Copyright Brief Laura McNulty Dr. Rickman November 17, 2011

  Fleischer Studios, Inc., was an American corporations which originated as an Animation Studio located on Broadway, New York City, New York.  It was founded in 1921 as Inkwell Studios by brothers Max Fleischer and Dave Fleischer who ran the company from its inception until Paramount Pictures, the studio's parent company and the distributor of its films, forced them to resign in April 1942.Max FleischerDave Fleischer  In its prime, it was the most significant competitor to Walt Disney Productions, and is notable for bringing to the screen cartoons featuring Koko the Clown, Betty Boop, Bimbo, Popeye the Sailor, and Superman.Betty Boop  Unlike other studios, whose most famous characters were anthropomorphic animals, the Fleischers' most popular characters were humans.  (Fleischer Studios,2011). The Plaintiff King Features Syndicate, Inc./Fleischer Studios, Inc.)

  Welcome to AVELA  Avenue LA is the world’s leading Evergreen Property Brand Licensing Agency in the world, featuring the rarest, and greatest collection(s) of Hollywood and Music Nostalgia Imagery for every occasion.  Their evergreen brand collection features Hollywood’s Rich History spanning over 100 years and is now iconic in pop culture aligning itself with legendary music, fashion, movies, sports, and comics all while remaining cool, youthful, and up to date.  Their licensing company is proud to showcase Pure Vintage as a legendary lifestyle as the hottest trend.  Reinvention, what’s old is new again is their motto.  The company crossbrands with the biggest and best-loved brand names around the world to create limitless possibilities! *(AVELA, 2011) The Defendant Microsoft Clipart, 2011

 Case Summary This appeal stemmed from the district court's summary judgment dismissing Fleischer Studios, Inc.'s (Fleischer) copyright and trademark infringement action where the district court ruled that Fleischer held neither a valid copyright nor a valid trademark in the Betty Boop cartoon character and therefore lacked standing to sue. The court held that because the chain of title was broken, the district court properly dismissed Fleischer's copyright infringement claim. The court vacated and remanded to the district court for further proceedings on Fleischer's trademark infringement claims regarding the Betty Boop word mark because it was unable to ascertain a legal basis for the district court's reasoning on the current record. (Copyright & Fair Use, 2009)

  A divided 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Wednesday said descendants of Max Fleischer were not entitled to control of the character, who is known for her large eyes, baby face, tightly coiffed black hair, short dresses and high heels.  Judge J. Clifford Wallace wrote for a 2-1 majority that the plaintiff Fleischer Studios Inc could not prove it had title to the character, which Max Fleischer sold 70 years ago to Paramount Pictures Inc and later went through other hands.  Wallace also said the defendant AVELA Inc, which licensed Betty Boop dolls, T-shirts and handbags under a copyright based on vintage posters, did not infringe any trademark, having not held out its products as "official" or misled customers.  (Stempel, 2011) Court Appeal

  In Fleischer Studios, Inc. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3487 (9th Cir. 2011), Fleischer Studios sued A.V.E.L.A. for both copyright infringement and trademark infringement for selling, among other things, dolls, t-shirts, and handbags featuring the Betty Boop character. However, on February 23, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Fleischer Studios did not own the copyright to the Betty Boop character.  The Ninth Circuit then went on to hold that Fleischer Studios was barred from asserting a claim for trademark infringement against A.V.E.L.A., Inc. because it was essentially using the trademark infringement claim as a substitute for a claim of copyright infringment that it was not entitled to bring.  (Tarabichi, 2011) Why Infringement?

 Reflection I believe that because there was no real evidence of a legal copyright, the decision was made upon those reasoning’s. It seems to me there was some chemistry between policies. That’s why the court rules on the claims after it had the Plaintiff’s rejected copyright claim. I do think that since the court did make some errors in the claim, I would return to custody for reconsideration for the right copyright investigation. King Features Syndicate, Inc./Fleischer Studios, Inc.)

  Fleischer Studios. (2011). Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved November 15, 2011 from  Avela. (2011). Art and Vintage Entertainment Licensing Agency, Inc. Retrieved Novmber 16, 2011 from  Stanford University Libraries and Academic Information Resources. (2009). Copyright and Fair  Use-Copyright Case Opinion Summaries. Retrieved November 15, 2011 from  Stempel. (2011). Betty Boop Creator's Family Loses Copyright Case. Retrieved November 16,2011 from  Tarabichi. (2011). A Trademark Cannot Be Used to Protect a Previously Copyrighted Work That Has Entered the Public Domain. Retrieved Vovember 16, 2011 from  King Features Syndicate, Inc./Fleischer Studios. Inc. (2011). Yahoo Images. Retrieved November 16,2011 from featuring-score-by-david-foster_16167.htmlhttp:// featuring-score-by-david-foster_16167.html  Microsoft Clipart. (2011). Image from Microsoft Word Clip Art. References