to use the parody song under the Fair Use Doctrine.  Under 17 U.S.C. §107, the Fair Use Doctrine allows a copyrighted work to be reproduced for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, or research.  Also according 17 U.S.C. §107, in determining whether the Fair Use Doctrine applies to a particular case, the following factors are to be considered:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.
2. The nature of the copyrighted work. 
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for a value of the copyrighted work.

However, before the court could decide whether the parody was legal under the Fair Use Doctrine, GoldieBlox changed their position.  In an open letter to the Beastie Boys on the GoldieBlox website, the company apologized to the group and removed the song from their advertisement.

GoldieBlox's complaint can be found here.

GoldieBlox's open letter apology to the Beastie Boys can be found here.

(Blog entry written by Alex Diamond, IBLT/Carter DeLuca Entrepreneurship Support Fellow for the Fall 2013 semester)