One thing I’m quickly learning is that litigation is rife throughout the entertainment industry. It’s a way of doing business that people and companies must just get used to as an everyday, common occurrence. You probably aren’t successful until you’ve been sued. That is not true of course, but the impression is that, if you are doing anything worth noticing, and especially if you are making any money at it, someone will find a way to take you to court over it. I’m picturing a New Yorker cartoon showing an artist grinning and proudly holding legal papers with the caption, “I’ve finally made it.” Legitimate intellectual property theft is a big problem though, as well are issues like wage fixing, for which guilty people and companies deserve to be held accountable.
Judge Rejects Bid of Robin Thicke, Pharrell Williams to Win 'Blurred Lines' Lawsuit
In 2013, upon threat of a lawsuit from the Marvin Gaye family over similarities between the Grammy winning song, “Blurred Lines” and Marvin Gaye’s track, “Got To Give It Up,” singer/producer, Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams, sued the family in a pre-emptive strike. The suit asks for a summary judgment to deny any similarities between the tracks. The Gaye family has since filed a countersuit, which also alleges similarity between Thicke’s, “Love After War” and Gaye’s, “After the Dance.” In the first case, a judge has recently denied summary judgment and determined that there is indeed enough evidence of similarity between the two tracks to go forth with a trial. The tracks have been dissected and experts from both sides have given their opinions. I took a listen to both and immediately heard the similarities, so I can understand why the case should proceed to trial. However, what will make this case more interesting and difficult to determine is that, according to the Hollywood Reporter Esquire article, there is, “controversy between the two sides as to whether Gaye's copyrights are limited to sheet music compositions or whether they extend to features heard on the "Got to Give It Up" sound recording.” Regardless of how similar the tracks sound, the Gaye family could lose out on some portion of the suit because of the Copyright issue.
Frank Sivero Sues The Simpsons: A Perfectly Cromulent Case?
Frank Sivero, a character actor who’s played mobsters in the films, “Goodfellas” and “The Godfather Part II,” recently filed a $250 million dollar suit against Fox Television Studios alleging that The Simpsons’ Springfield Mafia cartoon character, Louis, is based on him. There are five different counts but it comes down to Sivero claiming misappropriation of his name/likeness and his character development ideas for these mobster roles and, of course, “interference with prospective economic advantage.” The Louis character first appeared on The Simpsons in 1991 and has since appeared sixteen more times. Sivero claims that in 1989, he lived in the same apartment complex as some of the writers and that they saw each other, “almost every day.” He also claims he had prospective business dealings with the Simpsons’ producer but they never materialized; rather the producer was just studying him for the Louis character development. It is odd that it’s been over twenty-three years since Louis first appeared and Sivero is just now filing suit. I can see the similarities between his mobster roles and The Simpsons’ character, but the $250 million suit seems like a bit of a stretch. Since he never got anything in writing from the producer, well, I’d just be embarrassed to even mention that part.
Walt Disney And DreamWorks Animation Sued By Employees
Finally, there is the lawsuit brought by Robert A. Nitsch Jr., former Senior Character Effects Artist at DreamWorks, against animation industry giants; Disney (including their subsidiaries, Pixar and LucasFilm), Sony Corporation, DreamWorks Animation, Digital Domain 3.0, and ImageMovers Digital LLC. The suit asserts that these companies conspired to deliberately suppress wages of millions of, “industry technicians, software engineers, digital artists,” etc., and kept them from, “wage increases and growth in their careers.” It also claims a “no-poaching scheme” between Pixar and DreamWorks where they agreed not to hire employees away from each other. The evidence in the case is pretty damning – there are emails from executives of these companies that show agreement to participate in these practices. The suit is valid. Considering how hard these people work in the industry (I know employees that basically live on campus at Pixar), these practices are shameful and the companies involved should be penalized to the full extent of the law. Those employees who lost out should be given every penny in back compensation. These practices are not only illegal and morally wrong; they are especially unforgiveable given the vast profits these companies rake in year after year.
References:
Cramer, B. (2014, September 9). The Walt Disney Company (NYSE:DIS), DreamWorks Animation Skg Inc (NASDAQ:DWA) News Analysis: Walt Disney And DreamWorks Animation Sued By Employees. Retrieved November 2, 2014, from http://www.bidnessetc.com/25326-walt-disney-and-dreamworks-animation-sued-by-employees/
Gardner, E. (2014, October 30). Judge Rejects Bid of Robin Thicke, Pharrell Williams to Win 'Blurred Lines' Lawsuit - Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved November 2, 2014, from http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/judge-rejects-bid-robin-thicke-745106
Ryan, D. (2014, October 28). Frank Sivero Sues The Simpsons: A Perfectly Cromulent Case? -IPLJ. Retrieved November 2, 2014, from http://iplj.net/blog/archives/7189
No comments:
Post a Comment