![\"podcast-logo\"](\"http:\/\/www.entertainmentlawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/small.podcast-logo.jpg\" "\\"podcast-logo\\""){kind=logo}
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
![\"Play\"](\"https:\/\/firemark.com\/wp-content\/plugins\/powerpress\/play_audio.png\" "\\"Play\\"")
<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>Podcast: Play in new window<\/a> | Download<\/a> (Duration: 58:54 — 54.1MB)<\/p> Subscribe: RSS<\/a><\/p>\n In this Episode:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Twitter:\u00a0@gfiremark<\/a><\/p>\n Website: \u00a0\u00a0http:\/\/createprotect.com<\/a><\/p>\n Twitter:\u00a0@tamerabennett<\/a><\/p>\n Show Notes<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Show Notes<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n FOLLOW-UPS AND QUICK TAKES<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> ‘Indiana Jones' Lawsuit Seeks Hollywood Profits from Alleged Crystal Skull Theft: <\/span><\/p>\n THResq: <\/span>http:\/\/www.hollywoodreporter.com\/thr-esq\/indiana-jones-lawsuit-seeks-hollywood-399236<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n The Complaint: <\/span>https:\/\/docs.google.com\/open?id=0B7c_uKsEeLrwUUtINFFsTnI0ZlU<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n <\/strong> In 1924, Crystal Skull was found in Belize by Anna Mitchell-Hedges and her father. \u00a0Mitchell-Hedges recently passed away and left the skull to a man named William Homann.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n Before she passed away, Mitchell-Hedges appeared on a SciFi channel documentary about the skullswhich aired in 2008, disclosing that she was in possession of the skull.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n The complaint alleges that various laws passed in Belize prior to the skull being taken out of the country made it illegal to do so, and that the archaeological expedition itself was undertaken outside of the required approval of the government.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n Dr. Jaime Awe, Director of the Institute of Archaeology in Belize, is suing Homann and the Mitchell-Hedges estate for replevin, accounting for profits, and tortious interference with Prospective Economic Advantage.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n Awe is ALSO suing Lucasfilm, Paramount Pictures, and the Walt Disney Company, alleging that they have profited off of the use of the Mitchell-Hedges skull (referred to in the film <\/span>Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull<\/span> as the \u201cMitchell-Hedges skull,\u201d but said to be from Peru)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n Awe is seeking injunctive relief, accounting for profits, and is accusing the film defendants of Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage and Civil Conspiracy<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n <\/strong> The actual Mitchell-Hedges skull:<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> The Indiana Jones version:<\/span> <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Shahs of Sunset – \u201cPersian Barbie\u201d Trademark Dispute<\/span><\/p>\n THResq: <\/span>http:\/\/www.hollywoodreporter.com\/thr-esq\/hollywood-docket-john-travolta-wins-legal-fees-sex-life-author-399316<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n TMZ.com: <\/span>http:\/\/www.tmz.com\/2012\/12\/02\/shahs-of-sunset-bravo-niki-ghazian-lily-ghalichi-cease-desist-letter\/<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Model Niki Ghazian has sent a cease and desist letter to Bravo TV Network and the producers of the show \u201cShahs of Sunset\u201d over their use of the term \u201cPersian Barbie\u201d to describe one of the cast members of that show.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n Ms. Ghazian claims that she has been using that term to describe herself since 2005 and is the \u201ccommon law\u201d owner of the mark (she has never applied for a trademark).<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n She is demanding that Bravo stop using the term in their advertising for the show, on their website, or on any press releases.<\/span> Niki Ghazian (left), Lilly Ghalichi (right)<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> \u201cAge of the Hobbits\u201d Gets New Title, Still On Sale Despite Injunction:<\/span><\/p>\n THResq: <\/span>http:\/\/www.hollywoodreporter.com\/thr-esq\/age-hobbits-is-clash-empires-401897<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n THResq: <\/span>http:\/\/www.hollywoodreporter.com\/thr-esq\/age-hobbits-gets-new-title-401217<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n THResq: <\/span>http:\/\/www.hollywoodreporter.com\/thr-esq\/age-hobbits-sale-court-order-403685<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n <\/strong> Warner Bros. and producer Saul Zaentz have filed suit against production company The Asylum over the \u201cmockbuster\u201d film <\/span>Age of the Hobbits<\/span>, alleging trademark infringement.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n A federal judge in California has granted an injunction against the release of the film under that name.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n The Asylum defended itself by saying that it had fair use to use “Hobbits,” saying the word referred to a real-life human subspecies, Homo Floresiensis, discovered in 2003 in Indonesia.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n However, this is an informal name for the species, and the <\/span>Tolkien estate has barred others from publicly using the nickname<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n Wikipedia lists various fleeting references to the word Hobbit in folklore, fairy tales, and witchcraft, beginning in the 1500\u2019s<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Jonathan Handel, writing at The Hollywood Reporter, reports that the title has been seen on sale at Wal-mart under its original infringing name, raising questions as to whether the injunction was worded broadly enough<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n It bars Asylum and \u201call persons in active concert or participation with Asylum or with any of the foregoing\u201d from using the title<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n The question is whether or not Wal-mart or other retailers are in \u201cactive concert or participation with Asylum\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n <\/p>\n Other names have popped up for the film, including <\/span>The History of Mankind<\/span> for its Cambodian release, <\/span>Lord of the Elves <\/span>on streaming video service Vudu, and <\/span>Clash of the Empires<\/span> on Asylum\u2019s website.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Throwback Baltimore Ravens Uniform in EA\u2019s Madden NFL Video Game is Not a Fair Use:<\/span><\/p>\n Entertainment Law Matters: <\/span>http:\/\/www.entertainmentlawmatters.com\/?p=2319<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n <\/strong> Artist Frederick Bouchat has won a case against the Baltimore Ravens as well as video game manufacturer Electronic Arts for infringing on his copyright in a team logo.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n Mr. Bouchat created and copyrighted a drawing which was substantially similar to the one eventually used by the Ravens as their primary logo during their first three seasons.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n Mr. Bouchat had previously sued the Ravens and the NFL and established copyright infringement, but recovered no damages due to a finding that the revenues generated from the sale of Ravens merchandise was attributable to other factors besides the infringement.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n However, in this latest ruling from the US District Court in Maryland, the court found that there was an infringing use when Electronic Arts included the uniforms with the infringing use as part of a \u201cthrowback uniform\u201d feature of the game, allowing players to adorn their team with the old Ravens uniform featuring the infringing logo.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Under the four-factor test, the court held that under the first factor, the use was \u201ctotally or \u00a0virtually non-transformative\u201d because the game used the logo to augment sales of its product by seeking to profit from \u2018nostalgia value\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n With respect to the second and third factors, the fact that the nature of the work as an original drawing weighed against a finding of fair use as did the amount copied, because the entire logo was used.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n Finally, the effect on the market factor also weighed against a finding of fair use because the \u201cNFL recognizes there is a market to exploit in the nostalgia value of throwback uniforms\u201d and thus there is a potential market for the old logo.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n The case will now enter the damages phase and Mr. Bouchat will attempt to show profit attribution from the infringing use, a potentially thorny issue.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n <\/strong> <\/p>\n Top is Mr. Bouchat\u2019s original drawing, and bottom, the actual logo <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Napoleon Dynamite Profits Win For Fox<\/span><\/p>\n THResq: <\/span>http:\/\/www.hollywoodreporter.com\/thr-esq\/napoleon-dynamite-lawsuit-fox-wins-397923<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n <\/strong> Fox Searchlight, the studio which distributed the hit indie film \u201cNapoleon Dynamite\u201d, was sued by the production company behind the film for underreported royalties and improper revenue deductions to the tune of $10 million.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n A private judge was enlisted to handle the complex contractual issues and reached a decision in favor of Fox Searchlight on 9 of the 11 issues, whereby the producers will only be entitled to less than $150,000 based on a few small accounting irregularities.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n One of the core issues of the case was whether \u201cDefinition of Net Profits\u201d was incorporated into the term sheet. \u00a0The lack of an explicit definition caused the parties to believe that the producers would receive a 10% royalty rate on one side or a 31% rate on the other.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n The entire decision can be found here:<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n http:\/\/www.hollywoodreporter.com\/sites\/default\/files\/custom\/Documents\/ESQ\/Napolean.pdf<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Our completely unscientific top ten list of cases and stories from 2012<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n 10. Golan v. Holder decision<\/span> <\/p>\nCall us with your feedback:<\/span><\/strong>(310) 243-6231<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n![\"Clio](\"http:\/\/www.entertainmentlawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/Clio_-Online-Legal-Practice-Management-Software-SaaS-for-Lawyers-Attorneys-Law-Firms.jpg\" "\\"Clio_")
<\/a>Entertainment Law Update is brought to you by Clio, the best way to manage your practice online. Clio allows you to manage your matters, clients, time, bills, trust accounts and more all through a a secure, easy-to-use, web-based interface. For a free 30-day trial and 25% off your first 6 months of Clio, sign up at www.goclio.com<\/a> and enter promotional code [ENTLAW]” Or, just visit http:\/\/entertainmentlawupdate.com\/clio<\/a><\/div>\nHosts:<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.entertainmentlawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/small.headshot.png\" "\\"small.headshot\\"")
<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0Website: \u00a0\u00a0http:\/\/firemark.com\u00a0<\/a>http:\/\/theatrelawyer.com<\/a>,<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.entertainmentlawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/tamera.jpg\" "\\"tamera\\"")
<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/lh3.googleusercontent.com\/q3I3bw5ieXCy6qiZIAneK7NrJBzFIM-mn2SWiP65ZrUVmFQ7WEDzHvN0A2W4WldjpSNlRkYdbkGKSiDi0N3qz1MqOGfTpKhO8B78AgWlEkMFp9u2E1k\")
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/lh4.googleusercontent.com\/8tOlmYFo6SXiNEcBCpUshyv1y5mVJEcT24lbhzJ8umVn-dENXy8SGBgtGNGCcYNrQzdnZKeuHu6bAzc7T-eRDhkzbLeMaHu281fSqUMHbpLumxEnmbw\")
\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/lh4.googleusercontent.com\/8COVWSTERdYP1vSzxRxYvNmgLs9Or7-e9FpLbTpsDFV4JHiOp_KNQoUXM4SXvjUw1lPeao_TKyNyCl01OJdjIdndNRSByYMrgwltSH2y19ycFTn8-bM\")
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/lh6.googleusercontent.com\/nUN2HTXVekmvKGlXXvNZwzpCFkDgQHAYWwmsFdunfwciAbhBfHLF7iTSx7TbTanYg41KmyOIUQx6u_K25e5nuMqOA9iyZR10qnRjx93_nt1q9cWPie4\")
\nused by the Ravens during their first three seasons.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nTHResq: <\/span>http:\/\/www.hollywoodreporter.com\/thr-esq\/supreme-court-ruling-foreign-copyright-laws-282931<\/span><\/a>
\nFuture of Music Collection: <\/span>https:\/\/futureofmusic.org\/blog\/2012\/01\/27\/thoughts-golan-v-holder<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/lh4.googleusercontent.com\/t37dkl4U7njfnxv3BzAoHnXOfuv351b5A9iWZq3tf3-LuSZPXZYbbI_6R78hgFqoRcAF1FE0FbAHa0f-JnxmHytVIi0gOHIF0vIzOz9vTPn8xgl47k4\")