Thursday, July 09, 2009

Siegel Heirs Lose Latest Superman Lawsuit

VARIETY: Warner Bros. wins 'Superman' case
Siegel heirs can only pursue DC Comics profits
By DAVE MCNARY - Posted: Wed., Jul. 8, 2009, 7:15pm PT


Warner Bros. and DC Comics have won a favorable ruling
in the suit filed by the heirs of "Superman" co-creator Jerome Siegel.

In a decision announced Wednesday, U.S. Judge District Court Judge Stephen G. Larson found that the license fees the studio paid to corporate sibling DC Comics didn't represent "sweetheart" deals as they weren't below fair market value. That means the heirs will be able seek profits only from DC Comics -- which earned $13.6 million from Warner Bros. for the 2006 release of "Superman Returns" -- rather than from Warner Bros. as well.

To read the rest of this article, click here.

Superman ©DC Comics.

Article excerpt ©REI.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, March 23, 2009

Dick Tracy Locked Up In Warren Beatty's House?

AWN.COM: Beatty Sued Over Dick Tracy Rights
REUTERS - March 23, 2009

In an effort to regain the motion picture and TV rights to DICK TRACY, Tribune Media Services is suing Warren Beatty, reports REUTERS. In papers filed last week, Tribune states that Beatty "wrongly claims" the rights exclusively.

To read the rest of the article, click here.

********************************************************************************************

If Beatty hasn't done anything with the property in over ten years, he might want to consider selling it back to Tribune (though if the larger company's bankrupt, that doesn't really work). I guess it depends on whether or not Tribune Media Services sold Beatty all of the "Tracy" rights exclusively and indefinitely.

I'm assuming that Tribune wants the property back so they can try and generate revenue, though they'll have to dig deeper into the hole in order to get some cash coming in. I really like the comic strip, but how many fans of it are left at this point?

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Barbie's Best Accessory: Bright Pink Lawyers

Matty Mattel may pick up quite an entourage soon:

"In the battle
of the doll makers, the house that Barbie built won a sweeping court victory Thursday, accessories and all.

A federal jury found that a Mattel Inc. designer created the lucrative Bratz doll concept while he worked at Mattel under an exclusivity contract.

It was a scathing defeat for MGA Entertainment Inc., which introduced the dolls -- known for big heads, pouty lips and bare-midriff outfits -- in 2001."

To read the rest of David Colker's LA Times article, click here.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Barbie Takes Bratz To Court

Apparently, the originator of the wildly successful Bratz doll line was still under contract with Mattel when Barbie's controversial rival was created. Naturally, with so much at stake, the claim is going to court:

"The tiny, fake fur was flying as the Barbie-Bratz court battle wrapped up Thursday, with toy industry giant Mattel Inc. and upstart MGA Entertainment Inc. both claiming ownership of the hugely successful Bratz line of dolls.

MGA, which seven years ago debuted the saucy Bratz doll, has maintained from the May 27 start of the trial that Mattel was trying to unfairly stomp out competition to its faltering Barbie empire.

"For 40 years Barbie was the only doll in town," Tom Nolan, lawyer for Van Nuys-based MGA, said in his closing argument. "And then Bratz came in and knocked her off her pedestal."

Mattel, headquartered in El Segundo, sued in 2004, claiming that Bratz -- known for hip-hugging outfits and bare midriffs that have given some parents fits -- were secretly created by one of its own Barbie designers, Carter Bryant, even though he had an exclusivity contract with the company."

Read the rest of David Colker's LA Times article here.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Fantasy Nerds Everywhere Suddenly, Inexplicably Aroused

NY TIMES: Master of ‘Rings’ to Tackle ‘Hobbit’
By DAVID M. HALBFINGER - Published: December 19, 2007

LOS ANGELES — Goblins, trolls and dragons were a breeze compared with the caustic clash of egos that kept “The Hobbit” in Hollywood limbo for years. But a settlement announced on Tuesday between Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema holds the promise that peace will break out in Middle Earth and that fans could see the first of two resulting movies by December 2010.

The pact, which two people involved said was worth nearly $40 million to Mr. Jackson, ends years of litigation and acrimonious auditing over his share of the profits from the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy. Those movies grossed $2.9 billion worldwide, made Mr. Jackson’s reputation and vastly enhanced New Line’s stature among the major movie studios.

Though Sam Raimi has stated his interest, it is unclear who will direct the two Hobbit movies, but Mr. Jackson will not. Mr. Jackson and his producing and writing partners, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens, are committed to making “The Lovely Bones” through 2008 and then he is directing “Tintin,” based on the Belgian comic strip, for Steven Spielberg.

But Mr. Jackson and his wife, Ms. Walsh, will be executive producers of the Hobbit films, and they will share with New Line the right to approve all creative elements: director, screenwriter, script, cast, filming location, even the visual-effects company used (as if there were any doubt that his Weta Digital would be chosen). “They can assure that the films will be made with the same level of quality as if they were writing and directing,” Mr. Jackson’s manager, Ken Kamins, said.

Settlement of the litigation freed New Line, which held the rights to make a “Hobbit” movie, and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, which has distribution rights, to cut a 50-50 financing deal: New Line will make the two films and distribute them domestically, and MGM will distribute them overseas. The untitled sequel is described as bridging the 60-year gap between the end of J. R. R. Tolkien’s “Hobbit” and the beginning of the “Rings” trilogy.

Despite the treasure involved — or perhaps because of it — the Jackson-New Line marriage grew testy by 2003, when Mr. Jackson began complaining about his share of the profits. New Line paid added bonuses, but Mr. Jackson nonetheless began an audit, which was said to particularly antagonize Bob Shaye, the studio’s co-chairman with Michael Lynne.

Warfare broke into the open in February 2005, when Mr. Jackson sued New Line over his audit, saying the studio was stonewalling his accountants. After Mr. Jackson told fans in a Web posting late last year that New Line had formally dropped him from “The Hobbit,” Mr. Shaye exploded on the Web, “He thinks that we owe him something after we’ve paid him over a quarter of a billion dollars.”

A thaw began some weeks later, Mr. Kamins said, when Mr. Jackson dined at the home of Harry Sloan, the chairman of MGM. It held distribution rights to “The Hobbit” and Mr. Sloan was desperate to get the franchise moving. By May, during the Cannes Film Festival, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Shaye joined a multiparty conference call; it was the first time they had spoken in about two years, Mr. Kamins said. “That call created a tone that really lasted into the fall,” he said.

If Mr. Sloan was motivated to spur a deal — he said the “halo effect” alone from “The Hobbit” could help attract talent and financing to MGM — Messrs. Shaye and Lynne of New Line were said to be facing a deadline of their own: their contracts as studio bosses expire in 2008, and the public combat with Mr. Jackson was a cause for frequent criticism. (Mr. Jackson at one point offered his “Lovely Bones” project to every major studio except New Line.)

The studio, meanwhile, has had a run of two years with only two hits, “Rush Hour 3” and “Hairspray.” Its costly “Golden Compass” opened to a disappointing $25.8 million gross in its first weekend.

In an interview on Tuesday, Mr. Shaye admitted that he had taken some aspects of the dispute with Mr. Jackson quite personally, but he and Mr. Lynne insisted they had faced no pressure from above to cut a deal.

Mr. Lynne said, “No one told us we had to resolve it one way or another.”

*************************************************************************************

VARIETY: 'Hobbit' back on track as twin bill
New Line settles dispute with Jackson
By MICHAEL FLEMING
Posted: Tue., Dec. 18, 2007, 9:23am PT

"The Hobbit" is finally happening.

After settling a lawsuit with Peter Jackson on "The Lord of the Rings," New Line co-chairmen/co-CEOs Bob Shaye and Michael Lynne announced jointly with MGM chairman Harry Sloan that the way is clear to turn J.R.R. Tolkien's "Hobbit" into two live-action films.

The resolution clears the way for "Spider-Man" helmer Sam Raimi to direct. While Shaye said no creative alignments have yet been made, Raimi has long been interested -- as long as Jackson was involved or gave his blessing.

The studios hope to start production in 2009, shooting two films simultaneously and releasing them in December 2010 and December 2011. New Line will run production and distribute domestically, while MGM will release internationally. The studios will co-finance the films.

Jackson's Kiwi stages, post-production and visual effects facilities -- which he built to accommodate "LOTR" -- likely will be used to mount "The Hobbit." And New Zealand once again will be used as the visual backdrop for Middle-earth, this time to tell the story of how Frodo's uncle, Bilbo Baggins, ventured from the Shire and wound up taking the Ring of Power from Gollum.

The key to moving forward was settling all litigation between Jackson and New Line over funds owed the filmmaker for "LOTR."

Jackson and partner Fran Walsh filed suit in Los Angeles Federal Court in 2005, charging they were shortchanged in profit participation on "The Fellowship of the Ring." A bitter war of words set Jackson and Walsh in one corner, Shaye and Lynne in the other.

Jackson's next two directing gigs are both for DreamWorks. He optioned Alice Sebold novel "The Lovely Bones" and wrote the script with his "LOTR" partners Walsh and Philippa Boyens. He'll also team with Steven Spielberg to co-direct "Tintin."

While those commitments will keep Jackson from directing "The Hobbit," the settlement deal is helpful not only for Shaye and Lynne but also for MGM's Sloan, who helped put the parties together.

The contracts of Shaye and Lynne expire next fall. The studio has weathered several tough post-"LOTR" years, and its latest attempt at a fantasy trilogy, "The Golden Compass," has proved tepid. Pic has so far grossed just north of $40 million domestic, while drawing $90 million in offshore ticket sales. Though Hossein Amini has scripted sequel "The Subtle Knife," it's unclear whether the second installment of Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy will go into production.

At MGM, Sloan planned to revive the studio with franchises. Dealt a setback when "Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins" went to Warner Bros. (MGM is suing financier Halcyon, claiming that its negotiation rights were violated), Sloan now has two plum titles to use as building blocks. Though Columbia distributes the James Bond film about to begin production, MGM gets the 007 franchise back after that, and Sloan said Daniel Craig is signed to a multipicture dseal.

"I give a lot of credit to Peter, Bob and Michael for putting their differences aside for a tremendous property that has an enormous fan base," Sloan said. "Between 'The Hobbit' and Bond, we're involved in two of the best-known franchises in the world."

Shaye and Lynne said while they have not yet gotten to shake hands with Jackson and Walsh, they consider the legal matter to be history.

"This is a complete resolution of all the disputes between us," Lynne said. "Obviously, there is extensive auditing on pictures that are successful. In our business, you can have differences of an accounting and legal nature that polarize people and get in the way of personal and professional relationships."

Shaye, whose barbed public comments toward Jackson once widened the gulf between them, said he was also relieved.

"Nobody likes contention," Shaye told Daily Variety. "None of us, not me, Michael, Peter or Fran, were happy that a dispute was destroying a fruitful and prosperous enterprise.

"All these lawyers were going crazy not letting the principals communicate directly, when we might have been able to solve this years ago. Movies are difficult enough to make without having a war going on," Shaye continued. "The settlement was done with the idea that the good spirit that nurtured the first three films can continue. I hope we can revive what was once a wonderful relationship."

Jackson was unavailable to comment beyond a statement and there was no comment about the size of his "LOTR" settlement.

"I'm very pleased that we've been able to put our differences behind us, so that we may begin a new chapter with our old friends at New Line," Jackson said in the statement. "The Lord of the Rings" is a "legacy we proudly share with Bob and Michael, and together, we share that legacy with millions of loyal fans all over the world. We are delighted to continue our journey through Middle-earth."

(Janet Shprintz in Hollywood contributed to this report.)

*************************************************************************************

"Mr. Lynne said, 'No one told us we had to resolve it one way or another.'"

Nothing except the oceans of money and piles of awards the "Rings" series has amassed! I figured something would get worked out eventually. Initially, I was worried about two "Hobbit" movies, but this is encouraging:

"The untitled sequel is described as bridging the 60-year gap between the end of J. R. R. Tolkien’s 'Hobbit' and the beginning of the 'Rings' trilogy."

That's fine with me! I was only concerned with padding (what I think is)
Tolkien’s most succinct and self-contained book in order to stretch it over two films.

Cool! Well, we'll see...

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, March 16, 2007

Stan "Not The Man" Media Files Against Marvel

AWN: Stan Lee Media Sues Marvel for $5 Billion
March 15, 2007

Having just emerged from bankruptcy protection on Dec. 6, 2006, Stan Lee Media, today (March 15, 2007), filed suit against Marvel Ent. worth $5 billion. In the suit, Stan Lee Media is claiming co-ownership of all Stan Lee's co-creations for Marvel, including Spider-Man, X-Men and the Incredible Hulk. Stan Lee Media requests half of Marvel's earnings derived from those creations, in addition to damages and legal fees.

The suit claims that Stan Lee throughout his employment with Marvel retained the co-creator rights to all his characters. In Aug. 1998 when Marvel terminated Stan Lee's employment, he regained those rights. Lee then went and formed the dotcom firm Stan Lee Media as a way to tap into the Internet boom. On Oct. 15, 1998, he signed over not only his creations to the new firm, but his likeness as well. Then in Nov. 1998, Lee individually entered an employment agreement with Marvel, signing over his Marvel characters and likeness to Marvel, despite having already signed over the rights to Stan Lee Media. The suit claims Stan Lee Media informed Marvel of their contract and that Marvel "independently and/or in collusion with Stan Lee, intentionally concealed the material terms" of Marvel's new agreement from Stan Lee Media, the public and its own shareholders.

Stan Lee Media has become a tragic icon the dotcom boom and bust. The public firm ultimately fizzled into bankruptcy and brought on several lawsuits and criminal charges related to stock manipulation. Stan Lee left the company and went on to form POW! Ent.

During bankruptcy, Stan Lee Media dropped its NASDAQ listing and became a private firm. During a Dec. 2006 special shareholders meeting, James L. Nesfield was made chairman and president of the firm. Nesfield is best known as the whistleblower who uncovered the mutual fund market timing scandal, which was worth trillions of dollars

In a Marvel statement, the company reports that Stan Lee Media is being sued by Stan Lee. In his suit, Lee is challenging the legitimacy of the management of Stan Lee Media. Lee currently serves as Publisher Emeritus of Marvel Comics. Lee commented that, "I do not support this action and believe the suit to be baseless."

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Viacom Sues Google

LA TIMES: Viacom files $1-billion suit over YouTube
By Dawn C. Chmielewski, Meg James and Thomas S. Mulligan, Times Staff Writers
March 14, 2007

With a $1-billion lawsuit, Viacom Inc. is aiming to upend Google Inc.'s plan to change the way people watch TV and movies.

Viacom, which owns MTV Networks and Paramount Pictures, sued Google in federal court Tuesday, accusing the Internet company of "brazenly exploiting" the power of the Web to make easy money off Hollywood's hard work.

Google's YouTube video-sharing service has "deliberately chosen not to take reasonable precautions" to stop users from posting unauthorized clips of shows including "SpongeBob SquarePants" and "South Park" and movies such as "An Inconvenient Truth," the suit says. "YouTube profits handsomely from the presence of the infringing works on its site."

Viacom isn't the only old-media company with that opinion. Several book publishers and news agencies have sued Google for alleged copyright infringement, though none has Viacom's deep pockets or fighting instincts.

Until recently, Viacom was one of several companies struggling to reach deals that would allow them to share in the YouTube advertising revenue that their shows generate. NBC Universal recently sent a letter warning that Google should better protect copyrighted material.

"Everybody recognizes litigation is not a particularly desirable business outcome," NBC Universal General Counsel Richard Cotton said in an interview before the Viacom suit was filed. "What you have is everybody going the last mile to try to find a constructive business solution. But I guess what I would say is this is the last mile."

Viacom's lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in New York, seeks at least $1 billion in damages for alleged copyright law violations. A Viacom spokesman called that "a very conservative estimate." Under copyright law, Viacom could win $150,000 per "willful" infringement, meaning that penalties on the more than 150,000 alleged violations would approach $23 billion.

Google attorney Glenn Brown said the company was confident about its case.

"More importantly, we're proud to continue giving creators a place to post and discuss their videos, whether it be a family's home video or a company like the BBC or any of the other big professional media companies to partner with us to host their content," he said.

The Mountain View, Calif., company has become both friend and foe of TV networks, newspapers and other traditional media companies. They crave the traffic Google can direct to their websites but fret that it's making so much money off their material.

"Google has said its mission is to be able to provide quick access to all of the world's information," said Forrester Research analyst Josh Bernoff. "Much of the world's information is copyrighted. So unless there is a resolution to this question, they can't succeed."

It was clear Google was in for a fight when it bought YouTube in November for $1.6 billion. TV networks, movie studios and record labels were already complaining about the website's failure to block pirated videos.

YouTube launched in December 2005 with videos of a founder's cat. People began to flock to the site's karaoke bits and online confessionals, then figured out that they could share and watch snippets from thousands of TV shows, music videos and movies. The site became perhaps the Web's largest collection of buzz-worthy TV highlights.

The site's traffic rocketed to more than 34 million U.S. visitors in February, up from 4 million a year earlier, according to Web research firm ComScore Networks. Networks and producers were happy to be along for the ride, until it became part of an emerging Internet behemoth.

"When YouTube was a fun start-up that wasn't monetizing the content, I was fine with it," said Ben Silverman, executive producer behind such popular shows as "The Office" on NBC and "Ugly Betty" on ABC. "But the moment they sold themselves for $1.6 billion and became a service that was making money off other people's content, the game changed."

Viacom contends that since YouTube has successfully screened pornography from the videos its users contribute, it should be able to police the site for copyrighted material. When Viacom asked Google to take action, "they kept saying, 'It's difficult,' " Viacom spokesman Carl Folta said. "If it's difficult, shut your site down until you get it right."

At NBC, executives have struggled to decide how to deal with YouTube. A year ago, the "Lazy Sunday" skit — a satirical rap about cupcakes and the "Chronicles of Narnia" — found its way onto YouTube and reintroduced NBC's "Saturday Night Live" franchise to millions of young viewers.

The leak triggered conflicting impulses within NBC. It wanted to use the emerging technology but couldn't let what it saw as copyright infringement go unchallenged.

NBC decided to play along with the online video start-up, if only to gauge YouTube's promotional potential. Perhaps this online community attracted by videos of toilet-trained animals and skateboard antics could be harnessed to lure young viewers to professionally produced new shows such as "Heroes" or "The Office."

The video-sharing site reaped only $15 million in revenue for 2006 — roughly the same amount broadcast networks typically collect in advertising in one night. But TV executives resented that their shows had helped make multimillionaires of YouTube's young founders, Chad Hurley, Steve Chen and Jawed Karim.

They also feared that YouTube would disrupt their advertising business by becoming the gatekeeper between online viewers and TV programming.

NBC went full circle: from demanding the removal of "Lazy Sunday" and other NBC clips, to striking a broad promotional partnership, to once again considering legal action.

The company declined to comment Tuesday.

Legal analysts said the case would test the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a 1998 law that shields Internet service providers from liability for material their users post online. To qualify for protection, service providers must remove unauthorized material when notified of its presence by copyright holders.

YouTube has long maintained that it is protected because it immediately removes copyrighted video when notified.

"We feel it's a very clear law," said Glenn Brown, Google product counsel. "It makes clear that sites like YouTube basically enjoy this safe harbor, providing they make this removal process easy for content owners to make a choice about what they want to do with their content."

But Greg Gabriel, a Santa Monica entertainment lawyer, said YouTube was stretching the boundaries of the safe harbor provision, which was intended to protect Internet service providers that wouldn't know that infringing materials were on a website unless notified.

"This is where YouTube is in trouble," he said. "You can't even log on to YouTube's Web page without seeing a half-dozen infringing clips."

The stakes are incredibly high in the fight, San Francisco intellectual property lawyer Annette Hurst said. The outcome could tilt the balance between allowing technology to flourish and protecting the creative community's interests.

"Google is probably the only company that could have bought YouTube," she said. "They had an already-existing business model not premised on infringement. And they were the only ones who could afford to take a risk."

meg.james@latimes.com dawn.chmielewski@latimes .com thomas.mulligan@latimes.com Times staff writer Joseph Menn contributed to this report.

*************************************************************************************

I've got mixed feelings about the lawsuit. I certainly understand wanting to protect intellectual properties that you own (I really don't agree with posting entire films or TV episodes), but at the same time, it seems like everyone involved understands how YouTube operates and what makes it valuable.

What would happen to YouTube's audience if you remove all infringing clips? Why did Google buy it if infringement is a significant part of its appeal? Are YouTube and Google simply being punished for being too successful?

Why not strike a deal with them, rather than trying to sue them into the ground? Allowing some content to be viewed (or more content for a limited amount of time) could potentially broaden a paying audience, or (best of all) reveal demand that hadn't been known to exist before.

Maybe I'd be more hardline about the infringements if it were one of my films on the site. Still, I don't think YouTube clips make me not want to buy something - most of the videos are of such poor quality that I'd still buy anything that I'd want to own permanently. I think, properly used, YouTube could be a very powerful promotional tool, with exposure to a huge audience.

Labels: , , , , ,

Saturday, February 24, 2007

Apple, Cisco Come To Terms

NY TIMES: Settlement Lets Apple Use ‘iPhone’
By BRAD STONE
Published: February 22, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 21 — Apple and Cisco Systems have decided that a name is not worth fighting over.

On Wednesday, the companies settled their dispute over the iPhone trademark. Six weeks ago, Cisco filed a lawsuit in federal court in San Francisco over Apple’s planned use of the name for its much anticipated multimedia device, which combines the features of a mobile phone, an iPod and a BlackBerry.

Cisco claimed that it had owned the trademark since 2000 and was using it for a line of Internet-connected phones.

Wednesday night, in a short, ambiguously worded statement, the companies said they would dismiss all legal action against each other regarding the trademark and that Apple could use the name for its device, which it plans to start selling in June.

In addition, the companies said they would explore ways to make their identically named iPhone products work together “in the areas of security and consumer and enterprise communication.”

Representatives for Apple and Cisco said other terms of the deal would remain confidential. It is not known if Apple made a cash payment to Cisco, but intellectual property lawyers say some sort of payment is typical in these cases. It is also unclear whether Cisco had sold Apple the name iPhone outright and had then secured permission to use it itself.

But the deal appears to give a partial victory to both sides. Apple can begin selling its phone with the name that its strong-willed chief executive, Steven P. Jobs, seemed to prefer.

Cisco can also continue to use the name, and with the promise of interoperability, it might have some of the hype and magic surrounding Apple’s products rub off on its own less prominent offerings.

Hostilities broke out between the two companies last month, when Mr. Jobs announced the music phone at the annual Macworld convention in San Francisco.

Cisco, the networking company based in San Jose, Calif., was using the name to sell phones that can plug into a PC or connect with a wireless hot spot and make free calls over the Internet.

The two companies negotiated intensely over the trademark in early January. Executives had planned to make announcements concurrently at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas and at Macworld, proclaiming the links between their iPhone products.

After talks broke down and Mr. Jobs announced his iPhone anyway, Cisco filed a lawsuit, saying that Apple’s use of the iPhone name constituted a “willful and malicious” violation of Cisco’s intellectual property. In response, Apple called the lawsuit “silly” and noted publicly that several companies besides Cisco were using the iPhone name.

Cisco’s lawsuit described covert Apple attempts to obtain the rights to the iPhone name. In September 2006, a corporation calling itself Ocean Telecom Services filed an application for the trademark based on earlier filings in Trinidad and Tobago. In its complaint, Cisco asserted that Apple was behind the efforts.

But while they flung legal accusations at each other, both companies faced significant pressure to settle. Apple’s iPhone will be released in June and will be available to customers of the AT&T wireless network, which was formerly known as Cingular Wireless. If Apple had failed to settle with Cisco and subsequently lost the battle in court, it could have been liable for financial penalties for each unit that it sold.

But Cisco also faced a strong incentive to reach a deal.

“Cisco had to provide access to the trademark to Apple if it wanted to achieve the highest value for the name. There was no potential second buyer who would have equaled Apple’s desire for the iPhone mark,” said Alan Fisch, an intellectual-property lawyer at Kaye Scholer in Washington.

He added that Cisco also faced the reality that consumers associated the name more with Apple.

“The iPhone name has been informally synonymous with an anticipated Apple phone for years prior to the product’s formal announcement,” he said.

Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, February 05, 2007

The Long And Litigious Road

VARIETY: Apple, Beatles resolve dispute
Trademark battle comes to an end
By PHIL GALLO
Posted: Mon., Feb. 5, 2007, 9:00am PT

After nearly two decades of discord, the Beatles and Apple computers are singing the same song: "We Can Work It Out."

Apple Corps, the record company the Beatles founded in 1968, and Apple, the Cupertino computer company, reached an accord that gives the latter ownership of the name and the apple logo.

Apple will license certain trademarks back to Apple Corps. Financial terms were not disclosed.

Deal naturally opens the door to make Beatles music -- the holy grail of pop -- available via Apple's online iTunes store. While members of the Beatles have OK'd the sale of solo work, the Beatles catalog has remained offline.

Apple CEO Steve Jobs said in a statement, "It has been painful being at odds with (the Beatles) over these trademarks." The resolution, he said, "should remove the potential of further disagreements."

Jobs had stirred the pot regarding a resolution to the conflict when he used the Beatles' "Sgt. Pepper" album cover and played "Lovely Rita" during the launch of the iPhone.

Now, Beatles fans worldwide may well read further into Jobs statement "Let the downloading begin."

But the Fab Four decisionmakers -- Paul McCartney; Ringo Starr; Yoko Ono, the widow of John Lennon; and the estate of George Harrison -- have been notoriously gun-shy about embracing new technology.

When compact discs were introduced to replace vinyl records, the Beatles were slow to come to the table. EMI, which releases the Beatles recordings, issued the British editions of the albums in blocks beginning in 1987, standardizing the catalog. In 2004, Capitol issued the first four American releases as a box set; last year, it issued the second block of four.

Since the band's breakup in 1970, there have been only about 20 Beatles releases of their recordings from the 1960s; by contrast, RCA and BMG have released more than 200 Elvis Presley packages since his death in 1977.

Evidence of the Beatles' extraordinary power at retail: In 2000, the hits compilation 'Beatles 1" performed so well that it was credited with salvaging the year from disaster.

Agreement replaces a 1991 pact between the two companies and puts an end to the trademark lawsuit Apple Corps filed against Apple in 2003 in London.

The two have had a tenuous relationship over the use of the apple logo in relationship to music commerce.

Apple Corps filed the suit, claiming the Apple iTunes store violated the 1991 deal. A court in London ruled in favor of Apple in May, and Apple Corps' appeal was scheduled to be heard later this month.

During the trial, Apple Corps manager Neil Aspinall disclosed that the catalog was being remastered.

In a statement issued Monday, he said, "The years ahead are going to be very exciting times for us. We ... look forward to many years of peaceful cooperation with (Apple)."

Apple's stock price closed Monday at $83.80, down 81¢.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Frat Boys Lose Their Borat Lawsuit

VARIETY: Judge rules for 'Borat'
Latest motion focused mainly on future DVD release
By ASSOCIATED PRESS, NICOLE LAPORTE

The first verdict in the various legal tussles over "Borat" is in, and the winner is ... Borat.

On Monday a judge denied the request of two college fraternity brothers to have a scene in "Borat," in which they are shown drunk and making racist remarks, cut from the film. The men claim the footage has damaged their reputations.

Last month they sued 20th Century Fox and the film's producers, maintaining that they were intoxicated when they agreed to participate in the film and were falsely told that it would never be shown in the U.S.

A judge earlier denied their request to have the scene cut from the theatrical version of "Borat," but last week the plaintiffs were given another opportunity to request that the scene be cut from the "Borat" DVD.

In ruling against the duo Monday, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Joseph Biderman said that they failed to show a reasonable probability of success on the merits of their case or that money damages alone would be insufficient to resolve their claims.

Lawyers for the men said the unbecoming scene in "Borat" had already cost one of the men a job at a corporation and the other a prestigious internship.

Fox mockumentary "Borat," written by and starring Sacha Baron Cohen, has grossed $120 million at the U.S. box office.

Verdicts are still pending in other "Borat"-related lawsuits. Two residents of a Romanian village filed a $30 million suit alleging that they agreed to participate in "Borat" because they were told it was a documentary about poverty in Romania. And Los Angeles attorney Gloria Allred is seeking an investigation on behalf of client Cindy Streit, owner of an etiquette training service in Alabama who claims she was similarly misled into taking part in the film.

*************************************************************************************

So there you have it. Don't drink and sign waivers. Makes sense to me.

But if you think people are getting messed with now, wait'll all the inevitable copycats begin production. $120 million? Oh, yeah. There's going to be lot more drunken interviews. A LOT.

Labels: , ,

Wikio