7:55 PM
Chris Hansen
ELU Episode 21 – Tough Cookies and Heart Attacks:
Mike Tyson has been in the eye of media since he stepped into the ring. As many would know, not all of the publicity has been good. With the exception of the positive publicity of his phenomenal boxing skills, Mike Tyson surrounds himself with controversy. In the recent history, the tribal tattoo on his face has become an argument of copyright infringement. In the movie Hangover 2, one of the characters gets an identical tattoo on his face. The man who designed Mike’s tattoo, Victor Whitmill filed a suit against Warner Brothers for copyright infringement. It’s obvious that is WB is in the wrong, but what kind of price tag do you put on a tattoo design? If the case goes to court, I believe it will be a tough call for the judge. However, like the podcast states, I think WB will just settle with Whitmill outside of the court. This will allow Warner Brothers to continue distributing of the film.
ELU Episode 22 – Violent Games, (anti) Slapps and other painless fun:
The podcast opens up with the Tyson tattoo Case. It has been settled. The film itself has grossed over $500M worldwide. Whitmill’s attorneys will not disclose the amount of the settlement. We all know what that means. It must have been a significant amount of money. My assumption is that Mr. Whitmill might not have to work for the rest of his life
ELU Episode 023 – Monkeying Around with Copyright Law
Gordan follows up with the verdict against Disney by the creators of Who Wants To Be a Millionaire game franchise Celador International. The court originally granted the company $270 million, then the judge increased that to $319 million. Disney is fighting the case, stating that the amount is extreme! Disney filed an appeal to reverse the verdict using five arguments. The first being, the case is astonishing because of the size. Secondly, the judge wrongfully excluded documents that would have been in favor for Walt Disney Company proving that the negotiations between the two companies were more it favor to Celado than the plaintiff led them to believe. Third, the jury judge mistakenly allowed a testimony on inflated damage assessment. Fourth, the jury judge should have taken more responsibility in interpreting the contract as a matter of law. Lastly, the wrong entity filed the appeal. The appeal goes against the court in Sept. I look forward to knowing the outcome of that case. I’ll keep you updated.
For these podcast and more, please visit iTunesU
The podcast were brought to you by Gordan Firemark at Entertainment Law Update.
