DO NOT CONFUSE AN ARTIST COPY RIGHT LAW AKA AN ARTIST WHO DRAWS OR PAINTS A PORTRAIT WITH A MOLD BUILDER OR MOLD MAKER LAW OR THE COMPANIES PRODUCT COPY RIGHT LAW. 2 DIFFERENT CATEGORY 2 DIFFERENT BUSINESSES
AN ARTIST PAINTING IS PROTECTED BY COPY RIGHT WHICH IS ONLY A PORTION OF THAT PAINTING THAT IS PROTECTED WHICH ALSO DEPENDS ON THE PAINTING ITSELF. EXAMPLE OF A PORTION OF A PAINTING THAT WOULD NOT BE PROTECTED UNDER COPY RIGHT LAW IS TREES, BIRDS, SKY, COLORS, ETC. HOWEVER A UNIQUE IMAGE WOULD BE PROTECTED BY THE COPY RIGHT LAW.
MORE SPECIFIC DETAILS ON COPY RIGHT LAW WILL BE POSTED THROUGH OUT THE DAY UNDER THE TABS. AND HOPEFULLY IF YOU WANT TO EDUCATE YOURSELVES YOU WOULD TAKE THE TIME OUT TO READ THE COURTS DEPOSITION ON THESE CASE FILES HOLD UP IN THE HIGHEST 9TH CIRCUIT COURTS.
AND I HOLD MY GROUND WHEN I SAY I AM NOT GOING TO SIT AND WASTE MY TIME LOOKING FOR AN ORIGIN OF A PRODUCT OR WHERE IT ORIGINATED FROM WHEN COMMON SENSE AND THE EDUCATION I WAS BLESSED TO HAVE LETS ME KNOW THAT BY LOOKING AT SOMETHING WHAT TIME ERA IT CAME FROM AS WELL AS WHAT PART OF THE WORLD. SO DON'T GET IT TWISTED AND TWIST MY WORDS. NEXT TIME KEEP IT REAL AND SHOW THE FULL DETAILED CONVERSATION OF WHAT I SAID AND WHAT I WAS REFERENCING TOO AND NOT SOME HALF AZZ STATEMENT BEHIND MY BACK.
AND FOR THE RECORD I DO RESPECT ARTIST AND THEIR WORK. I COME FROM THE BIGGEST CITY NEW YORK WHERE ART IS EVERY WHERE. I LIVE IN THE MIDDLE OF A BUNCH OF TALENTED ARTIST. AND WE HAVE THE BEST ART MUSEUMS IN NEW YORK CITY
I'LL ALSO SET THIS RECORD STRAIGHT
1. THIS BLOG WAS NOT CREATED FOR AMP PRODUCT OR AS IT IS BEING SAID FOR MY AMP DT WHICH LETS CLARIFY THIS I DO NOT RUN AN AMP DT NEVER DID AND I HAVE NEVER CLAIM TO DO SO.
2. THIS BLOG WAS CREATE TO ONLY SHOW CASE ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING CREATED WITH JUST THE FOLLOWING PRODUCTS THAT I HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH FOR YEARS AND SELLING (MOLD BUILDERS, RESIN AND CLAY) WHICH MY BLOG LINK IS AS FOLLOW http://moldsresinclaytechnique.blogspot.com/. AND IF YOU CLICK ON THE TABS I SHOW CASE OTHER COMPANIES AND DESIGNERS PRODUCTS THAT I LOVE AND ENJOY USING SO DON'T MIS-INTERPRET MY BLOG.
3. THIS BLOG WAS ALSO CREATED BASED ON MY KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRODUCTS ITSELF AND TO SHARE MY TECHNIQUE WITH THE PUBLIC. TO HELP THEM HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THESE PRODUCTS AND HOW THEY CAN BE USED AND WHY IT IS BEST TO BUY THESE PRODUCTS WHETHER ITS FOR PERSONAL USAGE, TO SELL OR FOR HOBBIES.
Judge Says Barbie Doesn't Get To Own The Bratz
from the the-bratz-win dept
We've been following a lawsuit over Bratz dolls for a few years now. It involved a guy who worked at Mattel (not in a position designing dolls). While there, he had an idea for a new line of dolls, and eventually negotiated a deal to create those dolls for competitor MGA. The new dolls became The Bratz, one of the few super successful doll lines to challenge the success of Barbie dolls. Somewhere along the line, Mattel realized that the guy had worked at Mattel, and claimed that his employment agreement meant Mattel owned pretty much all rights to Bratz dolls, and that MGA owed Mattel a billion dollars. A court sided with Mattel and didn't just say that MGA and Bratz infringed, but effectively handed over all rights to Bratz dolls -- including future plans. This made absolutely no sense to us. At the very least, if the court found that Mattel owned the rights to the original design, at most Mattel should have only been able to get damages for those original designs. Giving them rights to later designs makes no sense at all. MGA appealed noting that giving Mattel all of its plans, as demanded, would result in "devastating and irreversible consequences." After sounding skeptical late last year, Judge Kozinski in the 9th circuit has now soundly rejected most of the lower court ruling(pdf).
The ruling itself is a really good read, especially if you're interested in the difference between ideas and expression, and making sure that copyright only covers the copyrightable part of an expression. A common misconception is that copyright covers an entire work. In some cases, that's not true. Only parts of a work may get copyright protection:
The ruling itself is a really good read, especially if you're interested in the difference between ideas and expression, and making sure that copyright only covers the copyrightable part of an expression. A common misconception is that copyright covers an entire work. In some cases, that's not true. Only parts of a work may get copyright protection:
Among the notable parts, the judge is troubled by the lower courts ruling that Bryant's design work that was done after hours automatically is given to Mattel. As he notes, the employment agreement says inventions that are developed while employed belong to Mattel -- and the definition of inventions does not include "ideas." And, since IP system defenders are always quick to point out that inventions and ideas are not the same thing, the judge notes that it's not at all clear that the employment agreement covers the idea of the Bratz dolls. At the very least, the court says the lower court shouldn't have ruled on summary judgment that the idea of Bratz dolls automatically belonged to Mattel. The court also noted that the terms of the employment agreement were ambiguous, such that it wasn't at all clear or obvious if things done on personal time were covered by the agreement.
But more interesting is the discussion of how much of the IP would belong to Mattel even if it's determined that MGA infringed. Kozinski clearly has problems with the decision to assign all current and future plans to Mattel, pointing out that this seems to be based on a misreading of the case law. He notes that the law does allow appreciation in value to go to the rightful owner, but mainly if that appreciation in value is due to external factors. He finds it quite troubling that Mattel should be given all of the value created through MGA's hard work:
But more interesting is the discussion of how much of the IP would belong to Mattel even if it's determined that MGA infringed. Kozinski clearly has problems with the decision to assign all current and future plans to Mattel, pointing out that this seems to be based on a misreading of the case law. He notes that the law does allow appreciation in value to go to the rightful owner, but mainly if that appreciation in value is due to external factors. He finds it quite troubling that Mattel should be given all of the value created through MGA's hard work:
Even assuming that MGA took some ideas wrongfully, it added tremendous value by turning the ideas into products and, eventually, a popular and highly profitable brand. The value added by MGA's hard work and creativity dwarfs the value of the original ideas Bryant brought with him, even recognizing the significance of those ideas....The next part highlights that just because there were similarities between the original ideas and the Bratz dolls, it doesn't mean Mattel should get all ownership. If it is determined that Mattel holds the copyright (again, still somewhat in dispute), it should only be limited to the parts of the dolls that are covered by the copyright. Here's where the narrow protections of copyright law come into play:
It is not equitable to transfer this billion dollar brand-- the value of which is overwhelmingly the result of MGA's legitimate efforts--because it may have started with two misappropriated names. The district court's imposition of a constructive trust forcing MGA to hand over its sweat equity was an abuse of discretion and must be vacated.
In order to determine the scope of protection for the sculpt, we must first filter out any unprotectable elements. Producing small plastic dolls that resemble young females is a staple of the fashion doll market. To this basic concept, the Bratz dolls add exaggerated features, such as an oversized head and feet. But many fashion dolls have exaggerated features--take the oversized heads of the Blythe dolls and My Scene Barbies as examples. Moreover, women have often been depicted with exaggerated proportions similar to those of the Bratz dolls--from Betty Boop to characters in Japanese anime and Steve Madden ads. The concept of depicting a young, fashion-forward female with exaggerated features, including an oversized head and feet, is therefore unoriginal as well as an unprotectable idea....When we wrote about this case earlier, it kicked off quite a discussion. Many people insisted that because Bryant designed the dolls while employed by Mattel, Mattel easily deserved all of the benefits accrued by MGA. It's great to see Kozinski point out that this is not true, and recognize that there's a big difference between ideas, expression and execution, as well as highlighting the difference between copyright covering an entire product and just the protectable parts of a product. While one would hope all judges would understand this, clearly, many do not.
It's true that there's a broad range of expression for bodies with exaggerated features: One could make a fashion doll with a large nose instead of a small one, or a potbelly instead of a narrow waist. But there's not a big market for fashion dolls that look like Patty and Selma Bouvier. Little girls buy fashion dolls with idealized proportions --which means slightly larger heads, eyes and lips; slightly smaller noses and waists; and slightly longer limbs than those that appear routinely in nature. But these features can be exaggerated only so much: Make the head too large or the waist too small and the doll becomes freakish, not idealized.
....
The only unprotectable elements the district court identified were: (1) the dolls' resemblance to humans; (2) the presence of hair, head, two eyes and other human features; (3) human clothes, shoes and accessories; (4) age, race, ethnicity and "urban" or "rural" appearances; (5) standard features relative to others (like a thin body); and (6) other standard treatments of the subject matter. And it reasoned that the doll's "[p]articularized, synergistic compilation and expression of the human form and anatomy that expresses a unique style and conveys a distinct look or attitude" is protectable, along with the doll fashions that expressed an "aggressive, contemporary, youthful style." But Mattel can't claim a monopoly over fashion dolls with a bratty look or attitude, or dolls sporting trendy clothing--these are all unprotectable ideas....
This error was significant. Although substantial similarity was the appropriate standard, a finding of substantial similarity between two works can't be based on similarities in unprotectable elements. When works of art share an idea, they'll often be "similar" in the layman's sense of the term. For example, the stuffed, cuddly dinosaurs... were similar in that they were all stuffed, cuddly dinosaurs--but that's not the sort of similarity we look for in copyright law....
MGA's Bratz dolls can't be considered substantially similar to Bryant's preliminary sketches simply because the dolls and sketches depict young, stylish girls with big heads and an attitude. Yet this appears to be how the district court reasoned
Mattel's Lawsuit To Claim Ownership Of Bratz Comes Back To Bite Big Time: Told To Pay $309 Million
from the damn dept
As Stephan Kinsella notes, "live by IP, die by IP." You may recall the infamous legal fight over who owns the Bratz dolls. I won't go through the full history, but basically Mattel claimed that it owned the rights to Bratz dolls, because the creator of those dolls worked at Mattel (though not in a doll designing job) at the time he developed the dolls (not during work time). That guy eventually went to competitor MGA who produced the Bratz line of dolls. Mattel racked up an early series of wins in the case. Those wins seemed far overreaching. Not only did they give Mattel the rights to the original Bratz dolls, but all future plans as well, despite none of that having anything to do with Mattel.
Thankfully, sanity was regained at the appelate level, and eventually things turned around to bite Mattel for bringing the lawsuit in the first place. That's because the lawsuit allowed MGA to countersue over trade secrets violations. In April, we noted that this might end up costing Mattel $88.5 million, as the court rejected all of Mattel's claims and sided with MGA on the trade secret claim.
Thankfully, sanity was regained at the appelate level, and eventually things turned around to bite Mattel for bringing the lawsuit in the first place. That's because the lawsuit allowed MGA to countersue over trade secrets violations. In April, we noted that this might end up costing Mattel $88.5 million, as the court rejected all of Mattel's claims and sided with MGA on the trade secret claim.
Turns out the result was even more damaging for Mattel. The court didn't just stick with the $88.5 million award the jury gave. Instead, while he "reduced" the jury award to $85 million, he then tacked on another $85 million in punitive damages and told Mattel to pay $137 million in legal fees to MGA. Total bill? Mattel has to fork over $309.8 million. All for a lawsuit Mattel brought in the first place. And that doesn't count the estimated $400 million that Mattel spent in legal fees during this fight. Add it all up and Mattel's decision to sue appears to have cost the company upwards of $700 million dollars.
Information maintained by the Legislative Reference Bureau...........
Updating the database of the Illinois Compiled Statutes (ILCS) is an ongoing process. Recent laws may not yet be included in the ILCS database, but they are found on this site as Public Acts soon after they become law.
Because the statute database is maintained primarily for legislative drafting purposes, statutory changes are sometimes included in the statute database before they take effect. If the source note at the end of a Section of the statutes includes a Public Act that has not yet taken effect, the version of the law that is currently in effect may have already been removed from the database and you should refer to that Public Act to see the changes made to the current law.
LIENS
(770 ILCS 105/) Tool and Die Lien Act.
(770 ILCS 105/) Tool and Die Lien Act.
(770 ILCS 105/0.01) (from Ch. 82, par. 350) Sec. 0.01. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Tool and Die Lien Act. (Source: P.A. 86-1324.) (770 ILCS 105/1) (from Ch. 82, par. 351) Sec. 1. Lien. (A) Plastic or metal processors or persons conducting a plastic or metal processing business shall have a lien on the tools, dies, molds, jigs, fixtures, forms or patterns in their possession belonging to a customer, for the balance due them from such customer for plastic or metal processing work, and for all materials related to such work. The processor may retain possession of the tool, die, mold, jig, fixture, form or pattern until such balance is paid, subject only to a security interest properly perfected pursuant to Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. (B) A toolmaker has a lien on all special tools produced by it and on all proceeds from the assignment, sale, transfer, exchange, or other disposition of the special tool produced by it until the toolmaker is paid in full all amounts due the toolmaker for the production of the special tool. For the purpose of this subsection: (1) the lien attaches when the special tool is
| ||
(2) the amount of the lien is the amount that a | ||
| ||
(3) the toolmaker retains the lien even if the | ||
| ||
(Source: P.A. 94-615, eff. 1-1-06.) |
(770 ILCS 105/2) (from Ch. 82, par. 352) Sec. 2. Definitions. For purposes of this Act: (A) The term "processor" means any individual or entity including, but not limited to, a tool or die maker, who contracted with, or uses a tool, die, mold, jig, fixture, form or pattern to manufacture, assemble, or otherwise make a plastic or metal product or products for a customer. (B) The term "customer" means any individual or entity who contracted with, or caused a plastic or metal processor to use a tool, die, mold, jig, fixture, form or pattern to manufacture, assemble, or otherwise make plastic or metal components or products. (C) The term "special tool" means a tool, die, mold, jig, fixture, form, pattern, or part used to manufacture, assemble, or otherwise make plastic or metal components or products. (D) The term "toolmaker" means a person including, but not limited to, a mold builder, model maker, patternmaker, molder, die maker, metal former, jig and fixture builder, die sinker, die caster, mold designer, mold programmer, die designer, die programmer, and mold or die engineer, that fabricates, cuts, casts, forms, or designs molds for the plastic industry or dies for the metal forming industry. (Source: P.A. 94-615, eff. 1-1-06.) (770 ILCS 105/3) (from Ch. 82, par. 353) Sec. 3. Notice. Before enforcing a lien as provided for in subsection (A) of Section 1 of this Act, an initial notice in writing shall be given to the customer, either delivered personally or sent by registered mail to the last known address of the customer. This notice shall state that a lien is claimed in the amount therein set forth or thereto attached for processing work contracted or performed for the customer. This notice shall also include a demand for payment. Before enforcing a lien as provided in subsection (B) of Section 1 of this Act, an initial notice in writing shall be given to the customer and processor, either delivered personally or sent by registered mail to the last known address of the customer and the processor. The notice shall state that a lien is claimed in the amount set forth in or attached to the notice for the fabrication, repair, or modification of the special tool. The notice shall also include a demand for payment. (Source: P.A. 94-615, eff. 1-1-06.) (770 ILCS 105/4) (from Ch. 82, par. 354) Sec. 4. Sale of die or mold. If the processor has not been paid the amount due within 90 days after the initial written notice has been received by the customer as provided in Section 3, the processor may sell the die, mold, or special tool at a public auction if both of the following occur: (A) The die, mold, or special tool is still in the processor's possession; and (B) The processor complies with Section 5 of this Act. (Source: P.A. 85-381.) (770 ILCS 105/4.1) Sec. 4.1. Possession of special tool. If the toolmaker has not been paid the amount claimed in the notice within 90 days after the initial notice is received by the customer and by the processor, the toolmaker has a right to possession of the special tool and may do the following: (1) enforce the right to possession of the special
| ||
(2) commence a civil action in circuit court to | ||
| ||
(3) take possession of the special tool, if | ||
| ||
(4) sell the special tool in a public auction. A toolmaker that suffers damages under this Act may obtain appropriate legal and equitable relief, including damages, in a civil action. The court shall award the toolmaker that is the prevailing party reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, and expenses related to enforcement of the lien. (Source: P.A. 94-615, eff. 1-1-06.) |
(770 ILCS 105/5) (from Ch. 82, par. 355) Sec. 5. Second notice; publication; sale by processor. (A) Before a processor may sell the die, mold or special tool, the processor shall provide a second written notification to the customer, by registered mail, return receipt requested. The second notice shall include the following information: (1) The processor's intention to sell the die, mold,
| ||
(2) A description of the die, mold, or special tool | ||
| ||
(3) The time and place of the sale; and (4) An itemized statement for the amount due. (B) In addition to this notification by mail, the processor shall publish in a newspaper of general circulation in the place where the die, mold, or special tool is being held for sale by the processor, notice of the processor's intention to sell the die, mold, or special tool. The notice shall include a description of the die, mold, or special tool and name of the customer. (Source: P.A. 94-615, eff. 1-1-06.) |
(770 ILCS 105/5.1) Sec. 5.1. Second notice; publication; sale by toolmaker. (A) Before a toolmaker may sell the special tool, the toolmaker shall provide a second written notification to the customer and processor, by registered mail, return receipt requested. The second notice shall include the following information: (1) the toolmaker's intention to sell the special
| ||
(2) a description of the special tool to be sold; (3) the time and place of the sale; and (4) an itemized statement for the amount due. (B) In addition to this notification by mail, the toolmaker shall publish in a newspaper of general circulation in the place where the special tool is being held for sale by the toolmaker, notice of the toolmaker's intention to sell the special tool. The notice shall include a description of the special tool and name of the customer and processor. (Source: P.A. 94-615, eff. 1-1-06.) |
(770 ILCS 105/6) (from Ch. 82, par. 356) Sec. 6. Inspection. (A) Prior to the sale of any die, mold or special tool in accordance with this Act, such item must be available for inspection, upon request, by members of the public during normal business hours for a period of at least 2 weeks prior to the sale. (B) If the sale is for a sum greater than the amount of the lien, the excess shall be paid to any prior lienholder and any remainder to the customer and the processor. (C) A sale shall not be made or a possession shall not be obtained under this Act if it would be in violation of any right of a customer or a processor under federal patent, bankruptcy, or copyright law. (Source: P.A. 94-615, eff. 1-1-06.)
No comments:
Post a Comment