Monthly Archive

Now this is interesting. If I’m not mistaken, Britney posed for photographers a while ago and was very open about her sexuality.

Or was it all for magazine sales? If someone discovered that Britney really is a lesbian, would this disrupt her comeback? This tabloid could interfere with the marketplace filled with Britney Spears fans who believe she lives a particular type of lifestyle.  Does Britney have a claim against “In Touch” magazine? Even though Britney isn’t a perfect role model, she’s a public figure that many people identify with. Many people buy her albums because she’s someone who represents their beliefs. I see this as a potential problem for “In Touch”. 

      Although we haven’t discussed Defamation in Entertainment Law, it’s a huge problem in the entertainment industry. According to New York Times v. Sullivan, Britney is considered a Public Figure. Therefore, Britney’s legal team must prove that “In Touch” published the statements with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. The burden is by clear and convincing evidence. Britney’s legal team must show that “In Touch” wanted to sell magazines and nothing in their story is truthful.

      On top of proving how false their story is, lets exhaust Britney’s market potential to “In Touch”, shall we? Britney is working on an album with a large amount of anticipated album sales…somewhere over 3 million. She’s gone on tour after each album release, therefore a tour will most likely be in the works once her album hits stores.  With each album there are T-shirts, videos, posters, commercials, interviews, and other huge press related activities.  All of this could be seriously reduced because of the claims made by “In Touch”. Why would “In Touch” believe this was true? “In Touch” better stay in touch with their legal team!

Britney Spears won a decisive court victory when a federal judge in Philadelphia tossed out a copyright infringement suit brought by two Pennsylvania men who claimed that the melody of Spears’ song “What U See Is What U Get” infringed their song entitled “What You See Is What You Get.”
 Judge found that the plaintiffs could not prove one of the essential elements of their case - that the defendants had access to their song.  The undisputed evidence showed that Spears recorded her version before the Plaintiffs ever gave their song to an agent to be pitched to Spears. But even if the copyright infringement were not chronologically impossible, the Judge found that the case would still fail because the two songs are not substantially similar.  Spears and her co-defendants, Zomba Recording Corp., Jive Records, Wright Entertainment Group and BMG Music Publishing Inc. were all entitled to summary judgment. The Plaintiffs claimed that they were contacted in 1995 by William Kahn, a talent scout who represented Spears, who invited them to submit songs for her upcoming album. The plaintiffs claim they began writing “What You See Is What You Get” in 1998 and gave Kahn an instrumental copy by October 1999. By November 1999, the suit said, the final version of the song was submitted to the U.S. Copyright Office. But the four men credited as writers of Spears’ song “What U See Is What U Get” were Jorgen Elofsson, David Kreuger, Per Magnusson, and Rami Yacoub. They testified that their work on the song’s melody was completed by October 1999.
All four also testified that they had not heard the plaintiffs’ song before March 2003 and did not copy it to create their song. Defense lawyers argued that the case failed because the plaintiffs couldn’t even prove the possibility that the defendants had access to their song. The judge stated that even if the Plaintiffs could show access, summary judgment would still be warranted since the plaintiffs couldn’t show that the two works are “substantially similar.” 

       An incredibly tasteful man named Daniel Edwards created this statue of Britney titled “Monument of Pro-Life: the birth of Sean Preston”. Sean Preston was the first of two baby boys Spears delivered in two years. The statue can be seen at a gallery in Brooklyn.  This statue supposedly depicts Britney giving birth. But why on top of a bear skin rug?  Also, just in case you were wondering, Spears delivered both sons via C-section.  Edwards described Spears as a great role model for Pro-Life and someone who would stand by her beliefs on abortion.  Anyway, Britney never filed suit against Mr. Edwards and I always wondered why.  This statute was originally seen in Brooklyn and then pictures of the statue were shown all over the internet within 48 hours. I don’t see how Spears could have found this tasteful or helpful towards her career. I think Spears should have asked for the statue to be removed form the gallery.  Did Mr. Edwards violate the law somehow?

      Spears is a public figure who puts herself out to the public on a daily basis and not just in the form of a statue by Mr. Edwards. This statue was not a derivative work because Spears didn’t deliver her babies naturally and she didn’t deliver her babies on a bear skin rug. However, Mr. Edwards could possibly defend himself by claiming fair use. Although he would like to claim this statue was a form of flattering, this statue was offensive to some. On the other hand, many people perceived this statue as comical and a type of parody. Without reading the name of the statue, I originally thought someone was making fun of Spears. Overall, I think the statue is funny and Mr. Edwards should just stick to a fair use defense through parody and not to his appreciation for Britney Spear’s baby popping lifestyle.

It’s the fourth quarter and the team is down by 1 with no time left on the clock, but there’s a shooting foul and now Dirk Nowitzki has two free throws to win game!  Can you say pressure!?  How does an athlete like Dirk stay calm and cool?  Does he think about his grandmother?  Does he dream of beer and bratwursts to celebrate the victory?  No no Dirk has his own special way to channel his fear and block out all nerves.  What is this magic relaxing technique?  The Hoff my dear friends…THE HOFF!  According to Dirk he hums the Hoff’s “Looking for Freedom”!  God Bless that crazy German Baller!

In recent years celebrities have decided to trademark their names in order to prevent squatters from profiting from using their name as a website title.  This got me wondering…Should the Hoff trademark his name before greedy little Baywatch haters decide to blackmail him?!  Let’s take a closer look at the advantages to our beloved Hoff if were to trademark his totally awesome name!  First cybersquatters are people who register a domain name with the US Patent and Trademark Office that are either the exact name of a celebrity or something extremely close to it.  Usually they try to register as many names as possible so that they can turn around and blackmail the celebrity.  Let’s say the Hoff would like to create website and call it www.davidhasselhoff.com.  Shockingly when he tries to register his OWN name he is informed that some low life degenerate who can’t find a real job as already claimed a property right to the Hoff’s name!  Despicable!  What is the Hoff’s recourse in order to get his own name back…he must pay the little bottom feeder for the trademark rights!  Thankfully in 1999 Congress actually did something useful and passed the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.  Under the act a trademark owner can sue to collect damages and recover a domain name from a scum sucker who in bad faith registered the name that is identical to their own.  You may be asking yourself…What if the Hoff were to be potentially blackmailed?  How would he go about kicking the little piss ants ass in court and proving the cybersquatter acted in bad faith?  Well he would have to prove 3 things…1) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark; 2) the registrant has no right or legitimate interest in the domain name; and 3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.  The Hoff is so recognizable I think he would be a perfect candidate to trademark is fabulous name!

advertising

I truly believe one of the highest forms of flattery is when you are made fun of by someone else.  You must be important if someone actually takes time out of their day to laugh at you.  This makes David Hasselhoff the most respected man in the World.  T-shirts, websites, videos…seriously this guy is idolized by millions (once “Freedom” reaches China it’ll be billions).  There did come a day however when the laughter ended for Mr. Hoff.  I know this is hard to imagine, but the Hoff is but a man…a simple human who for one day did not find parodying himself amusing.  The Hoff was scheduled to co-host the European MTV music awards with Justin Timberlake in Copenhagen.  After viewing the script the Hoff backed out of hosting.  Apparently he did not appreciate such stage antics such as ripping off JT’s shirt and commenting on how he needed more chest hair like himself.  Should we blame the Hoff for having no sense of humor?  NO!  This is completely MTV’s fault.  Comedic timing is everything, and MTV missed big time.  This award show was not taking place in the US, which is important because the Hoff is a smart business man.  The Hoff realizes much of his earnings from the US market come from items parodying him.  Hence I believe he would have been more than willing to humiliate himself in front of Americans.  But these awards were being held in Europe, where the Hoff is NOT a comedic figure but revered as a magical lyricist and musician.  At the time the awards show was to be aired the Hoff had his single, “Jump in my Car”, scaling the UK charts.  And now the time has come to get down and dirty with a little copyrights! 

According to Professor Randazza (and yes he is a legite source) parodies distort, or closely imitate, another work for comedic or satiric effect.  What the courts tend to focus on is the market effect of the parody on the original work.  So my question is…Does it matter if the David Hasselhoff parody occurs in the United States v. Europe?  Can the Hoff make a case that his marketability differs depending on what side of the ocean he’s on?  As I stated previously, the Hoff is actually considered a real musical artist to the Europeans!  He was actually selling records and making money off of his music!Unfortunately Americans have not come to embrace the musical genius of the Hoff like Europeans!  What if the Hoff had gone along with the parody and that led to Germans realizing he might not be that cool (I know he is but we’re speaking hypothetically)?  In turn his record sales plummet in Europe and now he becomes a jester not just for the US but for the world as a whole!  A classic example is Celine Dion!  That woman was everywhere, then came the Saturday Night Live skits…no more Grammies, HELLO VEGAS!  In the end MTV just had poor taste!  Let the man have his HOFFTEGRITY!