Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Online Extra: Effie Film LLC Loses Attorney Fees Bid After Winning Copyright Suit
Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the Effie film production company's bid for attorney fees and costs in its declaratory action against author Eve Pomerance over the parties' scripts about relationships among three famous art-world figures. Effie Film LLC v. Pomerance, 11 Civ. 7087.
Judge Oetken had previously found no substantial similarity between the litigation parties' works. In his recent ruling, the district judge noted: '[T]he Court cannot conclude that Defendant acted unreasonably when she first indicated her copyright concerns to Plaintiff, thereby prompting Plaintiff to file a suit for declaratory judgment. Simply put, at that time, Defendant was not well positioned to predict how a court would approach copyright analysis in this case. Although the [court's earlier] Opinion concluded that there was virtually no substantial similarity between the Pomerance Works and the final version of the Effie screenplay, that conclusion rested on an effort to clarify existing doctrine. It also hinged in significant part on the exclusion of unprotectible historical facts and interpretations from the substantial similarity analysis ' a methodology that requires difficult judgment calls about the line between creative fictionalization and historical interpretation.'
Thus, Judge Oetken found, 'Given the scarce precedent in this field, it would not have been objectively unreasonable for Defendant to take a very different view of the degree to which the Original Effie Script infringed truly original content in the Pomerance Works.'
The district judge added that 'there is reason to believe that the Final Effie Script was modified, in part, to account for the very copyright issues at the heart of this litigation.'
Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Judge Oetken had previously found no substantial similarity between the litigation parties' works. In his recent ruling, the district judge noted: '[T]he Court cannot conclude that Defendant acted unreasonably when she first indicated her copyright concerns to Plaintiff, thereby prompting Plaintiff to file a suit for declaratory judgment. Simply put, at that time, Defendant was not well positioned to predict how a court would approach copyright analysis in this case. Although the [court's earlier] Opinion concluded that there was virtually no substantial similarity between the Pomerance Works and the final version of the Effie screenplay, that conclusion rested on an effort to clarify existing doctrine. It also hinged in significant part on the exclusion of unprotectible historical facts and interpretations from the substantial similarity analysis ' a methodology that requires difficult judgment calls about the line between creative fictionalization and historical interpretation.'
Thus, Judge Oetken found, 'Given the scarce precedent in this field, it would not have been objectively unreasonable for Defendant to take a very different view of the degree to which the Original Effie Script infringed truly original content in the Pomerance Works.'
The district judge added that 'there is reason to believe that the Final Effie Script was modified, in part, to account for the very copyright issues at the heart of this litigation.'
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.