Buzz Aldrin Tops Trading Card Litigation

What? You didn't know there is a Buzz Aldrin Tops trading card? Trade you 2 Buzz Aldrin's for a Jeff Beck....(There must be a Beck card, or one on the way....)


Topps trading card company released a set called the "Topps American Heritage: American Heroes Edition." This set included images of more than a hundred well-known American politicians, actors, athletes, scientists, organizations, artifacts, and events. The back of each card also contained historical information about the image displayed on the front. Buzz Aldrin is on one of the cards.

Mr. Aldrin sued for use of his name, image and likeness without his permission, and sought a preliminary injunction. The court denied the preliminary injunction motion because it found Topps’ use of Aldrin’s name, image and likeness was protected speech. The court stated that “the cards use[d] Aldrin's name in the course of conveying information about his historically significant achievements” and were not used for purely commercial purposes like advertisements. The denial is on appeal, and even if the denial stands, the court may eventually find that Tops needs to pay Mr. Aldrin for using his name, image and likeness (although much more likely the case will settle quietly).

My take is the court got it wrong and I disagree with the decision. Tops cards are purely a commercial exploitation. They are not encyclopedias, or in the public interest - and they are not necessary to freedom of speech. We don't have to dumb down the world a little bit more by relying on trading cards to educate kids, and it's a BS argument anyway. These cards are bought and traded by collectors and aficionados and have no significant educational value. Obviously, the information on the cards is available elsewhere in legitimate educational publications.

Bottom line - Tops should pay ALL celebrities for using their name, image and likeness on trading cards.

Comments welcome.

Be Careful Accusing Movie Studios of Infringing Your Copyrighted Story or Screenplay

I get contacted frequently by authors claiming that their story has been "stolen" and is now a successful movie or television show.  Most claim that they sent a script or story to the studio at some point in time, and now they've been ripped off.    They always want the attorney to go after the bad guys and collect money from them for the author, and, oh yea, get your attorney's fees from the bad guys.  These authors never have any money to pay the attorney.... I'm always sympathetic, but skeptical.  There aren't really any new ideas under the sun, just rehashed stories transposed or "transformed" in some way.  I have never taken one of these cases because I have never felt the author had a strong case.  In a recent case on point, the judge actually ordered the plaintiff to pay the attorney's fees of defendant 20th Century Fox.  Plaintiff claimed Fox ripped off his story to make the movie Aliens vs. Predators.  The judge saw it differently, finding that there was no similarity, in fact the stories were substantially different, and any points of similarity were due to stock themes.  Plaintiff was ordered to pay $40,000 of Fox's attorney's fees.  http://tiny.cc/sggmk

Moral:  Studio's are fighting hard against claims of copyright infringement, so be careful before bringing a claim against them.

Protecting Ideas For Movies Is Difficult

There was an interesting story in the Hollywood Reporter yesterday about a recent New York District Court decision regarding protection of ideas in the movie industry.  The case involves the movie "Disturbia," which is admittedly very similar to Hitchcock's "Rear Window."  The trust that owns Rear Window sued DreamWorks, Steven Spielberg and others for copyright infringement of Rear Window.  Even though movie critics, the cast of the movie, and legal commentators admitted the similarity was great between the two works, the judge in the case saw it differently - at least as to actionable copying.

New York District Judge Laura Swain concluded that: ""The main plots are similar only at a high, unprotectable level of generality," and "Where 'Disturbia' is rife with sub-plots, the short story has none. The setting and mood of the short story are static and tense, whereas the setting and mood of 'Disturbia' are more dynamic and peppered with humor and teen romance."  Judge Swain finally states: "no reasonable trier of fact could find the works substantially similar within the meaning of copyright law."

Here is a link to the story:  http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/09/disturbia-decision.html.  There is a link to the decision at the bottom of the article.

Comments always welcome.  Have a great day!