Archive for April, 2014

USC News Spotlights Clinic Work in Supreme Court on Patent Policy

Yesterday, USC News spotlighted the work of the IP & Tech Clinic’s own Mikhail Brandon ’14 and Michelle Lee ’15, who filed two briefs in the Supreme Court this year as well as a comment with the Federal Trade Commission.  Read the story here.

You can read our own blog posts about the Clinic’s work this year on patent issues here, here, and here.

Michael Donaldson, Long-Time Friend of Clinic, Testifies to the Committee of the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet regarding Orphan Works

As part of the clinic’s continuing work on the orphan works problem, we are excited to announce that Michael Donaldson of Donaldson + Callif, LLP, long-time friend of the clinic, former President of theInternational Documentary Association (IDA), and pro bono outside counsel for Film Independent(FIND), recently testified to the Committee of the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet regarding the issue.

​Clinic members Patrick Boyle and Patrick McCormick helped Mr. Donaldson prepare his testimony, bringing to bear their experience testifying at the Orphan Works Roundtable Discussions held earlier this month at the U.S. Copyright Office.  This proved to be very valuable as the committee members asked several questions that raised issues discussed at the Roundtables.

Donaldson’s testimony included poignant stories from his clients who have been plagued by the orphan works problem.  He used these stories to explain how the orphan works situation negatively affects filmmaker clients and why a solution is desperately needed.  He also explained the proposed solution that IDA and FIND support, which would protect rightsholders while permitting uses of orphan works for creators and users who have conducted a good faith diligent search for the owner.

We congratulate Donaldson on an excellent job and we are confident that his testimony will be part of the process for finding a workable solution to the orphan works problem.

 

Clinic files amicus brief in closely-watched Ninth Circuit copyright case

Guest post by recent USC Law grad Rom Bar-Nissim ’13, who was on the legal team on the brief.  Clinic interns Patrick Boyle and Patrick McCormick also worked on the project.

Today the Clinic filed an amicus brief in the Garcia v. Google case in the Ninth Circuit on behalf of long-time Clinic client the International Documentary Association as well as Film IndependentFredrik Gertten, and Morgan Spurlock.  We were absolutely thrilled to partner on this project with several of the best attorneys in the business:  Gary L. Bostwick, who carried the laboring oar on much of the drafting, Michael C. Donaldson, and Lincoln Bandlow

Garcia v. Google is a copyright case brought by an actress in the highly controversial film The Innocence of Muslims. The actress, who was lied to about the nature of her role, claimed a copyrightable interest in her 5-second performance; the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals accepted her theory and ordered Google to disable access to all copies of the film.

The Clinic argued that the Ninth Circuit’s opinion will create three forms of chaos for independent filmmakers and will result in a chilling effect on filmmaking activity. First, the opinion makes it unclear to filmmakers when a “copyrightable interest” arises for someone who appears onscreen. Consequently, a filmmaker does not know when or whether to get a release. Second, the court appeared to state that unestablished filmmakers are not “employers . . . in the regular business of filmmaking” for copyright purposes. Employer status is important for burgeoning filmmakers. If a filmmaker is considered an employer of someone who makes a copyrightable contribution to the film, then the filmmaker owns the copyright in that contribution. Third, the court held that even if the filmmaker had an implied license from the actor or other contributor, there are limits on how far the filmmaker can stray from the actor’s understanding. Unfortunately, the court did not articulate how far the filmmaker can stray.

Ultimately, the chaos created by the Ninth Circuit’s opinion creates so much uncertainty for independent filmmakers that the only way forward will be to retain costly legal counsel. But even with counsel, many films may still be more likely to see a lawsuit then the light of day.

In making our argument, we solicited and used statements from Academy Award-nominated filmmakers like Josh Fox (GasLand) and Scott Hamilton Kennedy (The Garden). We also employed a wide array of films and examples to illustrate our arguments, including Easy RiderErrol Morris’s Tabloidskateboard viral videos, and reality TV. We also explored the humble beginnings of filmmakers like Christopher Nolan’s FollowingRobert Rodriguez’s El MariachiJim Jarmusch’s Permanent Vacation, and filmmaker Lee Storey who made the documentary Smile ‘Til it Hurts: The Up with People Story in her spare time while working as a lawyer and then successfully beat the IRS in court to be recognized as a filmmaker.

The brief is available here.

USC Gould School of Law
©2017 USC Intellectual Property and Technology Law Clinic