Paramount Pictures v. Axanar Productions: identifying the infringed work when an unauthorized production is set in an existing fictional universe

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 73-88
Author(s):  
Michael D. Dunford
Keyword(s):  
Copyright Protection ◽  
Copyright Infringement ◽  
Fair Use ◽  
Current Time ◽  
Alternative Approach ◽  
American Case ◽  
The Universe

The copyright status of the fictional universes that form the foundation of many interactive and conventional entertainment franchises is unclear, making it difficult to determine how to assess copyright infringement claims when the universe is appropriated for use by an unauthorized work. A recent American case, Paramount Pictures v. Axanar Productions, represents one of the only known examples of such a case that does not involve the corresponding use of major plot elements or characters from within the main franchise works. This paper uses the Paramount Pictures v. Axanar Productions case as an example of the effect that decisions about how to identify the infringed work have on both the substantial similarity and fair use inquiries. The aggregation approach adopted by the court is critiqued, and an alternative approach – treating the fictional universe itself as a copyright protected work – is suggested as an alternative consistent with existing law. However, even that approach is likely to have potential pitfalls. Ultimately, those interested in copyright as applied to multi-work franchises should be aware that this is an area of lingering uncertainty, with both the nature and the extent of the copyright protection afforded to fictional universes undefined at the current time.

scholarly journals Courts React

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 601-613
Author(s):  
Gretchen L. Casey
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Copyright Infringement ◽  
Fair Use ◽  
District Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Youtube Videos ◽  
Summary Judgment ◽  
First Time ◽  
Video Format ◽  
Tube Channel

Over the past few years, the rise in popularity of a genre of You- Tube videos known as “reaction videos” has resulted in controversy for various reasons. The United States District Court in Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, a landmark case for the genre, described the “reaction videos” as “a large genre of YouTube videos . . . [that] vary widely in terms of purpose, structure, and the extent to which they rely on potentially copyrighted material.” According to the Hosseinzadeh opinion, “[s]ome reaction videos. . .intersperse short segments of another’s work with criticism and commentary, while others are more akin to a group viewing session without commentary.” Essentially, reaction videos are exactly what the name suggests: a video showing a person or group of people reacting to the work of another, which by nature requires the incorporation of the work being reacted to for the viewer’s reference. The first time that controversy arose out of the “reaction” genre was in 2015 when the Fine Brothers, the creators of a popular YouTube channel known for its “Kids React” series along with several other “reaction video” series, applied to trademark the term “react.” The brothers did so with the intention to create a program called “React World,” through which they would license out the “reaction video” format to other video creators. This endeavor came not long after the Fine Brothers criticized Ellen DeGeneres for allegedly using their “re- action” format in a segment on her television show, suggesting the brothers’ belief that they were the sole owners of what is, in reality, a widely-used format. As a result, YouTube viewers became distrustful of the Fine Brothers’ intentions in trademarking the format, and viewers criticized them to the point that they issued a public apology in February of 2016 in which they announced their decision to “[r]escind all. . .‘React’ trademarks and applications” and “[d]iscontinue the React World program.” Later in 2016, reaction videos would again become the subject of controversy when Ethan and Hila Klein, the husband-and-wife creators of the popular YouTube comedy channel H3H3 Productions, were sued by Matt Hosseinzadeh of the decidedly less popular You- Tube channel, Matt Hoss Zone, for copyright infringement. Hosseinzadeh alleged copyright infringement for the use of segments of his video, “Bold Guy vs. Parkour Girl,” in a humorous reaction video made by the Kleins.8 What resulted was the aforementioned Hosseinzadeh v. Klein opinion, which set a precedent that will hopefully allow future reaction video creators to produce and share content without their creativity being stifled by the looming risk of copyright infringement lawsuits. Hosseinzadeh alleged that a video, which was part of a series of videos, starring himself as “Bold Guy,” “in which the Bold Guy flirts with a woman and chases her through various sequences” was infringement. Hosseinzadeh alleged that the Kleins’ video entitled “The Big, The BOLD, The Beautiful,” infringed upon “Bold Guy vs. Parkour Girl,” as it featured the couple “comment[ing] on and criticiz[ing] [his] video, playing portions of it in the process.” Accepting the Kleins’ motion for summary judgment, which pleaded the fair use defense, the court held that its “review of the. . .videos makes it clear that [the claim] in which plaintiff alleges that defendants in- fringed plaintiff’s copyrights, must be decided in defendants’ favor.”

scholarly journals KAJIAN RELEVANSI DELIK ADUAN PADA IMPLEMENTASI UNDANG-UNDANG HAK CIPTA

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 212
Author(s):  
Fitri Pratiwi Rasyid
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Copyright Protection ◽  
Original Work ◽  
Copyright Infringement ◽  
Normative Study

AbstractLaw enforcement efforts against copyright infringement in Indonesia are regulated as a complaint offense under Article 120 of Law Number 28 of 2014 concerning Copyright. Complaint offense implementation had connected with one consideration suggested that the officials having difficulty to distinguish between an original work and a copy. Referring to normative study that has been conducted, the complaint offense is irrelevant since it restricts law enforcement capacity of providing copyright protection. Appropriately, to protect creators and/or copyright holders whose rights have been violated, the officials should take an action without waiting for a complaint about the presence of copyright infringement.IntisariUpaya penegakan hukum terhadap pelanggaran hak cipta di Indonesia diatur sebagai delik aduan berdasarkan Pasal 120 Undang-Undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2014 tentang Hak Cipta. Delik aduan berlaku dengan salah satu pertimbangan bahwa aparat penegak hukum kerap sulit membedakan ciptaan yang asli dengan tiruannya. Bersumber pada pengkajian normatif yang telah dilakukan, delik aduan tidak relevan diterapkan karena membatasi ruang gerak penegakan hukum dalam memberikan pelindungan hukum untuk berkarya. Sepatutnya, untuk melindungi pencipta dan/atau pemegang hak cipta yang dilanggar haknya, aparat penegak hukum dapat bertindak tanpa harus menunggu aduan pada pelanggaran hak cipta yang terjadi.

The Flexible Copyright Exception for ‘Non-Enjoyment’ Purposes ‒ Recent Amendment in Japan and Its Implication

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tatsuhiro Ueno
Keyword(s):  
Copyright Protection ◽  
Fair Use ◽  
Theoretical Justification ◽  
Fair Dealing ◽  
The Us ◽  
General Clause ◽  
Copyright Exception ◽  
The Uk ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Text And Data Mining

Abstract After the long discussions in Japan over the introduction of a general clause on copyright exceptions since 2007, the ‘flexible’ provisions on copyright exceptions (Arts. 30-4, 47-4 and 47-5) were finally introduced into the Japanese Copyright Act in 2018 and came into effect in 2019. They differ widely from the US fair use clause and the UK fair dealing provisions. This article focuses on Art. 30-4, which comprehensively allows an exploitation of a work that is aimed at neither enjoying nor causing another person to enjoy the work. In particular, any exploitation for text-and-data mining (TDM) is widely permitted by any means under Art. 30-4, including for commercial purposes. The underlying theory behind this relates to the nature of copyright, or the justification for copyright protection that an exploitation not for ‘enjoyment’ purposes is beyond the inherent scope of copyright because it does not prejudice the opportunities of the copyright holders to receive compensation. While this might sound unusual, it is interesting to note that some similar theories can be found in Europe, some of which try to widely exclude TDM activities from the scope of copyright based on the idea of ‘a use as a work’. Considering such common characteristics of the theories regarding copyright and ‘enjoyment’ of a work, Art. 30-4 of the Japanese Copyright Act and the theoretical justification for it might have implications for other jurisdictions regarding copyright exceptions or the substantive scope of copyright.

scholarly journals Copyright’s Digital/Analog Divide

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Sag
Keyword(s):  
Copyright Infringement ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Fair Use ◽  
Cultural Participation ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
Private Control ◽  
Media Environments ◽  
The Many ◽  
Copyright Enforcement ◽  
Made In

This Article shows how the substantive balance of copyright law has beenovershadowed online by the system of intermediary safe harbors enacted aspart of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) in 1998. The Internetsafe harbors and the system of notice-and-takedown fundamentally changedthe incentives of platforms, users, and rightsholders in relation to claimsof copyright infringement. These different incentives interact to yield afunctional balance of copyright online that diverges markedly from theexperience of copyright law in traditional media environments. This articlealso explores a second divergence: the DMCA’s safe harbor system is beingsuperseded by private agreements between rightsholders and large commercialInternet platforms made in the shadow of those safe harbors. Theseagreements relate to automatic copyright filtering systems, such asYouTube’s Content ID, that not only return platforms to their gatekeepingrole, but encode that role in algorithms and software.The normative implications of these developments are contestable. Fair useand other axioms of copyright law still nominally apply online; but inpractice, the safe harbors and private agreements made in the shadow ofthose safe harbors are now far more important determinants of onlinebehavior than whether that conduct is, or is not, substantively incompliance with copyright law. The diminished relevance of substantivecopyright law to online expression has benefits and costs that appearfundamentally incommensurable. Compared to the offline world, onlineplatforms are typically more permissive of infringement, and more open tonew and unexpected speech and new forms of cultural participation. However,speech on these platforms is also more vulnerable to over-reaching claimsby rightsholders. There is no easy metric for comparing the value ofnon-infringing expression enabled by the safe harbors to that which hasbeen unjustifiably suppressed by misuse of the notice-and-takedown system.Likewise, the harm that copyright infringement does to rightsholders is noteasy to calculate, nor is it easy to weigh against the many benefits of thesafe harbors.DMCA-plus agreements raise additional considerations. Automatic copyrightenforcement systems have obvious advantages for both platforms andrightsholders; they may also allow platforms to be more hospitable tocertain types of user content. However, automated enforcement systems mayalso place an undue burden on fair use and other forms of non-infringingspeech. The design of copyright enforcement robots encodes a series ofpolicy choices made by platforms and rightsholders and, as a result,subjects online speech and cultural participation to a new layer of privateordering and private control. In the future, private interests, not publicpolicy will determine the conditions under which users get to participatein online platforms that adopt these systems. In a world wherecommunication and expression is policed by copyright robots, thesubstantive content of copyright law matters only to the extent that thosewith power decide that it should matter.Keywords: Copyright, DMCA, Infringement, Internet, Safe harbors,Enforcement, Fair use, Automation, Algorithms, Robots.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document