You are on page 1of 5

Question no 1

Do you agree with the Ninth Circuit Court ruling? Why or why not?
Yes I agree with the Ninth Circuit Court ruling. It gave decision based on
the following points


Permission not requested
No right of ownership
Used for commercial purposes

Passport Video produced a video documentary of Elvis’s life titled The Definitive
Elvis. The documentary, which included eight DVDs and 16 hours of video, focused
on every aspect of Elvis’s life and was priced at $99.00
Passport did not get permission to use the material. As a result, the copyright
holders, who caught wind of the production of the video, informed Passport Video
that they objected to the production of the videos. Passport Video persisted, and in
August 2003 the copyright holders sued Passport Video for unauthorized use of
footage and copyright violations. They also asked for a preliminary injunction
stopping Passport Video from selling any more copies of the documentary, which a
U.S. District Court granted. Passport mounted a defense, claiming that its use of the
copyrighted material was fair use and that it had spent over $2 million producing
and marketing the documentary. Passport Video also asserted that it interviewed
more than 200 people to make the documentary and that only 5 to 10 percent of
the length of the videos contained copyright material. After listening to both sides,
the U.S. District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, saying that fair use didn’t apply
and Passport Video should have obtained the appropriate copyright permissions.
The court stated that Passport Video released the videos with full knowledge that
the plaintiffs did not consent to their production, and that Passport Video’s
documentary would mislead consumers (regarding its legal production) and damage
the plaintiffs. Passport persisted, appealing the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, arguing that its documentary of Elvis’s life constituted scholarly research
and should therefore be protected under fair. The court found that Passport’s
documentary was for commercial use rather than scholarly research, although the
commercial nature of the project was not the deciding factor. Instead, the extent to
which the copyrighted material was used tipped the decision for the court, which
referred to the lower court’s original assessment in its ruling. In its decision, the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, quoting from the decision of the lower court, said:
Passport’s use of clips from television appearances, although in most
cases of short duration, were repeated numerous times throughout the
tapes. While using a small number of clips to reference an event for
biographical purposes seems fair, using a clip over and over will likely no
longer serve a biographical purpose. Additionally, some of the clips were

distribute. Passport video was involved in Copyright violation so the copyright holders of Elvis’s work objected to Passport’s video series Question no 3 Do you think Passport Video acted ethically and honestly and believed that its production was . Other material included shots from The Elvis 1968 Comeback Special. Aloha from Hawaii. Each episode contained shots of Elvis performing—many of which were taken from sources that are copyrighted and owned by Elvis Presley Enterprises or others. and portions of Ed Sullivan Rock & Roll Classics—Elvis Presley (owned by SOFA Entertainment).  Copyright violations Copyright infringement is the use of works protected by copyright law without permission. infringing certain exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder. Passport’s use of Elvis’ appearance on The Steve Allen Show plays for over a minute and many Question no 2 Why do you think the copyright holders of Elvis’s work objected to Passport’s video series? How were they “harmed” by the production and sale of the videos? The copyright holders sued Passport Video for  Unauthorized use of footage and Passport Video produced a video documentary of Elvis’s life titled ‘’The Definitive Elvis’’ focused on every aspect of Elvis’s life and was priced at $99. Passport did not get permission to use the material. material from The Ed Sullivan Show. which included songs written by Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller.00. such as the right to reproduce.not short in length. or to make derivative works. The shots included Presley home movies (owned by Elvis Presley Enterprises). display or perform the protected work. The copyright holder is typically the work's creator. and Elvis in Concert. Copyright holders routinely invoke legal and technological measures to prevent and penalize copyright infringement. or a publisher or other business to whom copyright has been assigned.

But the fact is that Passport’s use of clips from television appearances. were repeated numerous times throughout the tapes. Additionally. due to following reasons Passport Video had a view that its use of the copyrighted material was fair use and that it had spent over $2 million producing and marketing the documentary.S. In general. copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the copyright holder.protected by fair use. although in most cases of short duration. some of the clips were not short in length.  Passport Video released the videos with full knowledge that the plaintiffs did not consent to their production. Passport’s use of Elvis’ appearance on The Steve Allen Show plays for over a minute and many more clips play for more than just a few seconds Question no 4 What can entrepreneurs who are interested in trademark law learn from this case?         Do your homework Avoid copyright infringement Know what is and is not protected Understand the limits of the fair use defense Be Careful! Admit misuse (if occurs unintentionally) Protect yourself Use trademark law to your advantage . or do you think the firm was simply using fair use as a way of avoiding paying royalties for the copyrighted material it was using? I do not believe Passport acted ethically.It in unethical act  Passport Video also asserted that it interviewed more than 200 people to make the documentary and that only 5 to 10 percent of the length of the videos contained copyright material. using a clip over and over will likely no longer serve a biographical purpose. the following uses are protected under this doctrine: • Quotation of the copyrighted work for review or criticism or in a scholarly or technical work • Use in a parody or satire • Brief quotation in a news report • Reproduction by a teacher or a student of a small part of the work to illustrate a lesson • Incidental reproduction of a work in a newsreel or broadcast of an event being reported • Reproduction of a work in a legislative or judicial proceeding  But fair use didn’t apply on this case and Passport Video should have obtained the appropriate copyright permissions. While using a small number of clips to reference an event for biographical purposes seems fair. Fair use is a doctrine in U.

Application Questions Question no 1 Do some Internet research and find another case of copyright infringement. making a significant profit. As he used that without permission from Rogers. Comments Court gave decision against defender. Upon discovering the copy. and whether you sympathize with the defendants or the plaintiffs in the case. I Think plaintiffs was right because the photograph was taken by him and it was the result his own effort. Indicate whether the case has been decided. Rodgers sued Koons for copyright. Koons responded by claiming fair use by parody Photograph: Art Rogers – 1985. Koons was forced to pay a monetary settlement to Rodgers. Internationally. Case Summary Photographer Art Rogers shot a photograph of a couple holding a line of puppies in a row and sold it for use in greeting cards and similar products. so plaintiffs was right when he sued Koons for copyright . If the case has been decided. Koons sold several of these structures. ran across Rodgers’ photograph and used it to create a set of statues based on the image. and that a “typical person” would be able to recognize the copy. So Jeff Koons should take permission for any use of that photograph. renowned artist Jeff Koons in the process of creating an exhibit on the banality of everyday items. indicated whether you agree with the ruling. Koon’s defense was rejected under the argument that he could have used a more generic source to make the same statement — without copying Rogers’ work. Polychrome: Jeff Koons – 1988 (both via The Design Observer Group) Outcome The court found the similarities between the 2 images too close. Write a brief summary of the case.

Stronger and more resistant to weather-related disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes. Faster than current procedures. and is stronger and more resistant to weather-related disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes. The fasteners and bars provide post tensioning that increases the overall capacity and acts as steel to reinforce the wall)  Details about development of product      As of March 2009.Question no 2 The “You Be the VC 12. has immediate occupancy (no cure time).A-Blok that should be protected.  Business idea (Alter traditional methods of concrete block construction to enable the assembly of the blocks to be completed) Expected features Requires no water has immediate occupancy (no cure time). 80 independent tests had been completed affirming the system’s strengths and capabilities . Include in the plan all facts of Bolt.  Product secret (Its patent-pending system uses anti-corrosive steel fasteners and bars to bind concrete blocks together rather than using concrete mortar. a company that has developed a new approach to concrete block production that requires no water. Write a short intellectual property plan for Bolt-A-Blok. and the form of intellectual property protection that should be used in each instance.1” feature in this chapter focuses on Bolt-ABlok. is faster than current procedures.