# data[].attributes.headline
Group 02: The holy blood and the holy grail vs. The Da Vinci code

# data[].attributes.subject
Group 02: The holy blood and the holy grail vs. The Da Vinci code

# data[].attributes.body
1. Case title
Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh had sued publishers Random House claiming that Mr Brown's book "appropriated the architecture" of their book, The Holy Blood And The Holy Grail, which was published in 1982 by the same publishing house. Both "The Holy Blood & The Holy Grail" and "The Da Vinci Code" were written based on the historical hypothesis that Jesus Christ and Marry Magdelene secretly got married and had a child, whose bloodline continued until this day.
The claimants said Mr. Brown - whose book has made him the highest-paid author in history - had "hijacked" and "exploited" their book, which took them five years to create.

2. Background

- Copyright subject matter:
A ‘hypothesis’ presented in The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail concerning the early Christian legend of the holy Grail.
- Legal status:
Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, the authors of a non-fiction work, The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail, which was first published in 1982, have protected copyright over their work.
- Right holder (Author, owner):
The case against the publishers of The Da Vinci Code was brought by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, the authors of a non-fiction work, The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail, which was first published in 1982.
- Right entitled by author/owner:
Rights entitled by author: to title the work, to attach name or pseudonyms to the work, to publish the work, to protect the integrity of the work
Rights entitled by owner: to reproduce the work, to make derivative, to display the work to the public, to communicate their works to the public, to distribute import, and lease.

3. Case description:

- Naming revised action:
The case against the publishers of The Da Vinci Code was brought by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, the authors of The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail, published in 1982.

At the center of the dispute was a ‘hypothesis’ presented in The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail concerning the early Christian legend of the holy Grail. The core of the authors’ hypothesis in The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail was that references to the Grail in early manuscripts were disguised references not to the chalice, but rather to holy blood or Sang real, i.e. to the bloodline of Jesus Christ, and to the belief that this bloodline - through marriage between Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene - had continued and merged with the French Merovingian dynasty.
There was no doubt that Dan Brown had drawn on The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail. Indeed, there was a clear and explicit reference to the book in The Da Vinci Code, and the name of one of the characters, Sir Leigh Teabing, was based on an anagram of the names of the two authors.
- Equivalent to which type of copyrights:
The significance of the case for copyright law relates to the fact that the lawyers acting for Baigent and Leigh attempted to make (and lost) an argument that: there can be non-literal copying of a work of literature. However, the non-literal argument has previously been successfully used, in case of computer program and food recipes,...Therefore, this did not mean that they had infringed copyright in the book.

4. Keypoint

- Factual argument:
A ‘hypothesis' presented in The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail about the early Christian tale of the holy Grail was at the core of the debate. Baigent and Leigh's hypothesis in The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail was that early text allusions to the Grail were veiled references to holy blood or Sang real, rather than the chalice and to the belief that this bloodline - through marriage between Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene - had continued and merged with the French Merovingian dynasty. Baigent and Leigh (the plaintiffs) used six known ‘indisputable’ historical facts, or supposed facts, though their conclusion was the result of ‘historical conjecture’ based on those facts. This quasi-historical approach was also the basis of various other published hypotheses as to the merging of Christ’s bloodline with the Merovingian bloodline.
Dan Brown is a popular fiction writer, and his book, The Da Vinci Code, is a murder mystery. It opens with the death - in Paris’ Louvre museum - of the Grand Master of the Priory of Sion, Jacques Sauniere. There was no doubt that Dan Brown had drawn on The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail. Indeed, there was a clear and explicit reference to the book in The Da Vinci Code, and the name of one of the characters, Sir Leigh Teabing, was based on an anagram of the names of the two authors.
- Legal argument:
Baigent and Leigh claimed copyright in the literary work, and alleged that Dan Brown had copied the way in which they had made the sequence of connections of the facts of the merging of the bloodlines. Since there was little copying of the actual text of The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail, the claim was that there had been non-literal copying of a substantial part of their literary work.
The general principle in copyright law is that copyright protects expression and not ideas. Moreover, The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail is an "historical" book, or at least it is comprised largely of historical facts which are unprotectable ideas. A paradox exists in relation to works based on historical facts: such a work can achieve copyright protection; but subsequent creators can draw on those facts.

5. Result and solution
The court held that, while the evidence was clear that Dan Brown and his primary researcher (his wife) had drawn on The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail to a greater extent than Brown had acknowledged, this did not mean that they had infringed copyright in the book. Rather, they had used The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail, and other books, to provide general background material for the writing of The Da Vinci Code. The significance of the case for copyright law relates to the fact that the lawyers acting for Baigent and Leigh attempted to make - and lost - an argument that there can be non-literal copying of a work of literature. The non-literal argument has previously been successfully used, usually in the case of computer programs or recipes or knitting patterns.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
The photograph taken by Art Rogers (left) and the sculpture that was made by Jeff Koon's assistant (right)

# data[].attributes.body
1. Case title

Art Rogers is the author of a photograph named Puppies - a black and white photograph of a couple and their puppies. Rogers later on licensed the image to the Museum Graphics company. Museum Graphics then produced and distributed commercial postcards bearing the image. Jeff Koons purchased a copy of the "Puppies" postcard and instructed his assistant to reproduce the image in a three-dimensional and multicolored painted wood sculpture for commercial use. Rogers then filed a lawsuit against Koons for infringing his IP rights over the photograph
2. Background

Subject matter:

Photograph

Art Rogers’ photograph named Puppies - a black and white photograph of a couple holding a line of puppies in a row.

Legal status: the Puppies photograph is registered under the United States Copyright Office and protected under copyright law.

Author: Art Rogers has moral rights

To title the work

To attach name or pseudonyms to the work

To publish the work

To protect the integrity of the work.

Owner: Art Rogers has economic rights.

To reproduce the work

to make derivative

to display the work to the public,

To communicate their works to the public

To distribute import, and lease

3.Case description

Koons used the photograph and asked his assistant to make a sculpture based on it which he later on sold for monetary gain.

The act infringe upon the owner’s economic rights: the rights to make derivative work of Rogers (Art. 20, Vietnam IP Law)

The act also falls under the Acts of infringing upon a copyright: making derivative works without permission of authors or holders of copyright to works used for the making of derivative works (No.7 Article 28, Vietnam IP Law)

4. Key point

Factual argument

Although acknowledging that the photo has copyright, Jeff Koons ignored it and even tore the copyright label, directing his assistants to create a reproduction “just like this photo.”

Koons had produced this sculpture for monetary gain, which prejudiced the market for licensing of reproductions and derivative works of the original work through decreasing the demand for similar works. This can result in potential losses for Art Rogers

Legal argument

Koons infringed on the economic right of Art Rogers: the right to create derivative work

The sculpture is based on the original photograph and is found to be an unauthorized derivative work. This is an infringement in the form of unauthorized derivative work. (No,7, Art.28, Vietnam IP Law)

Koons did not infringe on the moral right of Art Rogers

However, since Koons demanded his assistant to make the sculpture, Koons is only the owner of the sculpture, not the author. Therefore, Koons did not directly infringe on Rogers moral rights, the assistants did.

Koons used the defense of “fair use” for the sculpture, saying that the creation was meant for parody purposes.

5. Result

The court rejected the parody argument, the defense of fair use by Koon. The sculpture was found to be a copy of the work by Rogers.

Koons and Rogers later on reached a confidential settlement.

6. Recommendation

The best way to avoid infringement is by obtaining express written permission of the copyright owner before you use or exploit the work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
The OG tattoo on Tyson's face vs the 'paarody' version on Ed Helm's face

# data[].attributes.headline
Group s6x: Victor Whitmill vs Warner Bros.

# data[].attributes.subject
Group s6x: Victor Whitmill vs Warner Bros.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Case title: Victor Whitmill, a tattooist, is the creator of Mike Tyson's distinctive tattoo on his face. In Hangover part II, Warner Bros. used a similar - indeed virtually identical - tattoo, but on another actor's face. Whitmill then filed a lawsuit against Warner Bros. for infringing his IP rights over the tattoo.
2. Background:
- Subject matter: The tattoo created for Mike Tyson by Whitmill  - a work of visual art
- Legal status: The work is protected under copyright, with Whitmill as the author, and Tyson as the owner.
- Rights entitled:

1. author:  to title the work, to attach name or pseudonyms to the work, to publish the work, to protect the integrity of the work

2. owner: display/communicate the work to public, distribute import, reproduce the work.

3. Description:
- Revised act: Warner Bros used the tattoo designed by Whitmill in Hangover II, but on another actor’s face, which appeared in various scenes in the movie, and also on some marketing materials used to advertise the movie, of course, without the permission from Whitmill. Also, in the movie, the tattooist that created the tattoo was shown as another character (also not Whitmill)
- Equivalent to: (1) The right to display the work to the public (which belongs to Tyson - the owner of the tattoo) and (2) the right to protect the integrity of the work (which belongs to Whitmill - the author of the tattoo)
- In this case, since Tyson didn't show any opposition to WB's use of the tattoo, Whitmill's objection was not enough to make Warner Bros responsible for infringing the (1) right. However, each tattoo should be designed to fit its carrier, with careful consideration of its position, its carrier's characteristics and its surrounding, so Warner Bros's use of the tattoo on another person's face can be seen as distorting the aestheticism of the tattoo (making it seem much uglier and more unsuitable). Therefore, they failed to keep the integrity of the work, which infringed right (2).
4. Keypoints:
- Legal argument: The act of modifying, mutilating or distorting the works of Warner Bros violates Whitmill’s copyright according to Article 28, Vietnam IP Law (US Code Section 106A on IP).
- Factual argument: Whitmill has worked hard to establish his reputation as a responsible, reliable, and dedicated visual artist who ensures the consent and safety of his clients. For example, he refuses to create a tattoo on a client who appears to be inebriated. The news media reports on the Movie strongly suggest that the version of the tattoo artist in the Movie is nearly the polar opposite of Mr. Whitmill. For example, the HOLLYWOOD REPORTER issue of October 18, 2010, reported that “the tattoo artist character is ‘pivotal’ to the plot which features one of the characters going under the needle during a night of debauchery.” A subsequent article in the HOLLYWOOD REPORTER (April 9, 2011), reports that the character of the tattoo artist “is described as ‘crazy’ and ‘intense’ and ‘someone you’re afraid to talk to.’” Given that Whitmill is the artist who created the original tattoo, these reports, if accurate, strongly suggest that he could suffer from irreparable damage to his reputation from release of the Movie.
5. Result and solution:
At first, Warner Bros. argued that their use of the tattoo was in the spirit of parody and thus was covered by Fair Use. Finally, after a deal hammered out during an all-day mediation in St. Louis on Friday that was attended by Whitmill and his lawyers, as well as the Warners legal team, a settlement was made and the movie - which WB had spent a great sum of money on advertising, was still published. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed. When asked for comment, Whitmill attorney Geoff Gerber provided THR the following statement: “Warner Bros. and Mr. Whitmill have amicably resolved their dispute. No other information will be provided.”

# data[].attributes.headline
Group 09: Puma vs. Forever 21 - The Lawsuit over copied Fenty Footwear 

# data[].attributes.subject
Group 09: Puma vs. Forever 21 - The Lawsuit over copied Fenty Footwear 

# data[].attributes.body
1. Case title

Since 2014, Robyn Rihanna Fenty - the renowned Barbadian music artist, had been appointed as the Women's Creative Director for Puma clothing and footwear, and designed the Puma's Creeper Sneaker, Fur Slide, and Bow Slide (also known as “Fenty shoes”). However, in March 2017, Puma filed a lawsuit against Forever 21 for infringing not only their copyright but also plan patent and exchange dress by duplicating its Fenty shoe range and releasing a variety of shoes including sneakers and slip-on shoes with similar design under Forever 21’s image name.

2. Background

Copyright subject matter: Puma’s Fenty Shoes designed by Rihanna (Creeper Sneaker, Fur Slide and Bow Slide under the Fenty assortment)

Legal status: Puma created and first released the Puma by Rihanna “Fenty shoes” as part of this footwear line in 2015 and they are protected by Intellectual Property Rights - copyright under the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or the Copyright Office

Right holder (author/owner): In March 2017, Puma filed a lawsuit against Forever 21 in a District Court in California, the United States, claiming that the designs of the shoes produced by Forever 21 were similar to those of Puma’s Fenty shoes.

Rights entitled by author (Puma): to title the work, to attach name or pseudonyms to the work, to publish the work, to protect the integrity of the work

Rights entitled by owner (Puma): to reproduce the work, to make derivative, to display the work to the public, to communicate their works to the public, to distribute import, and lease

3. Case Description

Revised act: Forever 21 blatantly copied (or “knocked-off”) each of these shoes in order to capitalize on the substantial goodwill of Puma, Rihanna, and the Fenty Shoes. Puma’s “Creeper” is the subject of the U.S. Patent No. D774,288 (the “‘288 Patent”). Forever 21’s Yoki Faux Suede Flatform Sneakers bear a substantial degree of similarity to the “Creeper” such that an ordinary observer would be deceived by the resemblance of Puma’s and Forever21’s shoe designs.

This action is equivalent to the right to reproduce the work of the owner (Puma). It is also equivalent to the right to protect the integrity of the work of the author (Puma).

Acts of infringing upon design patent: an ordinary observer wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the design of Puma and Forever 21 shoes.

4. Factual and Legal arguments

4.1. Legal arguments

Puma filed suit against Forever 21 for alleged infringement against its intellectual property rights in a line of designer footwear known as the "Fenty" shoes. Since 2014, Puma collaborated with music artist Rihanna to design and market women's clothing and footwear, who served as the ambassador of the Fenty line. Its causes of action included: (1) design patent infringement; (2) federal trade dress infringement; (3) copyright infringement; (4) federal false designation of origin and unfair competition; and (5) state unfair competition. Forever 21 filed its motion to dismiss Puma's complaint in its entirety under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) according to US Law.

4.2. Factual arguments

Forever 21 had released a variety of shoes under its image, which were similar to shoes’ design in Puma’s Fenty line in order to capitalise on the substantial goodwill of Puma, Rihanna, and the Fenty Shoes. Puma met all of the requirements and disputes ownership, claiming Forever 21 copied their plan. However, Forever 21 believed that the shoe plans weren’t ones to be copyrighted because the plan wasn’t their unique creation. In terms of “exchange dress”, it refers to the entire picture and how something appears, including shape, size, shading, and so on in the case of an item or clothing. Thus, Forever 21 claims that Puma has failed to demonstrate that the exchange dress is practical. Forever 21 rationalised both the rationale for an activity and the explanations behind exchange dress encroachment but fizzle.

5. Results and solutions/Recommendations

The Judgment was not in favour of Puma. Forever 21 filed a motion in court in 2018 asking for the dismissal of Puma’s patent claim because the shoe design is influenced by the 1940s. It also claimed that Puma committed fraud in its filings with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the Copyright Office, and that while Puma publicly tries to promote that Rihanna designed the shoes at issue in this lawsuit, Rihanna is not named as an author on Puma’s copyright applications or as an inventor on Puma’s design patent.

Result: The intellectual property conflict between fashion retailer Forever 21 and sportswear company Puma has ceased after both the parties agreed to settle.

Recommendation:

It is important to register your plans. When your plan is a critical component of a product, model, or drawing, it’s usually necessary to enlist the help of an idea selection to ensure its success.

It must have a ‘unique character’. It must be feasible for a supposed ‘educated client’ to recognise the new plan and a pretty similar item. If the supposed educated client believes that the item configuration gives the same general impression as an idea that has previously been made available to the general public, it will lack adequate ‘singular character’ to be qualified for assurance.

To give design protection legislation teeth and prevent further widespread replication, the government should take stronger, more serious action against IP infringers in the textile industry. Because enforcing a court injunction is currently too time-consuming and costly.

In conclusion: A good IP asset management strategy in a business or marketing plan helps to increase an enterprise’s value in the eyes of investors and lending institutions.

# data[].attributes.body
1.     Case title
Phimmoi, the largest online movie streaming platform in Vietnam, has been prosecuted by the Ho Chi Minh City Public Security Investigation Police Agency for serious copyright infringement. This website has copied, exploited, edited and displayed cinematic works to the public without the permission of the rights owners.
2.     Background

-          Subject matter: Movies and videos that are cinematic works.

-          Legal status: The works (movies and videos) are protected under copyrights.

-          Rights entitled by author:

Authors: the movie directors and film studios.

Moral rights:

1. To title the work

2. Attach name or pseudonyms to the work

3. Publish the work

4. Protect the integrity of the work

-          Rights entitled by owner:

Owners: Contributors who has conducted actions that directly affect the production ofthe works.

Economic rights:

1. To reproduce the work

2. Make derivative

3. Display the work to the public

4. Communicate their works to the public

5. Distribute import, and lease

3.     Case description
- Actions in debate:

Phimmoi, who is neither the authors nor the owners  of the cinematic works, has dubplicated, produced copies, distributed, displayed and communicated artistic works to the public on online media and digital media without the permission of the copyright owner.

This action has violated the economic rights of the owners to make derivative or copy, publish the original or copy of the work to the public.

Phimmoi has made amendment to the original works (putting Vietnamese subtitles) for illegally commercial purposes, without any written consents from the authors or the owners. The website also refused to pay remuneration to the owner for the use of these works. This is an act of violating moral rights of author, specifically the right to protect the integrity of the work.

4.     Factual and legal arguments

Legal arguments

The acts of Phimmoi have violated Act 28 of Vietnam IPL 2005, in which it has duplicated, distributed, displayed, or communicated works on online media and digital media.

What’s more, all of the artistic works on this platform were released without written consent from the original owners nor remuneration, which has been clearly stated in Clause 8 and 10 Article 28 of the Intellectual Property Law.

Factual arguments:

Many paid or freemium platforms do not provide films and content that are out-of-dated, yet there are still demands for them. Phimmoi, on the other hand, provides a collection of movies from the 2010s till recent -> Phimmoi can satisfy more demands -> gain more visitors.

Some people with binge-watching habits would not want to pay for a whole year's services -> they will choose to watch on free online movie websites like Phimmoi -> popularity remains.

5.     Results and solutions/Recommendations

-          Solution:

According to Article 17 of Decree 131/2013/ND-CP stipulating that acts of communicating works to the public by wireline, radio, electronic information networks or any other technical means without the permission of the owner will be punished from 15 to 30 million VND. At the same time, the infringer is forced to remove the copy of the infringing work.

-          Results:

The website of Phimmoi has been taken down and the case has been prosecuted by the Vietnam Cybersecurity Bureau.

-          Recommendations:

The intellectual property rights sanctions for dealing with infringement in the digital environment are not enough of a deterrent. In order to thoroughly handle infringing acts, it is necessary to have active support from network operators and step in more strongly from the authorities.

Technological measures may be applied to prevent acts of infringement of intellectual property rights specified in Clause 1, Article 49 of Decree 22/2018 dated May 23, 2018.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Case title:

Mr. Le Linh was contracted by Phan Thi, Ltd. to be the main artist for the comic series Than dong dat Viet and came up with the designs for the 4 main characters. Afterwards, Phan Thi, Ltd. redrew the characters and had them appear in later issues, magazines, and made them into figurines, etc. without Mr. Le Linh’s permission.

2. Background:

- Subject matter: TDDV’s main characters’ designs, which are artworks/literary works.

- Legal status: The works are protected under copyright.

- Author: Mr. Lê Linh, who has moral rights, including:

The right to give titles to their works

The right to attach their real names or pseudonyms to their works

The right to publish their works

The right to protect the integrity of their works

- Owner: Phan Thi, Ltd., who has economic rights, including:

The right to reproduce works

The right to make derivatives

The right to display their works to the public

The right to communicate their works to the public

The right to distribute or import the original or copies of their works

The right to lease the original or copies of cinematographic works and computer programs.

3. Case description:

Phan Thi, Ltd. has redrawn Mr. Linh character designs and had them appear in magazines, movies, as well as made into figurines. In other words, the company has:

Reproduced works & made derivatives. These are the economic rights of Phan Thi, Ltd., so there are no infringements, but they also...

Modified, edited, and distorted a work. These are infringements of Mr. Le Linh’s moral rights (Art. 28, Vietnam IP Law).

4. Keypoints:

Legal arguments:
As the author of the characters’ designs, Mr. Le Linh holds the copyright (moral rights to be exact) on them, even if he was contracted by Phan Thi, Ltd. to do so. However, the company modified the designs by redrawing them. Moreover, Phan Thi, Ltd. also made the characters appear in different forms (e.g. figurines) even though the initial purpose stated in the contract was for appearance in the comic series only. All acts were without Mr. Le Linh’s permission. This is an infringement of Mr. Le Linh’s moral rights (Art. 28, Vietnam IP Law).

Factual arguments:
As the designs of characters are mainly known to have been made by Mr. Le Linh, therefore, changes in the characters’ features, contents, and so on can affect the reputation of the author. If they were negative changes, Mr. Le Linh would be blamed for something he didn’t do. Therefore, the use of work and changing it without permission would have a negative impact on Mr. Le Linh in terms of reputation.

Furthermore, Mr. Le Linh was deeply hurt by all the related incidents. For example, Phan Thi Company continued negotiating for “Trang Ti” film while the conflicts between Phan Thi and Le Linh hadn’t come to an end since 2018. Only when the film was done and was about to be released did the company’s representative Ngo Thanh Van come to meet Le Linh and ask for his support as a consultant to defend the movie against the wave of strong boycotts from the community. Le Linh refused to cooperate because the film was already done, he couldn't do anything to be called a consultant - he said. He described his hurt because of the incident:  “While I had to pursue the case in a tense mood to find justice, the two sides still shook hands to make the movie.” Mr. Le Linh felt the lack of respect for him as the author - the other parties just treated him as a pawn to get on the audience’s good side.

5. Result/Recommendation

Result:

1. Recognition of Mr. Le Linh as the sole author who created the image of 4 characters: Ti, Ox, Dan, Meo also known as Trang Ti, Suu Oo, Dan Beo, Ca Meo.

2. Phan Thi Company stopped exploiting these characters in subsequent works for infringing on the integrity of the work.

3. Apologize to the author publicly for giving false information about Ms. Phan Thi My Hanh's co-authorship, misleading the public.

4. Phan Thi Company indemnified 15 million VND for Mr. Linh Le's attorney fees.

5. Additionally, the Trial Panel added, the time to exercise the right to appeal against the defendant is 15 days.

Recommendations:

1. Before signing a contract and starting to create a work, authors need to understand clearly intellectual property rights, copyright as well as related rights and obligations. In addition, it is necessary to learn about the owners' rights and obligations with respect to their works and publications.

2. When signing the contract and related documents, it is necessary to carefully check all the terms; especially the terms related to the above benefits. In particular, it is necessary to emphasize the moral rights of the author, ensuring that the author clearly understands the rights and obligations mentioned in the contract. At the same time, both parties should have legal representatives who have the expertise to assist in understanding and evaluating contract terms.

3. That the author registers a trademark for his work to avoid copyright infringement is necessary.

4. Throughout the working process, the author always needs to prepare and collect documents to prove that he is the sole author or co-author of the work.

5. The contract and related documents should clearly identify the person who created the idea and the person who performed the work in the event that it is not the same person.

6. During the contract's validity, all information and activities related to the work from both sides (the author and the owner) should be transparent and clear in terms of both economic and spiritual benefits.

# data[].attributes.headline
Group 7: Taylor Swift vs. Big Machine Records and Braun

# data[].attributes.subject
Group 7: Taylor Swift vs. Big Machine Records and Braun

# data[].attributes.body
1. Case title:

In 2005, Swift signed a 13-year-contract with Big Machine Records operated by Brochetta. This contract allowed BM Records to have copyright ownership over Swift first 6 albumn. Later, BM Records was bought by Braun, which led to unceasing disputes between the female singer and old company in the following three years after the contract become invalid in 2018.

2. Background:

- Subject matter: Swift's first 6 albumn

- Legal status: The work is protected under copyright law, with Swift as "author" and BM Records as "owner".

- Rights entitled by author: title, name/pseudonyms attachment, publishing, protect integrity of work

- Rights entitled by owner: display/communicate the work to public, distribute import, reproduce the work

3. Case description:

- Revised act: Braun & Brochetta of prevented Taylor Swift from performing her old songs at AMA (America Music Awards) 2020 and owed Swift $8 million of commission from selling her music. BM broadcasted an albumn full of Taylor’s live performances at a radio program since 2008 without permission of Swift.

- This action is equivalent to the right to reproduce of the owner (BM records). This action is equivalent to the right to publish of author (Taylor Swift).

- Acts of infringing upon copyright: The act of publishing and distributing author's work without author's permission (Section 4, Art. 28, Vietnam IP Law);The act of taking over author's copyright (Section 1, Art. 28, Vietnam IP Law)

In June 2019, BM records was bought by Braun ( operator of Ithaca Holdings) at $300m -> copyright ownership of Swift’s first 6 albumn was transferred to Braun.

Taylor accused Brochetta of betrayal for selling her music to the one who “bullied” her and tried to “destroy” her music previously; while BM records was not willing to sell the copyright ownership to Swift then unless she agreed to sign another contract with BM.

- In Nov 2019, Swift accused Braun & Brochetta of preventing her from performing her old songs at AMA (America Music Awards) 2020; BM refused accusation and declared that BM licensed all performances of their artists at AMA both live and broadcasts as agreed with AMA’s producer - Dick Clark Productions, but DC Productions argued that they had never made any declaration with BM.

4. Factual and legal arguments:

- Legal argument:

The act of publishing and distributing author's work without author's permission violates Swift's copyright according to Section 4, Art. 28, Vietnam IP Law.

The act of taking over author's copyright violates Swift's copyright according to Section 1, Art. 28, Vietnam IP Law

- Factual argument:

Swift was out of contract with BM Records since November, 2018, and the songs she wanted to perform at AMA 2020 were still under BM Records' copyright. Therefore, she may not have reached an agreement previously with BM Records before using the songs to perform.

5. Results and solutions/ Recommendation:

- Results:

In Oct 2020, Braun sold the originals, video and art works to Shamrock Holdings (Disney) at $300m. Swift announced that Braun offered her a chance to tender over her originals by signing an agreement of not making public announcements about Braun, but Taylor turned down the offer and decided to record again 6 originals and make a remark as “Taylor’s version” to distinguish with previous records by BM Records.

- Recommendations:

Such issue arose due to the fact that before the existence of digital platform like Youtube, Spotify,etc., artists had to rely on records on records companies to publish and promote their work. This led to disputes and vagueness between authors and owners. However, recently, singers are able to hold more copyright for their own works.

# data[].attributes.body
1.     Case title

SEONA signed a contract with Anna - a freelance designer for designing the SEONA MP3 player brochure. After receiving the brochure, SEONA reused some information contained in the former to post on new website of the company. Anna threatened to file a lawsuit against SEONA for infringing her copyright.

2.     Background

-          Subject matter: the brochure designed by Anna, an art work/literary work

-          Legal status: The work is protected under copyright. Anna is the author, and SEONA is the owner of the work.

-          Rights entitled by author: to title the work, to attach name or pseudonyms to the work, to publish the work, to protect the integrity of the work

-          Rights entitled by owner: to reproduce the work, to make derivative, to display the work to the public, to communicate their works to the public, to distribute import, and lease

3.     Case description

-          SEONA used some information in the brochure designed by Anna within the signed contract for their website

-          This action is equivalent to the right to reproduce the work of the owner (SEONA). It is also equivalent to the right to protect the integrity of the work of the author (Anna).

-          Acts of infringing upon copyright: Modifying, mutilating or distorting works in such a way as prejudicial to the honor and reputation of authors (article 28, Vietnam IP Law)

4.     Factual and legal arguments

Legal argument:

The act of modifying, mutilating or distorting the works of SEONA violates Anna’s copyright according to Article 28, Vietnam IP Law.

Factual arguments:

Anna may have bought some materials in order to design the brochure which should be used for the brochure only. Therefore, the fact that SEONA reused some part of the brochure may have caught Anna to pay extra fees.

5.     Results and solutions/Recommendations

-          Solution: Negotiation:

+ SEONA agrees to compensate for having infringed Anna’s copyright.

+ SEONA wants to amplify some articles in the contract for the brochure using along with their payment for it.

-          Results:

+ Anna agrees to assign her copyright to SEONA and waive the exercise of her moral rights on it

+ SEONA shall pay for the above consent of Anna for new agreement.

-          Recommendations:

+ The best way to avoid infringement is by obtaining express written permission of the copyright owner before you use or exploit the work.

+ The moral rights can be waived.

# data[].attributes.headline
Group 5: Tuan Chau Company vs DS Media Company

# data[].attributes.subject
Group 5: Tuan Chau Company vs DS Media Company

# data[].attributes.body
Case title: The high-profile copyright lawsuit about “Ngay xưa” - a million-dollar folk-inspired outdoor performance between DS Media Company and Tuan Chau company. DS Company completed the project and applied for exclusive copyrights for this performance which affect the rights of investors - Tuan Chau company. At the same time, Tuan Chau company stated a derivative work of “Ngay xua” without DS Company’s permission

Background:

Parties:

1. DS Company - CEO: Viet Tu aka the author of the performance “Ngay xua” (known as Quintessence of Tonkin) and because DS Company has registered an exclusive copyrights for this peformance, DS company is also the owner of this performance

2. Tuan Chau Company - the investor of the performance

=> both DS Company and Tuan Chau company are the owner of this performance

Legal status: "Ngay xua" performance was registered an exclusive copyright protection by DS Company

Rights entitled according to Vietnam IP Law

1. DS Company: moral rights (article 19)

Give titles to their works

Attach their real names or pseudonyms to their works

Publish their works

Protect the integrity of their works

1. Tuan Chau company: economic rights and the rights to publish works (article 20 and section 3, article 19)

To reproduce the work

Make derivative

Display the work to the public

Communicate their works to the public

Distribute import, and lease

Copyright subject matter:

the outdoor performance named “Ngay xua”

the derivative version performance - “Tinh hoa Bac Bo”

Case description

In November 2015, DS Company and Tuan Chau Company signed a contract to embark on “Ngay xua” project - an outdoor performance inspired by the colonial Northern area of Vietnam with DS company joining as consultant, scentography, stage and implement the performance. Tuan Chau Company was the only investor with approximately 13 billion VND. DS Company completed the project and handed it to Tuan Chau company but the performance has not been widely released due to copyright controversy between DS and Tuan Chau company. After that, Tuan Chau company signed another contract with another performance director to produce the “Tinh hoa Bac Bo” project using the same stage layout, music, characters, .. as “Ngay xua” performance.

1. Tuan Chau company sued DS Company against these activities below:

public the performance without Tuan Chau company’s permission. Because the DS Company holds moral rights over this performance which includes the right to publish works in a sufficient number of copies to satisfy the reasonable demand of the public. So that DS Company can publicize this project without any copyright infringements.

register for the exclusive copyright owner of the script of “Ngay xua” performance which affected the utilization of economic rights of Tuan Chau company with this project and required a compensation of 6 billion VND from DS Company. While DS company only owned the moral rights, Tuan Chau company had the economic rights over the Ngay xua performance and they should be the one who were granted ownership of this project

1. DS Company sued Tuan Chau company against the activity below:

produced “Tinh hoa Bac Bo” performance with many elements in common with “Ngay xua”, which was regarded as a derivative version of “Ngay xua” without the permission of DS Company - the copyright owner of this performance. At that time, DS Company holds an exclusive copyright over “Ngay xua” performance which means that DS Company has controls over both moral and economic rights of this performance. As economic rights includes the rights to make derivatives, “Tinh hoa Bac Bo” as a derivative version of “Ngay xua” should be given the rights to implement by DS Company instead of Tuan Chau company

Legal arguments: In fact, because Tuan Chau company has paid for DS Company to implement the performance, Tuan Chau company was the owner of this project and granted the economic rights and the right to publish (according to article 19 and article 20, Vietnam IP Law). In the meantime, DS company can claim authorship over this project. However, these two parties do not fully apply the copyrights understanding at first leading to many infringed activities afterwards including the creation of the later performance - “Tinh hoa Bac Bo”.

Factual arguments:
The CEO of DS Company as well as the director of “Ngay xua” performance - Mr. Viet Tu has sketched his idea for this project since 2010 and it took nearly 2 years since the signing contract with Tuan Chau company to complete the “Ngay xua” project. Meanwhile, Director of “Tinh hoa Bac Bo” - Mr. Hoang Nhat Nam only needed 2 months to complete it with a similar stage layout, script, … Due to Viet Tu’s effort to fulfill the project, DS Company can receive profits and compensations for their works
In terms of the exclusive copyrights granted for DS Company at first, Mr Viet Tu - the CEO of DS Company has argued that he tried to convince Tuan Chau Company to accompany with him to register copyrights for "Ngay xua" performance many times before but TC Company refused to do so, hence, in order to avoid other parties copying the works, DS Company has applied for copyrights over the performance

Solutions and results:

For DS company:

DS company was granted authorship for this performance and had to transfer the exclusive copyrights to Tuan Chau company - the owner of this project.

After the examination process, “Tinh hoa Bac Bo” was regarded as a derivative of “Ngay xua” and it is executed without any permission of DS company - the owner of “Ngay xua” at that time, so that Tuan Chau company had infringed copyrights and had to compensate for that

For Tuan Chau company:

Tuan Chau company will receive the ownership of “Ngay xua” performance transferred from DS Company

Tuan Chau company had to bear a compensation of 600 million VND for the unpermitted production of “Tinh hoa Bac Bo” and other fees claimed by DS Company

# data[].attributes.body
Step 1: DC’s Bob Kane, the creator of the character Batman and his related comic books found his characters in another comic book on sale by another author named Jim Mooney, who worked for Image. Mooney’s characters looked almost identical to Kane’s. Is Mooney breaking copyrights law?

Step 2: The subject matter in this case are Kane’s literature works, which are protected by copyrights.  Kane is the author, while DC is the owner of the works. In this case, Kane has the moral rights, which includes: giving titles, protecting the integrity, attaching his real names, publishing the works; and DC has the economic rights, which includes reproducing, making derivatives, communicating, displaying, importing and leasing to Kane’s literature works.

Step 3: Revised act: Image’s publish of Mooney’s works, which are copies, and Mooney’s copying of Kane’s works, both for commercial purposes. Mooney’s actions violated DC’s economic rights to Kane’s works. Also, Image’s actions violated Kane’s moral right.

Step 4: The process of creating a comic book character with a personality is a daunting task for any author. In the case of a well-known character like Batman, it is even of greater importance. Batman has spawned a big franchise throughout the years, and the character has cemented himself as one of the most iconic superheroes of fiction. The act of copying Kane’s works without permission is an act born out of greed, wishing to capitalize on the popularity of the character without sparing any creativity

Step 5: Kane and DC should file a lawsuit against Image and Mooney in order to preserve their work. (conclude)

# data[].attributes.body
Step 1:

When Google created Android, its platform for mobile devices, it wrote millions of lines of new code and copied roughly 11,500 lines of declaring code, which provides the tasks' names and locations for the computer to perform, from the Java SE platform, whose copyright is owned by Oracle. Oracle filed a lawsuit against Google.

Step 2:

The copyright subject matter is the 11,500 lines of declaring code in Android. According to article 22, these computer codes are protected as literary work.

The legal status of the 11,500 lines of declaring are parts of the Java SE computer platform, whose copyright belonged to Oracle

The author of the subject matter is Oracle while the owner is Google.

Being protected under author’s rights, Oracle has the following rights:

1. Moral rights (art. 19)

Give titles to their works

Attach their real names or pseudonyms to their works

Publish their works

Protect the integrity of their works

2. Economic rights (art. 20)

Make derivative

Reproduce works

Display their works to the public

Communicate their works to the public

Distribute or import the original or copies of their works

Lease the original or copies of cinematographic works and computer programs

As the owner, Google subjects to the economic rights cited above.

Step 3: Google copied 11,500 lines of declaring code from Oracle's Java SE into Android's, equivalent to Google's economic rights of "Make derivative" and being considered as Oracle as violation of Oracle's moral rights of "Protecting integrity of their work". If infringement, Google had "copied a work" of Oracle and thus, violated Oracle's economic rights.

Step 4:

Legal arguments: article 28.6, .7 and .8

Factual arguments: the similarity between 11,500 lines of Android code and Java SE declaring code, i.e. they are both expressed in the same form of computer codes.

Step 5:

Results: Infringement of copyrights

Recommendation:

Oracle and Google can go into mediation to resolve the conflict.

If unable to solve the conflict, Oracle can request for a portion of Google's revenue out of the distribution of Android.

"Fair use" consideration.