Question no 1

Do you agree with the Ninth Circuit Court ruling? Why or why not?
Yes I agree with the Ninth Circuit Court ruling. It gave decision based on
the following points

Permission not requested

No right of ownership
Used for commercial purposes

Passport Video produced a video documentary of Elviss life titled The Definitive
Elvis. The documentary, which included eight DVDs and 16 hours of video, focused
on every aspect of Elviss life and was priced at $99.00
Passport did not get permission to use the material. As a result, the copyright
holders, who caught wind of the production of the video, informed Passport Video
that they objected to the production of the videos. Passport Video persisted, and in
August 2003 the copyright holders sued Passport Video for unauthorized use of
footage and copyright violations. They also asked for a preliminary injunction
stopping Passport Video from selling any more copies of the documentary, which a
U.S. District Court granted. Passport mounted a defense, claiming that its use of the
copyrighted material was fair use and that it had spent over $2 million producing
and marketing the documentary. Passport Video also asserted that it interviewed
more than 200 people to make the documentary and that only 5 to 10 percent of
the length of the videos contained copyright material. After listening to both sides,
the U.S. District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, saying that fair use didnt apply
and Passport Video should have obtained the appropriate copyright permissions.
The court stated that Passport Video released the videos with full knowledge that
the plaintiffs did not consent to their production, and that Passport Videos
documentary would mislead consumers (regarding its legal production) and damage
the plaintiffs. Passport persisted, appealing the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, arguing that its documentary of Elviss life constituted scholarly research
and should therefore be protected under fair. The court found that Passports
documentary was for commercial use rather than scholarly research, although the
commercial nature of the project was not the deciding factor. Instead, the extent to
which the copyrighted material was used tipped the decision for the court, which
referred to the lower courts original assessment in its ruling. In its decision, the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, quoting from the decision of the lower court, said:
Passports use of clips from television appearances, although in most
cases of short duration, were repeated numerous times throughout the
tapes. While using a small number of clips to reference an event for
biographical purposes seems fair, using a clip over and over will likely no
longer serve a biographical purpose. Additionally, some of the clips were

not short in length. Passports use of Elvis appearance on The Steve Allen
Show plays for over a minute and many

Question no 2
Why do you think the copyright holders of Elviss work objected to
Passports video series? How were they harmed by the production and
sale of the videos?
The copyright holders sued Passport Video for

Unauthorized use of footage and

Passport Video produced a video documentary of Elviss life titled The Definitive
Elvis focused on every aspect of Elviss life and was priced at $99.00. Each
episode contained shots of Elvis performingmany of which were taken from
sources that are copyrighted and owned by Elvis Presley Enterprises or others. The
shots included Presley home movies (owned by Elvis Presley Enterprises), material
from The Ed Sullivan Show, and portions of Ed Sullivan Rock & Roll ClassicsElvis
Presley (owned by SOFA Entertainment). Other material included shots from The
Elvis 1968 Comeback Special, Aloha from Hawaii, and Elvis in Concert, which
included songs written by Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller. Passport did not get
permission to use the material.

Copyright violations

Copyright infringement is the use of works protected by copyright law without

permission, infringing certain exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder, such
as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the protected work, or to
make derivative works. The copyright holder is typically the work's creator, or a
publisher or other business to whom copyright has been assigned. Copyright
holders routinely invoke legal and technological measures to prevent and penalize
copyright infringement. Passport video was involved in Copyright violation so the
copyright holders of Elviss work objected to Passports video series

Question no 3
Do you think Passport Video acted ethically and honestly and believed
that its production was

protected by fair use, or do you think the firm was simply using fair use as
a way of avoiding paying
royalties for the copyrighted material it was using?
I do not believe Passport acted ethically, due to following reasons
Passport Video had a view that its use of the copyrighted material was fair use and that it
had spent
over $2 million producing and marketing the documentary. Fair use is a doctrine in U.S. copyright
law
that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the copyright
holder. In general, the following uses are protected under this doctrine:
Quotation of the copyrighted work for review or criticism or in a scholarly or technical work
Use in a parody or satire
Brief quotation in a news report
Reproduction by a teacher or a student of a small part of the work to illustrate a lesson
Incidental reproduction of a work in a newsreel or broadcast of an event being reported
Reproduction of a work in a legislative or judicial proceeding

But fair use didnt apply on this case and Passport Video should have obtained the appropriate
copyright permissions.

Passport Video released the videos with full knowledge that the plaintiffs did not consent
to their production,It in unethical act

Passport Video also asserted that it interviewed more than 200

people to make the documentary and that only 5 to 10 percent of
the length of the videos contained copyright material.
But the fact is that Passports use of clips from television appearances, although in
most cases of short duration, were repeated numerous times throughout the tapes.
While using a small number of clips to reference an event for biographical purposes
seems fair, using a clip over and over will likely no longer serve a biographical
purpose. Additionally, some of the clips were not short in length. Passports use of
Elvis appearance on The Steve Allen Show plays for over a minute and many more
clips play for more than just a few seconds
Question no 4
What can entrepreneurs who are interested in trademark law learn from
this case?

Do your homework
Avoid copyright infringement
Know what is and is not protected
Understand the limits of the fair use defense
Be Careful!
Admit misuse (if occurs unintentionally)
Protect yourself
Use trademark law to your advantage

Application Questions
Question no 1
Do some Internet research and find another case of copyright
infringement. Write a brief summary of the case. Indicate whether
the case has been decided, and whether you sympathize with the
defendants or the plaintiffs in the case. If the case has been
decided, indicated whether you agree with the ruling.
Case Summary
Photographer Art Rogers shot a photograph of a couple holding a line of
puppies in a row and sold it for use in greeting cards and similar products.
Internationally, renowned artist Jeff Koons in the process of creating an
exhibit on the banality of everyday items, ran across Rodgers photograph
and used it to create a set of statues based on the image.
Koons sold several of these structures, making a significant profit. Upon
discovering the copy, Rodgers sued Koons for copyright. Koons responded by
claiming fair use by parody

Photograph: Art Rogers 1985; Polychrome: Jeff Koons 1988 (both via The Design
Observer Group)
Outcome
The court found the similarities between the 2 images too close, and that a
typical person would be able to recognize the copy. Koons defense was
rejected under the argument that he could have used a more generic source
to make the same statement without copying Rogers work. Koons was
forced to pay a monetary settlement to Rodgers.
Comments
Court gave decision against defender. I Think plaintiffs was right because the
photograph was taken by him and it was the result his own effort. So Jeff
Koons should take permission for any use of that photograph. As he used that
without permission from Rogers, so plaintiffs was right when he sued Koons
for copyright

Question no 2
The You Be the VC 12.1 feature in this chapter focuses on Bolt-ABlok, a company that has
developed a new approach to concrete block production that
requires no water, has immediate occupancy (no cure time), is faster
than current procedures, and is stronger and more resistant to
weather-related disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes. Write
a short intellectual property plan for Bolt-A-Blok. Include in the plan
all facts of Bolt- A-Blok that should be protected, and the form of
intellectual property protection that should be used in each
instance.
Business idea
(Alter traditional methods of concrete block construction to enable the
assembly of the blocks to be completed)
Expected features
Requires no water
has immediate occupancy (no cure time),
Faster than current procedures,
Stronger and more resistant to weather-related disasters such as
hurricanes
and earthquakes.
Product secret
(Its patent-pending system uses anti-corrosive steel fasteners and bars to
bind concrete blocks together rather than using concrete mortar. The
fasteners and bars provide
post tensioning that increases the overall capacity and acts as steel to
reinforce the wall)
Details about development of product

As of March 2009, 80 independent tests had been completed affirming the systems
strengths and capabilities