A Legal Marvel: The Stark Difference Between Copyrights and Trademarks

Theatrical release poster

Since Iron Man was released to rave reviews in 2008, Marvel has created the most successful film franchise in history and has amassed a global empire while simultaneously re-energizing the comic book genre. As you might expect, many overly ambitious citizens have attempted to take a cut of Marvel’s profit by any means necessary, leading to some interesting lawsuits against the comic book mogul in the past few years.

In 2015 for instance, Ben and Ray Lai of Horizon Comics sued Marvel for copyright infringement on the grounds that Iron Man’s advanced super suit, as depicted in the company’s films, was plagiarized from Horizon’s character, Radix, a comic book figure who also wears a highly advanced suit of body armor. Although the indie comic company’s character was only created in 2001, the Lai brothers claimed that the original Iron Man wore a simple spandex suit when he debuted in 1963 and didn’t sport his new suit until 2008, when the movie franchise began. Luckily for Marvel, the Lai brothers’ allegations were considered questionable, and their case was quickly dismissed. The case does, however, raise an interesting question; what facts can substantiate a lawsuit based on a fictional character?

Fictional characters may be protected by both copyright and trademark law. In the intellectual property world, it is common knowledge that ideas themselves are not copyrightable. Instead it’s the expression of ideas in new and unique ways that earn a creator a limited-duration monopoly. In order for a fictional character to rise above classification as an idea or mere stock character, which isn’t entitled to copyright protection, the imagined figure must be sufficiently developed and contain distinctive characteristics. Using Iron Man as an example, Tony Stark is dramatized as a billionaire philanthropist playboy who is incredibly intelligent and annoyingly witty. Alone, none of these traits would make Iron Man a distinctive fictional character. But together, they constitute Tony Stark, a complex figure who has been entertaining audiences across multiple media forms for decades and is therefore entitled to the protection of copyright law.

Copyrights and trademarks protect different aspects of a figure’s likeness. While copyrights safeguard an owner’s exclusive right to use, copy, and exploit a fictional character, trademarks can lock down a figure’s name, physical appearance, and catchphrases when incorporated into or used in association with goods and services. Once again returning to the Tony Stark example, whenever one purchases a licensed product that sports Iron man’s likeness, the consumer should be able to trust that Marvel (now owned by Disney) proudly endorses the product, and that the product meets the comic company’s standard of high quality.

In addition to protecting different facets of intellectual property, trademarks and copyrights are governed by different systems of law with their own distinct rules, further distinguishing the two complex types of protection. For example, in terms of duration, copyrightable works created after January 1, 1978 are protected for the life of the last living author plus 70 years (or 120 years when the creator is a company). On the contrary, trademarks remain valid indefinitely, assuming that the mark at issue is still in use, and that the public continues to recognize the mark as a source indicator. Although the character of Tony Stark will eventually enter the public domain and be exploitable by the masses on the copyright side, for instance, Marvel could, in theory, benefit off of (and foreclose others’ rights to use) Iron Man in connection with merchandising forever.

When used together, copyrights and trademarks can be used to protect influential fictional figures from abuse by potential infringers while encouraging future creatives to come up with new, innovative, and fanciful characters. On the other hand, media companies’ motivation to keep tight control of their most popular characters keeps other from using them to tell new or unusual stories. That is, of course, unless the parody or fair use defenses apply . . . but that’s a story for another blog.

Matt Wagner is a law clerk at Berenzweig Leonard, LLP who is currently studying Music Business and Songwriting at Belmont University.

Appeal of “Blurred Lines” Verdict Backed by Artists

Roughly a year and a half after the highly controversial March 2015 jury verdict awarding Marvin Gaye’s children nearly $7.4 million in a copyright infringement lawsuit against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams, the “Blurred Lines” case is in the news again. Over two hundred songwriters, composers, musicians, and producers joined in the filing of an amicus brief in support of Thicke and Williams, who have appealed the verdict.

Following a trial in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, a jury concluded that Thick and Williams plagiarized Gaye’s 1977 hit “Got to Give It Up” to create “Blurred Lines,” the longest-running number one single of 2013. In July of 2015, the judgment was trimmed down to $5.3 million, and Gaye’s heirs were granted half of all future royalties from “Blurred Lines.” Thicke and Williams filed a notice of appeal that December.

The recent and overwhelming support of this appeal by the music community comes in the wake of a verdict that essentially creates artist liability for the creation of new works that are merely inspired by prior works, even unwittingly, rather than actually copied or plagiarized. The brief, whose signatories include members of Earth, Wind & Fire, Linkin Park, Weezer, Hall & Oates, and solo artists such as R. Kelly and Jennifer Hudson, points out that “by eliminating any meaningful standard for drawing the line between permissible inspiration and unlawful copying, the judgment is certain to stifle creativity and impede the creative process.”

While certain aspects of a musical composition are protectable by copyright, such as particular arrangements of notes and harmonies, others are not, such as style, feel, or the timbre of a certain combination of instruments. It became apparent early on that the verdict in this case relied almost exclusively on those non-protectable elements, as jurors seemed to pay more heed to stylistic similarities than the fact that Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” and Gaye’s “Got to Give It Up” are otherwise distinguishable works. Many artists forecast the possibility of this controversial verdict having a chilling effect on songwriting going forward. The filing of this amicus brief to overturn this result shows just how widespread that sentiment is throughout the music community.

Frank Gulino is an award-winning composer and attorney with Berenzweig Leonard, LLP. He can be reached at FGulino@BerenzweigLaw.com.