The first case involves HGTV, their show Selling New York, and a private “design Company that specializes in high-end furniture”. Said company has failed to show that “virtual furniture displayed on HGTV’s Selling New York constitutes copyright infringement, trade dress infringement and unfair competition. This show “features real estate brokers selling apartments to New York’s rich. And on January 13, 2011, HGTV aired an episode entitled “The Big Buy In” where real estate brokerage core Group sought to sell a condo at 240 Park Ave South for nearly $6 million and in the episode Core’s CEO discusses the fact that the property is less appealing because it is unfurnished.”
Core contacted Heptagon, a high-end furniture maker, Heptagon agreed to help out by providing photographs of the furniture chosen to show the condo, but the two companies couldn’t come to a final agreement since Core refused to purchase an insurance policy for possible use of the real furniture. He instead took the images, and created a virtual, fully furnished replica of the apartment to show interested buyers.
Core got exactly what he wanted: the buyer bought the property for almost the full asking price.
Heptagon then sued, and New York federal judge Laura Swain noted, “the Copyright Act protects “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works,” but explicitly limits the protection of utilitarian or “useful” articles.
The article proceeds to ask us: “Does virtual furniture shown on TV qualify? How worried do those with commercial enterprises have to be about displaying design works of originality like furniture, clothing and jewelry?”
My answer is that it should. All of the things mentioned before are part of someone who created them. Therefore someone in specific made it in unique circumstances, whether it’s art, an article, a photo or a virtual representation of the photos that were discussed at the meetings between Core and Heptagon. Heptagon should’ve gotten the judges favor.
Case #2
As we all know piracy in America is the only reason why the film making business is staggering at the moment. As a consequence of choosing to be a pirate a woman was sentenced to 22 months in prison for operating a pirated video website.
“Hana Amal Beshara, 30, is a New Jersey resident and a founder of NinjaVideo.net, who was also sentenced to two years of supervised release, 500 hours of community service and is being forced to repay more than $200,000 in profits.”
The only thing I can say about this case is that, sadly she’s not the only one operating this websites. And for the government to actually catch all of the people who are engaging in this type of behavior, and continually costing the filmmaking industry millions upon millions of dollars is going to take a long time. She certainly won’t be the last one they take down.
Case #3
Now, in this case a computer manufacturer argues that its tablet/laptop hybrid should be able to describe itself as a “transformer”. We know that in 1984, Hasbro introduced the public a line of alien toy robots named the “Transformers”.
In this case what’s being discussed is if the term in question even considered by the judicial system and the rest of the public as a trademark. Because ultimately, the audience is who tells the big companies when a word is considered as part of something, when that word is not just a word, but it comes already with the thought in the people’s mind.
While I understand the company’s situation, I have to side with Hasbro on this one. People know that word to well, and even more now that there are three movies with the same name and all three have been massively successful. So, yes, in the case that the maker of this hybrid tablet/laptop has used a name that is already being identified with something else, I believe that there is infringement on the part of the technology company.
No comments:
Post a Comment