Eyes Wide Shut - Sharing of TV Clips Online by TVEyes not Fair Use, Says US Court of Appeals

Fair use is a tricky issue, and often a thorn on the side of copyright owners. Overall one can appreciate the opportunities it creates, but also the headaches faced by those wishing to pursue someone hiding behind that particular shield. Rightsholders have been holding out for a life-line to narrow down the reach of fair use, and might've just been rewarded a win in the wider balancing act of fair use versus infringement. The matter was faced by the Court of Appeals recently, who issued their decision on the appeal in late February.

The case of Fox News Network LLC v TVEyes Inc. concerned the sharing of segments from TV programming by TVEyes. This is done through the continuous recording of TV shows, and compiling them into a searchable database. Users of TVEyes could then search for clips from various programmes, and watch up to 10 minutes of the content that interests them (and has been used by journalists and TV producers for some time). Clips can also be archived onto TVEyes' servers, or downloaded onto the user's computer. Fox ultimately took TVEyes to court for copyright infringement through the redistribution of their audiovisual content.

The case turned on whether the use by TVEyes could be classed as 'fair use' under 17 USC section 107. This looks at the usual four factors: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit 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. The factors are assessed weighted together in the light of the purpose of copyright.

Under the first factors, the Court focussed on the precedent set by the Google Books case (discussed more here). In the matter, Google's book search service added something new to the rights attached to the written works, and therefore "…communicated something new and different from the original". Similarly to TVEyes' offering, the showing of snippets from each book "…added important value to the basic transformative search function" by allowing for the user to verify the information as being what was looked for.

Some TV clips are simply captivating

The Court concluded that, in the light of the first factor, TVEyes' service "…is similarly transformative insofar as it enables users to isolate, from an ocean of programming, material that is responsive to their interests and needs, and to access that material with targeted precision". The service saves on costs and time spent looking for materials should they be done without a quick search function. Even though the service was for commercial gain, it still was not enough to counter its transformative nature entirely. Ultimately this means that the first factor slightly weighs in favor of fair use.

In terms of the second factor, the Court swiftly concluded that it is inconsequential to this case, even if the subject matter of the works is reporting on factual events.

They then moved onto the third factor, which looks at the amount of the work copied, and whether it was substantial. The Court quickly concluded that, due to the sheer volume of material copied by TVEyes, which amounted to virtually the entirety of Fox's TV programming. When compared to Google Books, TVEyes often created copies of entire segments of programming that might cover all of the relevant material being sought, whereas Google actively blacklisted certain parts of text within search results to prevent this. This amounted to copying all that is important from the protected works, and weighed against fair use.

Finally, the Court looked at the service's effect on the potential market for or value of the works, particularly whether it competes with the original service. Due to the popularity of the service, there clearly was a marketplace for such services that was exploitable by Fox. This would have impacted any hypothetical monies made by Fox should they have offered the service, particularly in the light of unauthorized, unlicensed copying by TVEyes. This means that "…by selling access to Fox's audiovisual content without a license, TVEyes deprives Fox of revenues to which Fox is entitled as the copyright holder", which meant that the fourth factor also favored Fox.

Having considered the above, the Court had to determine whether, all factors considered, the use was fair use or not. The conclusion of this was that TVEyes' service was not justifiable under fair use, due to the sheer amount of works copied and the usurping of a function for which Fox was entitled to demand compensation for, even though the service was slightly transformative.

TVEyes was deemed to be liable for direct infringement of Fox's rights, and the Court imposed a permanent injunction on their services on allowing the viewing, downloading and sharing of clips from the site. The search function, however, was allowed to continue.

The case is a very interesting one, and sets clear boundaries for services similar to the one offered by TVEyes. Should the clips have been restricted to much shorter segments, and not allowed to be downloaded or shared, the company might have escaped liability. Other video service providers will undoubtedly heed this as a warning against any significant sharing of content.

Source: JDSupra

Needs Formatting - TV Show Formats Potentially Protected by Copyright

As companies like Netflix and Hulu are entering the fray of traditional TV production, creating their original content and licensing others, the value of more typical TV competition for eyeballs on particular timeslots has become negligible. Grabbing the attention of viewers are a fixed time, competing with other networks for the same slot, used to be a competition of outsmart and 'outcreate', giving TV formats incredible value if done right. Even if the specific production of 'prime time' TV has diminished due to the shift towards on-demand, TV formats still have value under IP laws. The matter rarely sees the light of day in a court room, but a recent UK High Court decision discussed whether a TV format can be protected under copyright.

The case of Banner Universal Motion Pictures Ltd v Endemol Shine Group Ltd & Anor concerned a TV gameshow called "Minute Winner", which was created by Derek Banner, the owner of Banner Universal Motion Pictures. Allegedly Mr Banner had disclosed a document detailing the format of the show to Friday TV (the second defendant in the matter), a Swedish TV production company at a meeting in 2005. Mr Banner also claimed that the defendants had misused confidential information to create and broadcast a show called "A Minute to Win It" in 2011, infringing on BUMP's rights in the format, breaching confidence in the same and passing off. The defendants contested the rights in the format document, that a breach of confidence claim was estopped due to a decision earlier by the Swedish courts and the passing off claim.

The Court first addressed the issue of whether the format document was a copyright protected work, specifically as a dramatic work under section 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

As discussed, for example in SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Ltd, a work has to be 'original', i.e. "…the work must be an expression of the author's own intellectual creation". This is assessed by looking at the whole of the work, not just its constituent parts, including both novel and non-novel parts. A dramatic work itself is defined as "…a work of action, with or without words or music, which is capable of being performed before an audience".

There has been some degree of case law on TV formats; however, only in the far-away land of New Zealand. The leading authority is Green v Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand, where the New Zealand Court of Appeal considered that merely the idea of a TV format is not sufficient to be a dramatic work protected by copyright. This was in that "…because [the format] could not be acted or performed, being no more than a general scheme for a proposed entertainment", and "…in what way the underlying idea has been distilled out and translated into an expression thereof in a material form sufficiently identifiable to be copied". Due to this lack of tangible expression, bar an idea, leaves the subject matter unclear and therefore not protectable.

Brad was truly captivated by the TV format

Justice Snowden disagreed with the New Zealand authorities, and set out that TV show formats could arguably be protected by copyright under certain criteria. These would be, as a minimum: "…(i) there are a number of clearly identified features which, taken together, distinguish the show in question from others of a similar type; and (ii) that those distinguishing features are connected with each other in a coherent framework which can be repeatedly applied so as to enable the show to be reproduced in recognisable form". Under the criteria, Justice Snowden concluded that BUMP had a low likelihood of success to meet them for an arguable case of infringement, due to a lack of "…a coherent framework or structure which could be relied upon to reproduce a distinctive game show in recognisable form". All of the features of the show were commonplace and indistinguishable from other similar shows (including its name). Even if there were copyright in the work, the show that was produced differed from the BUMP work in many ways, and there would be no infringement.

The second matter was of breach of confidence. Having considered the principles of estoppel and res judicata, Justice Snowden determined that the action would fail due to Mr Banner being estopped from pursuing the claim as it is res judicata or an abuse of process. The legislation in the UK and Sweden is sufficiently similar so as to not require further determination.

Finally, the Court considered the matter of passing off. As discussed in Starbucks (HK), to establish a claim under passing off the claimant has to "…establish that it has actual goodwill in this jurisdiction, and that such goodwill involves the presence of clients or customers in the jurisdiction for the products or services in question". Even without a physical presence in the country it is possible to have goodwill. Justice Snowden swiftly dismissed this argument, as Mr Banner never had any customers in the UK who purchased the rights to the TV show. He did have a website displaying his formats, but the TV show in question was only one of several on that site, and it was nonetheless one of many sent to ITV by email after the meeting in 2005. No goodwill was therefore established in the UK, and the passing off claim failed.

The case has opened the door for claims on TV show formats, but clearly sets a high threshold to establish actual rights in that format. As no UK authorities have dealt with this subject matter, the case is a welcome one, even though the matter is a very niche one. A good TV show format is still very valuable, and protection should be offered, but not willy-nilly.

Source: IPKat

A Gleeful End - TV Show 'Glee' Infringes Comedy Venue's Trademark

Whether you are old or young you cannot have escaped the phenomenon that was the TV show Glee, which reached its peak popularity some time just before the turn of the first decade in 2000. The show was a teen drama, encompassing musical elements on top of the usual teen drama fare (very much in the spirit of glee clubs in the days of yore). Even with its upbeat style, the show, or rather its name, has not existed in pure glee, but has faced a prolonged challenge in the UK over its name. With that said, would the show have its last song as "Glee", or were they able to defend their moniker?

The recent decision of Comic Enterprises Ltd v Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation dealt with a series of comedy clubs in the UK called The Glee Club, existing in Cardiff and Birmingham, among other cities. The owners of the clubs, Comic Enterprises, registered the logos of the clubs as UK trademarks in 2001. The marks incorporated the club's name in a stylized fashion, including a spotlight in the background of the name with each constituent part of it being roughly of equal size. The TV show "Glee" (focussing on the antics of a alee club at a fictional US high school) ran between the years of 2009 and 2015, garnering huge success both in and off the TV format, prompting Comic Enterprises to take them to court for trademark infringement and passing off after the clubs' owner noticed the similarities between the two names.

What the Court of Appeal had to address was whether Fox infringed the registered trade mark under sections 10(2) and 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, and whether they were guilty of passing off.

Under both sections 10(2) and 10(3), infringement is assessed on the basis of six factors: "(i) there must be use of a sign by a third party within the relevant territory; (ii) the use must be in the course of trade; (iii) it must be without the consent of the proprietor; (iv) it must be of a sign which is identical with or similar to the trade mark; (v) it must be in relation to goods or services which are identical with or similar to those for which the trade mark is registered; and (vi) it must give rise to a likelihood of confusion". The first four factors were not disputed, as the show was indeed shown in the relevant territory (the UK); the mark was used in the course of trade (a commercial TV show); there was no consent over its use by Comic Enterprises; and the mark was identical with or similar to the registered mark (the Glee Club/Glee).

No room for song and dance after Lord Justice Kitchin's judgment

The final two factors look at whether the use of the mark was for similar or identical goods or services (i.e. is a club the same as a TV show in terms of use), and whether, as a result, there would be a likelihood of confusion between the goods and services. This is a matter of assessing, among other factors, "...their nature, their intended purpose and their method of use and whether they are in competition with each other or are complementary". Equally, the two marks have to be compared through the perspective of the average consumer. Without similarity there cannot be infringement, so this is very important.

A big point of contention in the assessment of similarity was the trial judge's 'wrong way round' determination through evidence, or in other words, that the registered mark evoked a connection with the TV show, rather than the other way around (the more typical test for similarity). After discussing all submitted evidence anew, Lord Justice Kitchin determined that the evidence did indeed create a likelihood of confusion, however acknowledging some of it having little probative value. This is an interesting point, as the case clearly accepts 'wrong way round' evidence, and as such this could be used in other cases to prove a likelihood of confusion.

Finally, Lord Justice Kitchin turned to the matter of infringement, due to substantial errors made by the trial judge in their initial judgment. He ultimately found that there was indeed infringement under section 10. The two marks were deemed to be similar, even with the fact that the word "glee" was a common word.  Additionally, the goods and services offered by the two parties were sufficiently similar, although the similarity of a TV show and a club were challenged by the defendant. Lord Justice Kitchin specifically mentioned the context of the marks' use, and even though he accepted that the connection between the two was loose on the face of it, there still was a possible connection, especially with a world tour planned for the TV show incorporating a live element to the mark's use. He ultimately found a likelihood of confusion between the two marks. A potential changing of economic behavior by consumers based on this confusion would also cause detriment to the claimant, especially in the light of a need to change their marketing to further distinguish themselves from the TV show.

He also agreed with the trial judge and dismissed the passing off claim made by the claimant, as a likelihood of confusion is to be distinguished from misrepresentation, which is crucial for a passing off claim. As the defendant's use of the name was not to pretend the TV show was associated with the comedy clubs (although the mark was confusingly similar) and thus was not a misrepresentation.

The case is an interesting one, and shows that 'wrong way round' confusion is a legitimate argument, even though one could consider it unorthodox under the letter of the law. Nevertheless, this writer agreed with Lord Justice Kitchin, and wonders whether the case will see a further appeal, especially because of an outstanding issue on the compatibility of section 41 under EU law (specifically Directive 2008/95/EC). This remains to be seen, but it seems that the show will have to be rebranded in the UK, even after its end some time ago.

Source: IPKat