Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

9th Circuit Rules Copyright Preempts Right of Publ

David Weiskopf (1816966) writes | more than 3 years ago

News 1

David Weiskopf (1816966) writes "This past week, in Jules Jordan Video vs. 144942 Canada (August 16, 2010), in which Plaintiff (an adult film star) sued Defendant for its pirating and redistributing of plaintiff's films, the Ninth Circuit held, in what I consider to be a very troubling ruling, that the Plaintiff's (California-based) right of publicity claim was preempted by his available claims for copyright infringement under federal copyright law. Specifically, in reversing the lower District Court and vacating the judgment in favor of plaintiff, the Court's three judge panel (which included Judge Kozinski, who, you might remember, famously dissented from the Ninth Circuit's Order rejecting the suggestion of an en banc hearing in Wendt vs. Host International, Inc., based in part on his argument that the Ninth Circuit should have found that that the right of publicity claim at issue was preempted by the the actors' federal copyright claims) held that "[Plaintiff's] right of publicity claim falls within the subject matter of copyright, and that the rights he asserts are equivalent to the rights within the scope of Section 106 of the Copyright Act. The essence of [Plaintiff's] claim is that [Defendants] reproduced and distributed the DVDs without authorization. [Plaintiff's] claim is under the Copyright Act." The Court's primary reasoning appears based on the facts of the case, where the Court makes clear that Defendant's infringing acts were comprised solely of reproducing and distributing pirated DVDs; Defendant did not otherwise use Plaintiff's name or likeness in promoting the fake DVDs, but simply redistributed the illicitly made copies containing the original and otherwise properly authorized performance (likeness) of Plaintiff."
Link to Original Source

cancel ×

1 comment

What the heck? (1)

TheAmericanHero (1840556) | more than 3 years ago | (#33382918)

English please! I'm sure this could be rewritten in 10 words or less...
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...