 |
| http://www.inquisitr.com/99691/colin-firth-grateful-for-uk-support-after-oscars-win/ |
My goal with this blog submission is to identify three of the most recent court cases that have impacted the film industry. They range from infringement cases that also involve an excellent Oscar nominated film, i.e. King Speech, to piracy issues with Warner Bros. studios, followed by a breach of contract issue involving yet another Oscar nominated film, Black Swan.
First, is the case involving The film, The King’s Speech. This case involves improper usage of a common phrase, "No animals were harmed" that was used in the end-credits of the film. However, the disclaimer happens to be a registered trademark that was used without permission. The AHA having a trademark on this phrase for several years, has allowed them the right to be involved in film productions so they can ‘personally’ certify that no "animal actors" are harmed during the filming process. For those who seek permission to use the phrase, the AHA makes several requests along with the ability to participate in the film process. They demand advanced copies of scripts, require on-set access whenever animals are used and they also review daily call sheets to ensure the safety of “animal actors” and the use of their phrase.
According to the article written by Scotty Donaldson, as early as last year, the AHA sent out “cease-and-desist letters to the producers and distributors of five films, including Oscar-nominated District 9”. Although, they have never had to enforce the trademark in court. The Weinstein Company, is distributing the film, The King Speech. The AHA says it was never invited to monitor The King's Speech, however, and so it demands that The Weinstein Company, remove the phrase from their credits. Apparently they are in the process of working something out.
The AHA is standing by the power of their trademark. Their phrase is an assurance to movie-goers that no animals were harmed during the production. I am impressed that they were clever enough to have the rights to such a common, coined phrase. Their ability to stand behind the phrase and police the usage of the term makes the trademark even more powerful. They are right to continue to pursue any company that they feel violates and uses their intellectual property without approval. Their action to hold companies accountable shows that as a company, they are properly “policing” their name, their brand and their reputation!
According to the Dominion Post, Basin, an attorney at Greenberg Glusker, says the AHA trademark is valid, and he compares their phrase to the 'Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval' along with certification marks that may typically be found in the food and beverage industry.
First, is the case involving The film, The King’s Speech. This case involves improper usage of a common phrase, "No animals were harmed" that was used in the end-credits of the film. However, the disclaimer happens to be a registered trademark that was used without permission. The AHA having a trademark on this phrase for several years, has allowed them the right to be involved in film productions so they can ‘personally’ certify that no "animal actors" are harmed during the filming process. For those who seek permission to use the phrase, the AHA makes several requests along with the ability to participate in the film process. They demand advanced copies of scripts, require on-set access whenever animals are used and they also review daily call sheets to ensure the safety of “animal actors” and the use of their phrase.
According to the article written by Scotty Donaldson, as early as last year, the AHA sent out “cease-and-desist letters to the producers and distributors of five films, including Oscar-nominated District 9”. Although, they have never had to enforce the trademark in court. The Weinstein Company, is distributing the film, The King Speech. The AHA says it was never invited to monitor The King's Speech, however, and so it demands that The Weinstein Company, remove the phrase from their credits. Apparently they are in the process of working something out.
The AHA is standing by the power of their trademark. Their phrase is an assurance to movie-goers that no animals were harmed during the production. I am impressed that they were clever enough to have the rights to such a common, coined phrase. Their ability to stand behind the phrase and police the usage of the term makes the trademark even more powerful. They are right to continue to pursue any company that they feel violates and uses their intellectual property without approval. Their action to hold companies accountable shows that as a company, they are properly “policing” their name, their brand and their reputation!
According to the Dominion Post, Basin, an attorney at Greenberg Glusker, says the AHA trademark is valid, and he compares their phrase to the 'Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval' along with certification marks that may typically be found in the food and beverage industry.
Unfortunately, If the case is pursued in court, the AHA would have to prove that by using their seal of approval that, The King's Speech devalued its certification. Funny thing is, that this case is not about earning profits from damages, its more about setting an example and making a point that their is an approval process that companies must be mindful of before they are allowed usage of the intellectual works of others. On the other hand, it's possible that the film makers were unaware that the commonly used phrase was trademarked, and they found themselves at the center of a battle, being accused of infringing on the property of another. The outcome of this case depends on if AHA is able to prove that by using the unauthorized phrase if they are creating consumer confusion. This also includes if the wordplay of a phrase is manipulated or referenced in a different way, it may still stand close to the original phrase that is owned by the AHA, indeed causing consumer confusion.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5070322/black_swan_trailer/
 |
| http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.shockya.com/news/wp-content/uploads/blackswan_poster-535x793.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.shockya.com/news/2010/12/18/black-swan-movie-review-2/&h=793&w=535&sz=77&tbnid=svI4LrmD0pPgzM:&tbnh=143&tbnw=96&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dblack%2Bswan%2Bmovie%2Bpictures&zoom=1&q=black+swan+movie+pictures&usg=__HeNJZx_Hoa85-c29vbGdTPoqc08=&sa=X&ei=dB5yTcVwkZayA_zppMIL&ved=0CCYQ9QEwAw |
The legal issues following the production of the film Black Swan consist of the production company, Overnight LLC suing the former Chief Aaron Kaufman for $10 million for breach of contract. Scott Shifel Of the Daily News asserts that Kaufman is the "ex-president" of the original production company and that he left the team just as the production started filming. He held the film due to contract demands, and among other things he also exposed the company to an embarrassing sexual harassment dispute which he caused by pursuing an employee. Kaufman denies all accusations and explains that he left the production company due to disputes between he and Schwartz, who was executive producer at the time. However, Schwartz is still listed as executive producer but is not eligible for an Academy Award nomination and the production company will not earn any production credit due to the conflicts that occurred at the time. The lawsuit states that it is solely due to "gross lapses in judgment" which cost millions in lost revenue and producer credit on the film "Black Swan."
Somehow, I wonder if the misappropriation of funds and conduct will follow Kaufman, especially if the outcome determines that he owes a substantial amount of money to those that were apart of the company prior to his retreat to start another venture. However, time will tell and there is always a pattern of behavior that the courts utilize as a determining factor in these types of cases. This will certainly be an interesting case to follow as the pages turn and the story continues to unfold! Ten million dollars is no walk in the park and is not easy to obtain! Perhaps the court judgment will rule in favor of the production company but for a reasonable amount.
On the other hand, the lost wages can be determined due to the producer credit and missed opportunity that comes with being ineligible to get the deserved producer credit. If the circumstances were different, the producer credit would have been credited, the company would have their credit and wages would also increase! Perhaps, ten million dollars doesn't look like such a large number when you note the facts! Kaufman argues that he will sue Schwartz for libel. The case is of course one persons word, against the other. While evidence is being obtained, Kaufan and Schwartz will continue to throw stones and it will be a while before we get close to the true source of what truly happened during business hours at Overnight LLC.
 |
| http://estelliarmus.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/6-10-08-warner_bros.jpg |
I will definitely follow these cases and provide you with all the information as the truth unfolds. Today has been great! Tomorrow will be even better! Until next time! I'll meet you at the top!
You can find information on these topics at:
Press. (2011, July 2). What could impede the King's Oscar? | Stuff.co.nz. Stuff.co.nz - Latest New Zealand News & World News, Sports News & NZ Weather Forecasts. Retrieved March 4, 2011, from http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/entertainment/4625301/What-could-impede-the-Kings-Oscar.
Preston, M. (2010, December 27). "Black Swan" Involved inProduction credit Lawsuit . NBC Chicago. Retrieved March 4, 2011, from www.nbcchicago.com/entertainment/movies/NATL-Black-112492014.html
Scotty Donaldson: King's Speech Has Legal Issues - We Should Patent A Movie Credit Phrase!. (2011, February 6). Scotty Donaldson. Retrieved March 4, 2011, from http://www.scottydonaldson.com/2011/02/kings-speech-has-legal-issues-we-should.html
Trotta, D. (2010, December 24). Film producer sues over Black Swan | Reuters. Business News - Indian Stock Market, Stock Market News, Business & Finance, Market Statistics | Reuters India. Retrieved March 4, 2011, from http://in.reuters.com/article/2010/12/24/idINIndia-53763220101224
No comments:
Post a Comment