Intellectual Property Law
New Matter FALL 2015 Volume 40, Number 3
Content
- 2015 New Matter Author Submission Guidelines
- Contents
- Copyright Interest Group
- Entertainment and Sports Law Interest Group
- Finding a Place for Mallinckrodt and Conditional Sales in the Patent Exhaustion Doctrine: Will "Lex" Mark the Spot?
- Intellectual Property Section Executive Committee 2014-2015
- Intellectual Property Section Interest Group Representatives 2014-2015
- International Interest Group
- International Ip Developments
- Letter from the Chair
- Letter from the Editor-in-Chief
- Licensing Interest Group
- Litigation Interest Group
- MCLE Self-Study Article
- Ninth Circuit Report
- Patent Interest Group
- Patent Trolling in the Wake of the Octane Fitness Case
- Report of the Delegation of the intellectual Property Law Section of the State Bar of California to Washington, D.C. April 20-22, 2015
- The Licensing Corner
- The Role of Design Patents, Copyright and Trade Dress in Protecting the Next Generation of inventions
- The State Bar of California Intellectual Property Alumni
- Trade Secrets Interest Group
- Trademark Interest Group
- Case Comments
Case Comments
LOWELL ANDERSON Stetina Brunda Garred & Brucker
COPYRIGHT – AUTHOR
The actress here was not an author of her performance in a dubbed movie resulting in a fatwa against the actor. The Copyright Office’s policy is to not allow a copyright claim by an individual actor or actress in their performance in a movie. The actress here neither fixed her performance in a tangible medium nor controlled the movie production. Copyright encourages public performance, not a right of privacy. The Actress’ performance did not qualify for moral rights protection under 17 U.S.C. 10(A) as movies are excluded from that section. A mandatory injunction which orders a responsible party to take action requires establishing that the facts and law clearly favor relief, not simply a likelihood of success. A takedown order for the "Innocence of Muslims" was a classic prior restraint of free speech on an important issue of public interest and not likely to result in removing all copies of the movie from the internet. "[A] weak copyright claim cannot justify censorship in the guise of authorship." The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction. Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 114 U.S.P.Q.2d 1607 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc).