The Ninth Circuit noted that it was undisputed that Paramount obtained the rights to both the Betty Boop character and numerous Betty Boop cartoons from the original Fleischer Studio in 1941. The dispute at issue was what rights were then transferred from Paramount to UM&M in 1955. In reviewing the lower court’s decision, the Ninth Circuit noted that the parties had agreed that Betty Boop became a separate copyrightable component of one of the original Fleischer Studios’ films. This concession meant that the original Fleischer Studio owned “all the rights and respect which would have if” it had individually copyrighted it. Because the new Fleischer Studios was suing for copyright infringement, it bore the burden of proving copyright ownership. Because its asserted ownership was based on the chain of title described above, the new Fleischer Studios was required to establish each link in the chain. disputed the alleged chain of title arguing that there was no admissible evidence to establish each link in the chain with the exception of the transfer from the original Fleischer Studios to Paramount. The lower court agreed and found that the new Fleischer Studios failed to satisfy its burden of proof regarding the transfer of rights from UM&M to NTA and from NTA to Republic Pictures. Because the copied works at issue were all created pre-1978, the Copyright Act of 1909 (“the 1909 Act”) applied to the copyrights at issue. in 1955, UM&M transferred its rights to National Telefilm Associates, Inc., which later became Republic Pictures in 1958 and finally, Republic Pictures transferred its exclusive copyright to the new Fleischer Studios in 1997. restored.Īfter defendants filed summary judgment motions, the Fleischer Studios asserted that the ownership of the copyright, which was first owned by the original Fleischer Studios, arose through several alternative chains of title, the relevant one being as follows: The original Fleischer Studios transferred its rights to Paramount Pictures in 1941, Paramount transferred those rights to UM&M TV Corp. Fleischer’s family incorporated a new Fleischer Studios and attempted to repurchase the intellectual property rights to the Betty Boop character. The new Fleischer Studios claimed that its intellectual property right purchases made it the exclusive owner of the Betty Boop character copyright and began to license the Betty Boop character for use in toys, dolls and other merchandise. The defendants (referred to collectively as A.V.E.L.A.) also licensed Betty Boop merchandise pursuant to a copyright that is based on vintage posters featuring Betty Boop’s image that A.V.E.L.A. which developed a number of cartoon films featuring Betty Boop and licensed the Betty Boop image for use in toys, dolls and other merchandise. The original Fleischer Studios abandoned Betty Boop about a decade later and sold its rights to both her cartoons and character. It dissolved shortly thereafter. Fleischer was head of Fleischer Studios, Inc. The lower court granted the defendants’ summary judgment motion after finding that the creator’s heirs could not establish chain of title in the copyright for Betty Boop’s image. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit focused on the applicability of the “doctrine of indivisibility” and found that it did not apply to protect plaintiff’s claims.īetty Boop was created by Max Fleischer in the 1930s. Mr. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., et al. In that case, heirs of the creator of the Betty Boop cartoon claimed that defendants, which were marketing products with Betty Boop’s image, were liable for copyright infringement. (The case also involved claims of trademark infringement which will not be discussed in this article.) On February 23, 2011, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in a case involving the Betty Boop cartoon character titled: Fleischer Studios, Inc.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |