Copyright Law Ronald W. Staudt Class 11 February 25, 2009

Messed over by Adam Sandler's 'You Don't Mess with the Zohan,' sez author's suit. Daily News Gossip BY THOMAS ZAMBITO February 24th 2009 (from Olta Andonin)THOMAS ZAMBITO The creator of a gay comic book hero accused Adam Sandler Monday of ripping off his idea for a blow-dried public avenger and turning it into "You Don't Mess with the Zohan."Adam Sandler Author Robert Cabell sued Sandler, Happy Madison Productions, Sony and Columbia Pictures for copyright infringement in Manhattan Federal Court. Cabell says "Zohan" steals from his "Hair-Raising Adventures of Jayms Blonde" comic book series.Robert CabellHappy Madison ProductionsSony Columbia PicturesManhattan Federal Court "He's gorgeous, he's gay, he makes the bad guys pay," Cabell boasts on a Web site plugging his adventure hero. … It chronicles a former Navy SEAL-turned-hairdresser out to get corporate evildoers armed with an Uzi- style blow-dryer. … Cabell says he pitched Columbia on the idea of a Jayms Blonde movie in Los Angeles in the fall of 2007, around the same time Sandler was filming a "Zohan" disco scene nearby.Columbia Los Angeles In the movie, Sandler plays an Israeli special forces officer who fakes his death and takes a job as a New York City hairdresser.New York City

Today zArchitectural works zCharacters zSound recordings v. musical works zOverview of Government Works and Obscenity

Pictorial, Graphic & Sculptural Works zArchitectural Works pre 1990 yDemetriades v. Kaufmann xFacts xPre 1990 holding- theft v. copying yArchitectural Works Act … of 1990

An "architectural work" zis the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings. The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features.

§ 120. Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works (a) Pictorial representations permitted. The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place. (b) Alterations to and destruction of buildings. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(2), the owners of a building embodying an architectural work may, without the consent of the author or copyright owner of the architectural work, make or authorize the making of alterations to such building, and destroy or authorize the destruction of such building.

Acrchitectural Works Issues zPre PGS problems yDenetriades v. Kaufmann ySwirlies? zPost Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990 yWhat is a building? xKiosk? xCloverleaf intersection? xPissoire?

Nimmer on Copyright 2.12 zThe issue of whether a character from a work of fiction [can be protected] apart from the story in which such character appears, is in a sense more properly framed as relating to the degree of substantial similarity required to constitute infringement rather than in terms of copyrightability per se.

Characters yNichols - the Hand formula- “specificity test” yWarner Bros - Sam Spade- “constitute the story being told” yAnderson – Rocky IV xSilverman v. CBS any other physical features adequately described in the pre-1948 radio scripts may be copied even though those characteristics are visually apparent in the television films or tapes. xMGM v. Honda?

Cartoons & Comics yGaiman v. McFarlane xThe story! xWhat did Gaiman do? xScenes a faire & stock characters xSam Spade? xLiterary v. graphic expression

Sound Recordings & Musical Works zDefinitions ySound recording yPhonorecord yMusical work zNewton v. Diamond - yFacts and procedural history xWhat is at issue? ySubstantial similarity & filtration yWhat is the dissent’s main point?

Newton composes song “Choir” Then he plays and records “Choir” $5000 EMI $1000 Beastie Boys sample 6 seconds of Choir6 seconds of Choir use it 40 times in Pass the MicPass the Mic Sound recording rights only

Government Works  § 105. Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. zRickover’s speeches zSacagawea dollar

County of Suffolk zTax map compilations z FOIA v © z Banks, state laws and tax maps? y Incentive y Notice

Veeck v SBCCI z“The question before us is whether Peter Veeck infringed SBCCI's copyright on its model codes when he posted them only as what they became -- building codes of Anna and Savoy, Texas -- on his regional website. Put otherwise, does SBCCI retain the right wholly to exclude others from copying the model codes after and only to the extent to which they are adopted as "the law" of various jurisdictions? The answer to this narrow issue seems compelled by three sources: the Supreme Court's holding that "the law" is not copyrightable; alternatively, the Copyright Act's exclusion from its scope of "ideas" or "facts"; and the balance of caselaw.” zDC judgment for SBCCI, 5 th Cir affirms, en banc reverses z“We reject SBCCI’s deconstruction of Banks into merely utilitarian and factual issues…”the law” is not subject to federal copyright.”

Veeck v SBCCI zSupreme Court’s view –Banks law prof. example zMerger- “the codes are facts…other methods of expressing the idea are foreclosed…” zModel codes v. standards… ySavoy Building Code v. CCC’s car values zDissent: Veeck copied SBCCI’s work and action by city should not invalidate the © yPer se rule unwise & beyond authority yPolicy, ideas and merger…

Questions p zAuthor’s intent? z Individual incentive? z Certainty of copyrightability? zAccess? z Double public payment?

Obscenity yMitchell Bros. Film Group xContent restrictions – truth? xCommunity standards & statutory construction xConstitutionality?- progress of science and useful arts??? yDevil Films Inc. v. Nectar Video xEquity and clean hands