David Hale, in an excellent post on this subject, wrote "I believe the cases
are captioned Wendt v. Paramount, but I am not positive about that."
The case is actually Wendt and Ratzenberger v. Host International.
Robert C. Cumbow
Graham & Dunn PC
1420 Fifth Avenue, 33rd Floor
Seattle, WA 98101-2390
206.340.9619
206.340.9599 fax
rcumbow[_at_]grahamdunn.com
http://www.grahamdunn.com
Big law firm experience
> without the big law firm experienceŽ
-----Original Message-----
From: David Hale [mailto:DHale[_at_]aggt.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 11:30 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: Norm and Cliff
The "Cheers" case is a very odd one. I believe the S.Ct. just denied cert in the case. It is well worth looking up the 9th Circuit opinion, and the excellent dissent by Kosinski (sp?), which I think eloquently sets out the case for the studio.
Basically, the question presented there is whether the actors who portrayed Norm and Cliff (George Wendt & ????) can prevent the studio, who owns the copyright in all the Cheers episodes, from using their likenesses, in particular in the form of animatronic robots placed in airport bars.
It is therefore fair to characterize it as a clash between the "right of publicity" (Wendt's) and "copyright" (the studio's).
I believe the cases are captioned Wendt v. Paramount, but I am not positive about that. Wendt is definitely a plaintiff, however.
A closely related case is the Vanna White v. Samsung case, at least according to the dissent.
I think that your characterization that copyright grants a right to prevent use, not a right to use, is dead on. A similar example would be a derivative work. The creator of a derivative work has the right to prevent further derivations of his contribution to the derived work, but must obtain permission to reproduce the underlying work to produce his own (assuming it isn't in the public domain, etc.).
-David Hale
(To the group: Sorry about the 17 U.S.C sec 117 omission in the shrink-wrap debacle-- I still think that from an historical basis I am correct, though)
I recently have heard radio stories and seen articles referring to the dispute between the actors who played Norm and Cliff on the long running Sit-Com Cheers and a company that placed robots of the characters in a bar. The dispute has been framed as a clash between the "right of publicity" and "copyright" in many stories.
Example:
http://news.findlaw.com/ap/a/w/1154/10-2-2000/20001002141859130.html
This seemed odd to me at first, but I just figured it was bad reporting. Then I heard an attorney for the copyright holder on a news radio program saying that copyright means nothing if you aren't allowed to use that which is protected.
(I think this link is to the right audio file, don't have speakers at work: http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn/cmnps05fm.cfm?SegID=111913 )
This seems contrary to my basic understanding of copyright law. I thought copyright law allowed the creator of a work to prevent others from copying the work. Similar to a landowners right to prevent trespass. I did not think it guaranteed the right to use the work. (Please note that this paragraph is not meant to be a treatise on copyright law : )
I would like to hear differing opinions on the aforementioned attorney's assertion. I hope that I simply heard a sound bite taken out of the context of a well reasoned legal argument. I hope.
Keith E. Taber
Felsman, Bradley, Vaden, Gunter & Dillon, L.L.P.
One Riverway, Suite 1100
Houston, Texas 77056-1920
Tel: 713-961-3525
Fax: 713-961-3723
Email: ktaber[_at_]patentlawyers.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This email message may be protected by the attorney/client privilege, work
product doctrine or other confidentiality protection. If you believe that it
has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender
that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you.
Received on Mon Oct 09 2000 - 15:38:36 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:41 GMT