Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading…
Transcript

Case Brife

----- Parties involved -----

  • Plaintiff:S. Victor Whitmill
  • Defendant:Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.

Filed:April 28, 2011

---- Sued for? -----

  • Whitmill's claim
  • Waner Bros.'s argument

---- Story in Court ----

  • The court denied an injunction on the movie’s release but whitmill still had the case.
  • Waner Bros offered to digitally alter the tattoo

---- The Court Decision? ----

  • Dissmissed the case!!!

discussion in depth

COPYRIGHT and PARODY

1. Copyright

  • Is the tattoo copyrightable?
  • copyright criteria
  • - tangible form
  • - creativity effort
  • - original **
  • use in the market
  • Registered at the US copyright office
  • -on 19 April 2011

2. Parody under Fair Use

  • what is parody
  • - one of action that would be an exception under fair use .
  • - a work that ridicules another, usually well-know work, by imitating it in a comic or entertaining way.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Argument

  • Warner Bro.--- argued that it's not depriving Whitmill of any market profit.
  • Whitmill --- pointed out that Warner Bros. obviously use the tattoo in promoting the movie.

Our opinion

- It is a Parody

  • consider the context of the tattoo use
  • as a joke in the comedy movie. Putting it on Ed Helms' character (in many ways the antithesis of Tyson's character) is a clear parody of Tyson and his tattoo.
  • Tattoo is not the main factor that made the movie popular. Waner Bros. wouldn't loss much even if they did not use that tattoo.raise the profit of the movie.

"they got a Parody protection under fair use."

additional opnion

-clearly he did not intent to have Waner Bro erased the tattoo, he wanted the credit of him creating the work be publicized

-Warner Bro saw that this case would take long time so they settle out of court.

Thank you for your attention!

they got a Parody protection under fair use.

  • not responsible to pay the license fee
  • there were no actual damages to be paid.

Explaination of the IP law at issue...

S. Victor Whitmill

v.

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc

Even though the case was dismissed....

the Jude Perry's opinion:

  • no parody or transformative use-- the entire tattoo in its original form was used not in any parody form
  • Warner Brothers used the tattoo substantially in its marketing of the movie.

"Accodring to Judge Perry, the action of Waner Bros. could be consider as a copyright violation"

Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi