Graphic Characters (Mickey Copyrightable only if delineated in sufficient detail (X One X; Air Pirates) Copyrightable only if they Visual Characters: display consistent, widely identifiable visual characteristics (X One X) Policy Concerns Series of copyrighted projects (MGM) Can result in broad exceptionally – protection James Bond and automobile commercial Interaction with right of publicity when people play characters (Titan Sports) Trademark may be more appropriate Cases Software – (3d Cir. 1983) (holding source code/object Apple Computer v. Franklin Computer code and operating systems are protectable) (2d Cir. 1992) (holding Computer Associates International v. “cleanroom” rewrite of module providing cross operating system compatibility for Π’s “adapter” competing scheduling program was non-infringing) Δ’s (2d Cir. 1997) (holding that Softel v. Dragon Medical & Scientific Communications program was program translated into a different language for different Δ’s Π’s hardware may still be infringing based on compilation analysis of the 4 identified software elements in the case) Cases Characters – (8th Cir. 2011) Warner Bros. v. X One X Public domain posters of copyrighted films depicting characters from the Π’s film makes stuff with images from the posters (noninfringing), stuff with images Δ and catch phrases of characters (infringing), 3d models/dolls of characters (infringing) Analysis The posters release a very thin version of the characters into the – public domain essentially limited to those specific images and nothing more – Argument that the movie developed the character much more than the underlying public domain books (9th Cir. 1954) (holding literary characters must constitute the Warner Bros. v. CBS story being told for copyright) (9th Cir. 1978) (holding visual characters must be Walt Disney v. Air Pirates delineated in sufficient detail for copyright) (CD Cal.) (holding that copyright in the MGM v. American Honda Motor Co. Π’s James Bond character, based on stable aspects of the character throughout the movies, covered depiction of a similar (though arguably generic) tuxedoed action figure in Δ’s a car commercial) Criticism: Distilling character across many works rapidly approaches an idea, concerns about monopolizing the hero spy” “action AUTHORSHIP Generally
Graphic Characters (Mickey Copyrightable only if delineated in sufficient detail (X One X; Air Pirates) Visual Characters: Copyrightable only if they display consistent, widely identifiable visual characteristics (X One X) Policy Concerns Series of copyrighted projects (MGM) – Can result in exceptionally broad protection James Bond and automobile commercial Interaction with right of publicity when people play characters (Titan Sports) Trademark may be more appropriate Cases – Software Apple Computer v. Franklin Computer (3d Cir. 1983) (holding source code/object code and operating systems are protectable) Computer Associates International v. (2d Cir. 1992) (holding “cleanroom” rewrite of Π’s “adapter” module providing cross operating system compatibility for Δ’s competing scheduling program was non-infringing) Softel v. Dragon Medical & Scientific Communications (2d Cir. 1997) (holding that Δ’s program was Π’s program translated into a different language for different hardware may still be infringing based on compilation analysis of the 4 identified software elements in the case) Cases – Characters Warner Bros. v. X One X (8th Cir. 2011) Public domain posters of Π’s copyrighted films depicting characters from the film Δ makes stuff with images from the posters (noninfringing), stuff with images and catch phrases of characters (infringing), 3d models/dolls of characters (infringing) Analysis – The posters release a very thin version of the characters into the public domain – essentially limited to those specific images and nothing more Argument that the movie developed the character much more than the underlying public domain books Warner Bros. v. CBS (9th Cir. 1954) (holding literary characters must constitute the story being told for copyright) Walt Disney v. Air Pirates (9th Cir. 1978) (holding visual characters must be delineated in sufficient detail for copyright) MGM v. American Honda Motor Co. (CD Cal.) (holding that Π’s copyright in the James Bond character, based on stable aspects of the character throughout the movies, covered Δ’s depiction of a similar (though arguably generic) tuxedoed action figure in a car commercial) Criticism: Distilling character across many works rapidly approaches an idea, concerns about monopolizing the “action hero spy” AUTHORSHIP Generally
Copyright%20Fromer%20Fall%202013.docx