Category Archives: Copyright

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Hining v. Gregg

18 Friday Feb 2011

Posted by in Copyright, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Mary E. Hining v. Rebecca L. Gregg

Copyright lawyers can be expensive so these litigants have both decided to represent themselves. Both parties operate an Etsy store, and Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has been selling infringing artwork (glass and ceramic designs).

Court Case Number: 1:11-cv-00261-TWP-DML
File Date: Friday, February 18, 2011
Plaintiff: Mary E. Hining
Plaintiff Counsel: Mary E. Hining – Pro Se
Defendant: Rebecca L. Gregg
Cause: Copyright Infringement
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Stephane Dion v. Allwin Powersports Corp.

08 Tuesday Feb 2011

Posted by in Copyright, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Stephane Dion et al v. Allwin Powersports Corporation, Inc. et al

Conventions don’t just bring tourists. They bring lawsuits too!

Dion, a Canadian motorcycle helmet designer, is suing an Illinois corporation whose principal is a Chinese national…in the Southern District of Indiana. What brings this illustrious crowd to our fair Hoosier Halls of Justice? It’s all because of the upcoming Dealer Expo 11.

Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (see below) to stop Defendant from selling allegedly infringing motorcycle helmets at the upcoming Powersports tradeshow from Feb. 18-20 in Indianapolis.

The two parties had previously operated under a royalty agreement but Defendant apparently stopped making payments in 2010.

There should be some fairly quick updates in this case so check back soon.

Court Case Number: 1:11-cv-00173-RLY-TAB
File Date: Friday, February 04, 2011
Plaintiff: Stephane Dion, 91934885 Quebec Inc. dba Dion Designs
Plaintiff Counsel: Joseph Peter Rompala, Todd Arthur Richardson of Lewis & Kappes
Defendant: Allwin Powersports Corporation, Inc.
Arthur Liao
MHR Helmet Co. Ltd.
Foshan Shunde Fengxing Helmets Ltd.
Jiangmen Pengcheng Helmets Ltd.
Cause: Violation of Lanham Act, Copyright Infringement, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, Breach of Contract, Conversion, Unfair Competition, Declaratory Relief
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Richard L. Young
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker

COMPLAINT:

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION:

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION:

Church and the Super Bowl

24 Monday Jan 2011

Posted by in Copyright, Entertainment Law, Intellectual Property, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

The last time Peyton Manning was leading the Indianapolis Colts on a championship run (it’s been awhile), the NFL clamped down on the ability to watch the big game in churches. The NFL sent letters to churches informing them that airing the game would be a violation of the NFL’s copyright and trademark rights. However, two years ago the NFL appeared to call a reverse and allowed viewing in churches under certain conditions.

So what’s the NFL’s policy this year? Since there’s been no indication to the contrary, it seems the NFL is sticking to the policy that churches can air the Super Bowl without violating copyright laws. So start planning those parties!

For those who don’t know, here’s How to Host a Church Super Bowl Party.

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Truth Publishing Company Inc. v. Kristopher C. Campbell

17 Monday Jan 2011

Posted by in Bloggers, Copyright, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Northern District of Indiana

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Truth Publishing Company Inc. v. Kristopher C. Campbell

Plaintiff operates a daily newspaper called THE ELKHART TRUTH in Elkhart, Indiana. Defendant publishes a periodical called I.C.U. (Indiana Criminals Uncovered) MUG SHOTS. I.C.U. MUG SHOTS apparently copies news stories relating to crime and arrests directly from Plaintiff’s paper and sells the reprints for $1.50 a copy in Elkhart.

I can see why The Elkhart Truth would get tired of sending out its reporters to dig up info only to have another local paper photocopy their stories and republish. But, on some levels, isn’t Defendant doing a public service by helping spread information about criminals? Defendant certainly considered the copyright issues, as he included the following disclaimer:

“The information provided by Indiana Criminal Uncovered (ICU) Mugshots is of public record in accordance with Indiana Code 5-14-3-5. The information relates only to arrest, bookings, and preliminary charges. It does not address guilty pleas, convictions, or criminal sentences. All persons in this publication are innocent until provent guilty”

Whether the disclaimer can protect him will be determined by this lawsuit.

Defendant is running the old-school equivalent of a criminal law blog, which of course requires a little money for printing and distribution. Defendant is correct that mug shots and arrest records are public information. However, it appeared that Defendant copied the articles directly and distributed the reprints in the same geographic market, Elkhart.

While it’s likely that some people may not buy the Truth if they can get crime news from Defendant, there is apparently a wholly separate market of people who want crime stories but not the rest of the news content contained in a regular issue of the Truth. If so, Defendant may be able to continue to serve this audience, but will probably want to do more of his own fact-finding and reporting.

Court Case Number: 3:11-cv-00017-JD-CAN
File Date: Thursday, January 13, 2011
Plaintiff: Truth Publishing Company Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Steven M. Badger of Bose McKinney & Evans LLP
Defendant: Kristopher C. Campbell
Cause: Copyright Infringement
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Jon E. DeGuilio
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein

What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2011?

03 Monday Jan 2011

Posted by in Copyright, Intellectual Property, Legislation

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Current US law extends copyright protections for 70 years from the date of the author’s death. But prior to the 1976 Copyright Act (which became effective in 1978), the maximum copyright term was 56 years (an initial term of 28 years, renewable for another 28 years).  Under those laws, works published in 1954 would be passing into the public domain on January 1, 2011.

This includes:

  • The first two volumes of J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of Rings trilogy: The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers
  • Aldous Huxley’s The Doors of Perception
  • Dr. Seuss’ Horton Hears a Who!
  • Richard Matheson’s I Am Legend
  • Fredric Wertham’s Seduction of the Innocent, subtitled “The influence of comic books on today’s youth”
  • Tennessee Williams’ Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
  • C.S. Lewis’ The Horse and His Boy, the fifth volume of The Chronicles of Narnia
  • First issue of Sports Illustrated
  • Director Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window, starring James Stewart, Grace Kelly, Raymond Burr, and Thelma Ritter
  • White Christmas, starring Bing Crosby, Rosemary Clooney, and Vera Allen, featuring songs by Irving Berlin
  • I Got a Woman, (Ray Charles and Renald Richard)

While authors of famous and commercially successful works have incentive to renew the copyright for a second term of 28 years, statistics show that 85% of authors did not renew their copyrights (for books, the number is even higher – 93% did not renew).  This means that if the pre-1978 law were still in effect, about 85% of the works created in 1982 would enter the public domain on January 1, 2011. How amazing would that be?

“Imagine what that would mean to our archives, our libraries, our schools and our culture. Instead, these works will remain under copyright for decades to come, perhaps even into the next century. And for most of them – orphan works – that means they will be both commercially unavailable and culturally off limits, without any benefit going to a copyright holder.”

Click here for the full discussion and additional works.