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.

Stairway to Heaven Lawsuit Trial Date Set

If you work in or around the music industry, you’re probably well aware of the fact that Led Zeppelin, one of the most popular bands of all time, has been embroiled in litigation over the writer credits for the band’s iconic megahit “Stairway to Heaven.” In 2014, the estate of guitarist Randy California, a founding member of the band Spirit, as well as another band member, sued Led Zeppelin in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for copyright infringement over the musical similarities between “Stairway to Heaven” and Spirit’s “Taurus.” The lawsuit states that Stairway’s iconic introduction was lifted directly from Taurus, which Led Zeppelin heard while opening for Spirit on several concerts in 1968 and 1969, and seeks monetary damages as well as crediting Randy California as a writer on Stairway to Heaven.

While Led Zeppelin was unsuccessful in dismissing the lawsuit, the band succeeded in having the case moved from Pennsylvania to Los Angeles, where a federal district judge has slated trial to begin on May 10th, 47 years to the day after Zeppelin performed a concert in Vancouver for a crowd of 4,000. Notably, the band’s defenses in this case don’t deny that Taurus was appropriated, or claim that the songs are dissimilar. Instead, Led Zeppelin claims that the Plaintiffs have no standing to bring this lawsuit in the first place, for three reasons. First, the band asserts that Randy California wrote Taurus as a work for hire, meaning that he created the music pursuant to his contract with Hollenbeck Music and solely on Hollenbeck’s behalf, and therefore never owned the copyright himself. Second, the Defendants argue that California waived any claim to the work in a 1991 interview when he was asked about the similarities between Taurus and Stairway, ultimately responding that “if they wanted to use [Taurus], that’s fine,” and “I’ll let them have . . . Taurus for their song without a lawsuit.” Finally, the members of Led Zeppelin claim that they have been prejudiced by the fact that Plaintiffs waited over 40 years to bring this claim, during which time Stairway to Heaven became one of the highest-earning songs in history, and increasing the amount of damages sought by the Plaintiffs.

This is a case of landmark proportions. The fact that Led Zeppelin, a British band, was found to be subject to personal jurisdiction, first in Pennsylvania and now in Los Angeles, demonstrates that jurisdictional requirements can be met by non-resident musicians simply by marketing and selling records in a particular place. Recent efforts by the parties to settle the case have been fruitless, and we expect the case to proceed to trial roughly a month from now, as scheduled. Stay tuned as the court finally resolves this copyright infringement matter involving one of the most iconic, widely recognizable songs of all time.

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

Cautionary Tale: When Contemplating Live Music at Your Venue, Get a License

Last summer, a small band performed at a bar called 69 Taps in Medina, Ohio, near Cleveland. That evening, the band covered a number of popular songs that the mostly middle-aged audience had grown up listening to. The bar had not asked for a set list, nor had the band provided one. The band took requests, playing hits like “Brown Eyed Girl” and “Freebird” for a small audience. The problem? “Freebird” and nine other songs that the band covered that evening are protected by Broadcast Music, Inc. (“BMI”), a performing rights organization tasked with collecting royalties, and 69 Taps did not have a license to present music from BMI’s catalog.

 The bar was slammed with a lawsuit brought by BMI and the copyright holders of each of the ten covered songs, demanding that 69 Taps pay significant damages and attorneys’ fees. While it may seem harsh to sue a small-time bar for copyright infringement over an amateur cover band’s decision to take requests on a summer evening, this lawsuit is a testament to the fact that BMI (one of the “big three” American performing rights organizations along with ASCAP and SESAC) takes aggressive steps to protect the intellectual property of its artists. Because 69 Taps did not ask for a set list or post one on its website, BMI could only have found out about the performance of the infringing works through its survey process—by actually having a representative in the audience to keep tabs on the performance. Any venue that presents live music, no matter how small or obscure, should expect to be “surveyed” by the three performing rights organizations. 

The solution to avoiding these lawsuits is for venues to purchase a “blanket license.” For example, if 69 Taps had purchased BMI’s blanket license, it would have had unfettered permission to present any of the roughly 8.5 million songs in BMI’s catalog for a flat annual fee. BMI allocates shares of the licensing fee to the artists whose work is represented in the venue’s programming, as determined by the same survey methodologies that discovered 69 Taps’s unlicensed performances. The cost of the blanket license is much less than the cost of defending just one copyright infringement lawsuit, so if your business plans on offering live music, the safe bet is to purchase blanket licenses from all three major performing rights organizations. Otherwise, businesses may have to “face the music.”

Frank Gulino is an associate attorney with Washington, DC business law firm Berenzweig Leonard. He can be reached at FGulino@BerenzweigLaw.com.

Stairway to the Courthouse?

Led Zeppelin’s 1971 hit “Stairway to Heaven” is one of the most popular and recognizable rock songs of all time. With a re-release of the original Led Zeppelin albums planned for this summer, however, a Philadelphia attorney has expressed his intention to bring a copyright infringement lawsuit against the band over the true origin of Stairway’s iconic introduction.

That attorney represents the trust of the late Randy California, formerly the guitarist of the band Spirit, as well as Spirit bassist Mark Andes. In 1968 and ‘69, Spirit and Led Zeppelin performed several concerts together that featured one of Spirit’s instrumental tracks, called “Taurus.” Allegations that Stairway’s introduction was lifted from “Taurus” are nothing new; in the mid-1990s, California, who wrote “Taurus,” publicly stated that “[Stairway] was a ripoff,” and that “[Led Zeppelin] made millions of bucks on it and never said ‘thank you.’” But the impending re-release of Led Zeppelin IV has certainly provided a financial incentive to bring the suit sooner than later.

In addition to being the best-selling piece of sheet music in rock history (having sold over 1 million copies since its release), Stairway is also one of the most profitable. As of 2008, Stairway to Heaven had earned at least $562 million, a number that has undoubtedly grown over the last few years and stands to grow even further if all goes as planned with the digitally remastered re-releases this summer.

The lawsuit will allege copyright infringement and will also try to enjoin the re-release unless Randy California is given a writing credit on the song. Although it may seem unusual to add a writer credit over 40 years after Stairway’s release, this is not unfamiliar territory for Led Zeppelin. Album listings for some of the band’s other big hits including “Whole Lotta Love,” “The Lemon Song,” and “Dazed and Confused” have all been amended to include the names of artists which courts ruled were the true originators of the music as a result of past lawsuits, showing Zeppelin’s history of settling cases like this.

Although there is a three-year statute of limitations for copyright infringement, Stairway to Heaven is such a profitable song that back royalties for just the last three years would be significant, not to mention potential for a spike in profits following the re-release. In the end of this tune, don’t be surprised if Led Zeppelin settles this case in an effort to avoid the Stairway to the Courthouse.

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

Holy Dollar Signs! Legal Considerations for Comics Creators

Comics are big business.  AMC’s hit reality show Comic Book Men was recently renewed for a fourth season, and comics-related content continues to dominate both in theaters and on television.  Amazon just announced that it would be acquiring comiXology, the leading platform for digital comics, and both businesses and individuals are constantly finding new ways to use webcomics to market their models, provide information to customers, and monetize their art.  As the comic book renaissance continues to blossom, it is important for businesspeople to understand the many legal issues associated with the creation, use, and protection of comics-related content.

When it comes to developing new content, many creators start and end their legal consideration with thoughts of copyrighting and/or trademarking their work.  While it is important and productive to rope off one’s original creations, artists also have to be sure they do not tread on others’ IP rights by over-borrowing or trading on the goodwill engendered by other content producers.  In their excellent comic, Bound by Law, scholars at Duke University’s Center for the Study of the Public Domain explore some of the tough decisions creators face in the process of creating new content.  One step too far, and artists could end up like the Air Pirates, who came out owing Disney thousands of dollars after a successful lawsuit over the infamous Air Pirates Funnies, or the award-winning creators of Saga, who had a digital issue of their series pulled from certain web platforms due to their use of risqué imagery.  When individuals collaborate on comics-related projects ‒ as writers and artists often do ‒ or when companies hire outside parties to design their content, matters can get even more complicated, as borne out in the large-scale battles over characters from the Spawn and Superman universes.

Still more legal issues come into play when it comes time for creators to publish, post, or sell their content.  From the artist’s side, the terms of any printing or publishing contract should be carefully scrutinized to ensure that the creator is getting the best deal possible and not inadvertently signing away valuable rights.  Important items to watch out for include any assignments of character or merchandising rights, or improper characterization of content as “work for hire.”  From the buyer or licensee’s side, it is important to ensure that the creator is not trying to hold back valuable rights that would allow the creator to use or re-sell content in ways that would result in a loss of the benefit of the bargain.  In every case, a full and accurate description of both the content at issue and the applicable pricing schemes will cut down on confusion.

Once content is made available to the public, yet another set of issues comes into play.  Principal among these is the need to start policing the creator’s brand.  Comics ‒ especially webcomics ‒ lend themselves to easy appropriation, and creators can lose revenue when their content is inappropriately copied.  Creators also have to guard against their content’s being twisted in ways that might harm the creator’s brand; My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is a far cry from My Little Pony: Fighting is Magic, and brand-conscious parties must be on constant guard against tarnishment.

The world of comics is primed to yield big financial rewards for savvy business people, but it is critical that both creators and content users stay on top of those legal issues that might crop up in comics-related transactions, and control for them as much as possible.

Ryen Rasmus is an associate attorney practicing in the Entertainment and Music Industry Law Group of Berenzweig Leonard, LLP.  He can be reached at RRasmus@BerenzweigLaw.com.

Cautionary Tale: When Contemplating Live Music at Your Venue, Get a License

Last summer, a small band performed at a bar called 69 Taps in Medina, Ohio, near Cleveland. That evening, the band covered a number of popular songs that the mostly middle-aged audience had grown up listening to. The bar had not asked for a set list, nor had the band provided one. The band took requests, playing hits like “Brown Eyed Girl” and “Freebird” for a small audience. The problem? “Freebird” and nine other songs that the band covered that evening are protected by Broadcast Music, Inc. (“BMI”), a performing rights organization tasked with collecting royalties, and 69 Taps did not have a license to present music from BMI’s catalog.

 The bar was slammed with a lawsuit brought by BMI and the copyright holders of each of the ten covered songs, demanding that 69 Taps pay significant damages and attorneys’ fees. While it may seem harsh to sue a small-time bar for copyright infringement over an amateur cover band’s decision to take requests on a summer evening, this lawsuit is a testament to the fact that BMI (one of the “big three” American performing rights organizations along with ASCAP and SESAC) takes aggressive steps to protect the intellectual property of its artists. Because 69 Taps did not ask for a set list or post one on its website, BMI could only have found out about the performance of the infringing works through its survey process—by actually having a representative in the audience to keep tabs on the performance. Any venue that presents live music, no matter how small or obscure, should expect to be “surveyed” by the three performing rights organizations. 

The solution to avoiding these lawsuits is for venues to purchase a “blanket license.” For example, if 69 Taps had purchased BMI’s blanket license, it would have had unfettered permission to present any of the roughly 8.5 million songs in BMI’s catalog for a flat annual fee. BMI allocates shares of the licensing fee to the artists whose work is represented in the venue’s programming, as determined by the same survey methodologies that discovered 69 Taps’s unlicensed performances. The cost of the blanket license is much less than the cost of defending just one copyright infringement lawsuit, so if your business plans on offering live music, the safe bet is to purchase blanket licenses from all three major performing rights organizations. Otherwise, businesses may have to “face the music.”

Frank Gulino is an associate attorney with Washington, DC business law firm Berenzweig Leonard. He can be reached at FGulino@BerenzweigLaw.com.