Turner Entertainment Forces Name Change Of 'Surrender Dorothy' Beer, Which Isn't Actually Referencing Wizard Of Oz

from the surrender-indeed dept

It won't come as a total surprise that we have covered intellectual property stories involving The Wizard of Oz in the past. Both the book and film are iconic to say the least, so it would perhaps be a bit strange if such issues didn't arise from time to time. That being said, the relevant players here tend to be on the extreme end of the enforcement spectrum, which leads to extreme cases such as Warner Media opposing a trademark filing by a self-proclaimed "wicked witch" for some reason.

The point is that the IP holders for the film tend to see anything remotely resembling a reference to the film as infringement of some kind or another. A recent example of this is Turner Entertainment, part of Warner Media, forcing 7 Locks Brewing to change its name and branding of its beer "Surrender Dorothy."

What was originally known as “Surrender Dorothy” is now simply called “Surrender.” The Wicked Witch won and 7 Locks had to throw in the bar towel. In this case, it was Turner Entertainment that was no friend of Surrender Dorothy. Its lawyers dropped a house on 7 Locks Brewing’s effort to trademark the name of their signature beer. (I think I may have mixed metaphors there.)

“Basically, Turner owns the rights to ‘The Wizard of Oz,’ ” said Keith Beutel, co-founder of 7 Locks. “They claimed that we were using the term ‘Surrender Dorothy’ and they didn’t want any confusion with their branding.”

It wasn’t just the name. It was the design on the can, too, which featured a curvy yellow thoroughfare that the media giant insisted was too similar to the “Yellow Brick Road.”

So, "Surrender Dorothy," a yellow road, and also on the label that road leads to a castle or palace with several large spires. I know what you're thinking: those sure sound like references to Oz. But, no, it's actually a reference to a famous story and prank that occurred in the DC area, where 7 Locks is located. The castle spires aren't Oz; they're the Mormon temple. The yellow road isn't the yellow brick road; it's the Beltway. And the Dorothy? Well, that was the prank I mentioned.

A refresher for anyone unfamiliar with how the beer got its name: For years starting in the 1970s, graffiti would show up on a railway bridge over the Capital Beltway just west of Georgia Avenue. As motorists drove around the Outer Loop, the Oz-like spires of the Mormon temple looming ahead, they’d see “Surrender Dorothy.” It was a bit of whimsy, refreshed whenever it was painted over by CSX, the railroad whose trains use the bridge.

I’ve never been able to find out who first daubed the bridge with that expression, but I did find their inspiration: Catholic schoolgirls who had earlier created a temporary “Surrender Dorothy” message by stuffing wadded-up newspaper in the chain-link fence of a nearby vehicle bridge.

So there's a semblance of a reference to Dorothy from Oz, but it's a 2nd degree reference at best. It's not the brewery's fault that the temple and beltway look so much like Oz that they served as this inspiration. And that's not actually the point of 7 Locks' label. The point is in homage to a local legend of sorts.

But, because trademark bullying works, and even though some commentators believe the brewery could prevail if it fought, the "Surrender Dorothy" branding has been, well, surrendered. But not without a bit of a middle finger on the brewery's new label.

So the new beer is called simply Surrender. The image on the can — unveiled early in the summer — still features the Mormon temple, but the Beltway is gray, not yellow. And the graffito on the bridge over it is being painted over by a man in a hard hat. All you can see are the letters “DORO . . .”

What a great victory for Warner Media...

Filed Under: beer, surrender dorothy, trademark, wizard of oz
Companies: 7 locks, turner entertainment, warner media

Warner Media Opposes Trademark Filed By Actual 'Wicked Witch' Over Its Wizard Of Oz Trademarks

from the witch-marks? dept

Thanks to the convoluted nonsense that is copyright law, readers here will likely be familiar with the insanity that is intellectual property rights revolving around The Wizard of Oz. Thanks to some of the works being in the public domain, some of them being under copyright, and the courts mostly treating all of this on a case by case basis, it's fairly clear at this point that basically nobody knows who is allowed to do what with anything associated with The Wizard of Oz. Usually, issues relating to the work revolve around this axis of confusion.

But that's less the case when it comes to trademark issues. For all of its flaws, trademark law is blessedly limited to public confusion and true competition within a specific market. That's what makes it bewildering that Warner would bother to oppose the trademark application filed by a pagan priestess for her "Wicked Witch Mojo" brand.

Turner Entertainment Company has filed an opposition with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to stop witch and Pagan elder Dorothy Morrison from trademarking her brand name ‘Wicked Witch Mojo.” Turner Entertainment, a subsidiary of AT&T’s WarnerMedia, serves as the copyright holder for a large library of productions made by its sister subsidiary Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. (aka, Warner Brothers), that includes The Wizard of Oz (1939).

Morrison said, “I was stunned. I couldn’t believe that Turner Entertainment could have A] been allowed to trademark the phrase ‘Wicked Witch,’ and B] that they had accused me of deliberately weakening their trademark.” She said that, after the shock wore off, she was just angry. “It occurred to me that if Turner saw fit to go after me, there was nothing to stop them from going after anyone in the magical community who’d ever used that phrase. And I couldn’t, in good conscience, allow that to happen,” she explained.

And so she contacted a lawyer and there is now a case pending. Warner's lawyer apparently discussed the case with her lawyer, refused to budge on the opposition, and suggested that she could be sued for copyright as well for using some imagery in her branding, specifically red-heeled shoes on her business cards. That, and of course, the characters that Warner claims are being referenced in her name and branding.

And that's where we get right back into the confusing bullshit.

Morrison’s attorney Richard Bullock argues otherwise, saying that these images and words recall the books, not the movie. Bullock writes, “The marks are derived from the writings of L. Frank Baum’s novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and its various sequels.”

He also argues that Turner’s trademarks are only limited to certain product areas, and that Turner is not likely to be moving into the metaphysical arena; nor will Morrison be producing products for the mainstream toy or clothing markets, and other industries specified within Turner’s trademarks. Bullock wrote that there would be “no likelihood of confusion.”

The latter part referencing the trademark oppositions are almost certainly valid. Nothing in Morrison's actual trade dress brings The Wizard of Oz to mind at all, regardless of its various forms. Certain references to that work, such as her online marketplace being dubbed "The Flying Monkey Express" can be said to reference the books, not the films. And that really only matters on the copyright question, for which a suit hasn't been filed. On the trademark piece, it really should be enough that Warner isn't in the religion business. With no crossover of marketplaces, there is no serious concern for public confusion.

So, in the end, we have a large company trying to push around a real life wicked witch over a specious trademark claim. Warner executives should be thankful, I suppose, that Morrison doesn't have an actual army of flying monkeys to set upon them.

Filed Under: copyright, dorothy morrison, pagans, trademark, wicked witch, wicked witch mojo, wizard of oz
Companies: at&t, turner entertainemtn, warnermedia

Toto, I Don't Think We're In The Public Domain Anymore

from the copyright-backdoors dept

Long-time readers may remember our coverage of a slow-moving copyright case over public domain images from The Wizard of Oz and other movies. In brief: back in 2006, Warner Bros. sued vintage/nostalgia merchandise company AVELA, which had obtained restored images from old promotional posters for the films and was selling them for T-shirts and other products. Nobody disputed that these specific images were in the public domain, because the promo materials had not been registered for copyright even though the films were -- but Warner claimed that the images nevertheless infringed on the copyright in the characters established by the film. The court originally sided with Warner in full, but on appeal found that the exact two-dimensional reproductions of the images on T-shirts and the like were not infringing, but instances where they were combined with text and other images or used to create three-dimensional models were, and awarded some pretty huge damages. To complicate matters, there's also a trademark claim wrapped up in all this. There was another appeal, and now a court has upheld the ruling and the damages, giving movie studios another weapon in their war on the public domain (here's a PDF of the full ruling).

Now, there are a lot of layers here, and I'm going to focus on The Wizard Of Oz, since it provides the most interesting example. The 1900 book is in the public domain. The 1939 movie is still under copyright held by Warner. The associated 1939 promo materials were not registered (a requirement at the time) and are in the public domain. And many characters and other elements of the movie are also covered by trademark, also owned by Warner. Absolutely none of these facts are in dispute -- but put them all together and you have a giant mess that illustrates the flimsiness of the idea/expression dichotomy, and how something can supposedly remain in the public domain while being gutted of all its usefulness to the public.

Let's consider the line the court drew between different kinds of use, because it's one of those things that makes a certain amount of legal and logical sense but produces an utterly absurd result. Basically, the court said that Warner can't stop someone from making unmodified reproductions of material that is undisputedly in the public domain -- that is clearly non-infringing -- but since that material includes images of characters from a work that is not in the public domain, modifying it (by combining it with other images or turning it into 3D objects) violates those other copyrights and becomes infringement. The existence and limits of character copyright are highly complex and questionable to begin with (Warner does not in fact own the characters, because those are from the book, but only the original elements of the film's expression of those characters) but if you believe in them to any extent this makes some sense: a single image of a character entering the public domain does not invalidate all copyrights associated with that character. But... consider what this means: if you are remixing copyrighted material, making your own creative changes to it weighs in your favor in a determination of infringement; if you're making use of public domain material, creative changes might magically turn it into infringement. That's not how the public domain is supposed to work.

This latest ruling is mostly upholding the last one, so let's go see what the court said in 2011:

The film actors' portrayals of the characters at issue here appear to rely upon elements of expression far beyond the dialogue and descriptions in the books. AVELA has identified no instance in which the distinctive mannerisms, facial expressions, voice, or speech patterns of a film character are anticipated in the corresponding book by a literary description that evokes, to any significant extent, what the actor portrayed. ... At the very least, the scope of the film copyrights covers all visual depictions of the film characters at issue, except for any aspects of the characters that were injected into the public domain by the publicity materials.

Damn those publicity materials, "injecting" content into the public domain! Now, I have a few questions about this. How does an image on a T-shirt infringe on a film character's mannerisms, voice or speech patterns? Of that list of distinguishing characteristics, only facial expressions apply -- individual specific facial expressions captured in images that are in the public domain. And could we perhaps get some slightly narrower wording than "at the very least the scope of the film copyrights covers all visual depictions of the film characters"? Because goddamn.

Let's say you were inspired (as many have been) by the character of the Tin Woodsman, and wanted to create something to celebrate him. What can you do? Well, you can start with L. Frank Baum's original description:

Just before them, was a very big tree that had been partly chopped through, and standing right beside it, with an uplifted axe in his hands, was some sort of a man, yet made entirely of hollow tin. He was slightly rusted, but he was a tin-smith's masterpiece nevertheless. His tin head and arms and legs were all jointed upon his tin torso, but he stood perfectly motionless, as if he could not stir at all. This was one of the most astonishing things that Dorothy had ever come across in all her young life.

That's definitely in the public domain. So far so good. But perhaps your fondest memories are visual — his pointy nose and his steam-pipe hat! Well, fair enough, because that's all there in the original illustrations from 1900:

Okay, you're still in the clear! This piece of our shared culture is over a century old, and it belongs to us all to enjoy and repurpose as we see fit -- as it should. But hey, in your research, you've come across something interesting: original movie posters from 1939 that were never registered for copyright! Obviously the creators didn't see a great deal of long-term commercial value in their promotional materials, and were happy to let them live in the public domain. You are especially fond of one of the images -- another illustration of the Tin Man, based on his portrayal in the movie, which was itself based on the earlier illustrations:

Perfect! Not only is that image in the public domain due to lack of registration, its most identifiable elements are virtually identical to the original illustrations, so you doubt it would even qualify for much copyright protection in the first place. You put it on a T-shirt. Everything's still fine, and you still haven't infringed a single copyright. But... something's missing. A final touch. Perhaps a short line of text, his most famous quote -- a six-word sampling, hardly enough to infringe on anything by any reasonable standard. Voila! Your final product is complete:

STOP! THIEF! You've gone too far this time, chump. Yes, somehow that final step turned this from a perfectly legitimate use of public domain material into a grievous infringement on the rights of Warner Bros. You are no longer simply using a public domain image, you are using the mannerisms (maybe?) and voice (uh...) of a copyrighted character to create a new work. Basically, it feels like the court badly wanted to just give Warner the farm and block all uses of the images, but had to begrudgingly admit that it couldn't stop the most direct and obvious cases of reproducing something in the public domain -- so it settled for stopping everything else so long as there was the tiniest, flimsiest reason to argue it infringed on the film.

To make things weirder, a trademark claim was involved too. In some ways, this claim was much stronger: Warner owns a variety of trademarks on material and images from the film, and the court reasonably found a likelihood of confusion for consumers who might think the products are official Wizard Of Oz merchandise. But the law already includes an important caveat, via the Dastar ruling, to prevent this sort of perpetual-copyright-via-trademark -- and the court knocked that down with some granular interpretation:

Images of the film actors in character and signature phrases from the films are not communications, concepts, or ideas that the consumer goods embody as Dastar defines these terms. Products marketed under AVELA’s licenses employ iconic film characters’ pictures to associate the products with Warner’s films, not to copy the film itself. Accordingly, these are trademark claims, not disguised copyright claims, and Dastar does not bar them

Dastar basically says that the right to reproduce public domain material without attribution trumps any claims that doing so is a false designation of origin ("reverse passing off") in violation of trademark law, by clarifying the narrow definition of "origin" -- stating that it does not mean the origin of the ideas and concepts in a work, but the actual commercial origin of a specific product. Somehow, Warner convinced the court that these T-shirts were not copying the content of the film but were in fact associating themselves with the official creators of the film and confusing consumers as to the origin of the product, and thus the trademark claim is still valid.

How can both these things be true? If the public domain images of the characters are not communications, concepts or ideas as defined in Dastar, and were not used to "copy the film itself," then how can their use be subject to a claim based on the character copyrights from the film? And if they are somehow infringing on copyright, how are they not protected from a trademark claim by Dastar? Yes, you can tease out a legal interpretation that technically resolves this paradox -- but you can't make it sound any less stupid.

We all know that Warner Bros., Disney, and pretty much every other company that has made a fortune by mining the public domain for material will stop at nothing to make sure future generations can't do the same. The courts need to stop letting them get away with it, but that's unlikely when we've got judges talking about things being "injected" into the public domain -- as though entering the public domain was some rare, undesirable aberration, not the default state and ultimate fate of all content.

Filed Under: copyright, public domain, trademark, wizard of oz
Companies: avela, warner bros.

Conan Doyle Estate Asks Supreme Court To Put Sherlock Holmes Back Under Copyright

from the the-case-of-the-missing-public-domain dept

For a while now, we've been following the lawsuit concerning whether or not Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain. Back in June the 7th Circuit appeals court ruled that Holmes was in the public domain, followed up by a more thorough slamming of the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Estate in a follow-up ruling concerning rewarding attorneys' fees. We saw some reporters claim that the case was now "over," but that was clearly not true. The Estate had made it clear it intended to appeal, having already asked the Supreme Court to block the appeals court ruling from taking effect (a request that was quickly denied). But that was clearly the preamble to a request to the Supreme Court to hear the case.

That request has now come, with the Estate arguing that there are serious questions still in play. Specifically, the Doyle Estate raises three questions for a potential Supreme Court hearing. As a bit of background, the case was not directly started by the Estate, but rather author Leslie Klinger, who filed for declaratory judgment saying he wasn't infringing since the character was in the public domain. In the past, Klinger's publisher had felt pressured into taking out a license, and Klinger felt that this demand was unfair and unjust. The Estate tried to argue that even though all but one book of Holmes stories were published before 1923 (which puts them in the public domain), the fact that another book was published after 1923 with new facets to the character meant that the entirety of the character of Holmes (and Watson) were still covered by copyright. The argument was, more or less, that as long as the character is still "developing," and not complete, the copyright clock can be kept ticking. The courts completely rejected this argument and pointed out that the public domain is the public domain.

However, the Estate is making one last go of it, with a two-pronged attempt to get the Supreme Court to reconsider:

1. Whether it was reasonable to rule on the case prior to Klinger finishing his book. This is a bit of misdirection. The Estate argues that the case shouldn't have been decided until Klinger finished his book since you can't determine if something isn't infringing if it hasn't been produced yet. This question was easily dismissed by the courts because (1) the Estate had been agitating for a license already, and that had created publishing issues for Klinger and (2) the courts made it clear that they were just saying that the early works were in the public domain -- and if Klinger's eventual book infringed on anything from that final (still copyrighted) Holmes book, the Estate could bring a specific case on that issue.
2. The big question: whether or not a "dynamically developing character" can continue to extend the clock on copyright. Here, the Doyle Estate claims that there's a circuit split, in particular with a ruling from the 8th Circuit (which we covered here) concerning the Wizard of Oz (and people making t-shirts out of images from a movie poster that clearly was in the public domain). Admittedly, that was a terrible decision -- effectively allowing some reclamation of the public domain by copyright law. If the Supreme Court takes this case, hopefully it will be to just smack down that 8th Circuit decision and bring it into compliance with the 7th Circuit's point that things that were in the public domain stay in the public domain.

The Supreme Court is not always clear in indicating which cases it will take and which it will pass over, and I wouldn't recommend betting in favor of the Court taking this case. Chances are it will pass. However, if it does take on the case, hopefully it will only be to protect and preserve the public domain.

Filed Under: 7th circuit, 8th circuit, copyright, leslie klinger, public domain, sherlock holmes, supreme court, wizard of oz
Companies: conan doyle estate

The Insanity Of Making A 'Wizard Of Oz' Film In Today's IP Climate

from the goodbye,-yellow-brick-road dept

It's always tough to root for the underdog when neither of the involved parties deserves that title. So, rather than pick one, we'll just discuss the overweening ridiculousness of copyright law. It's a subject that never goes out of style, thanks to our legislators' willingness to continually extend copyright protection terms.

As was covered much earlier in the year, Disney is producing its own "Wizard of Oz" movie, titled "Oz the Great and Powerful." While Frank L. Baum's books are definitely in the public domain, filmed depictions of Baum's characters are mainly the property of Warner Bros. WB attempted to head off this incursion into its domain by filing a trademark application on "The Great and Powerful Oz," but it was a week too late and is now (presumably) several billion dollars short (H'Wood mathematics, yo).

Having failed to block Disney's entry into the Oz arena, Warner has now busied itself with watching each development for any slip-up that could land it a tasty settlement -- or an injunction. To that end, Disney has placed its own legal team on the set to ensure that none of the characters or elements in the Disney film bear too much resemblance to Warner's property. The sheer amount of highly detailed micromanagement needed to avoid the rights holder's litigious wrath borders on OCD-hellish insanity.

Striving for a visage different from the one Margaret Hamilton made famous, Howard Berger, an Oscar-winning makeup artist, “was finally able to come up with a shade of green which satisfied Disney’s legal team,” SlashFilm.com reported after a visit to the set. According to Disney’s production notes Mr. Berger named his custom color Theostein — a conflation of the witch’s name before she turns wicked, and Frankenstein.

When something as minimal as a move left or right on the Pantone chart could potentially trigger some legal action, you know you've reached some sort of watershed mark in IP protection. It's highly doubtful our founding fathers had a "shade of green that satisfies a legal team" in mind when they set about trying to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts."

Nor were they particularly concerned with innovative hairdos.

About 40 dwarfs were cast in “Oz the Great and Powerful” as Munchkins... They still have weird hair, but Disney lawyers nixed at least one style as too similar to one from the original movie. It was tweaked in postproduction using computers.

True, there are many things the founding fathers couldn't possibly have considered over two hundred years ago, but what's going on here is resembles nothing more than gerrymandering Baum's legacy in order to avoid a costly turf war -- over something that should be in the public domain.

It's a rare day when you find yourself commiserating with one of the biggest IP thugs of all -- Disney. Baum's original work is now a minefield, and anyone hoping to utilize this public domain title now has to contend with a powerful legal team protecting a 74-year-old film. But, I suppose, if you're going to choose someone to walk across an IP minefield, it might as well be Disney. It makes perfect karmic sense.

Filed Under: copyright, frank l. baum, lawyers, oz the great and powerful, public domain, wizard of oz
Companies: disney, warner bros.

Zazzle & Warner Bros. Pretend All References To Wizard Of Oz Are Covered By WB Copyright

from the there's-a-problem-here dept

Lowestofthekeys alerts us to the situation of one W. Thomas Adkins, who had some t-shirt designs of his own making for sale on Zazzle... until they were taken down in response to a copyright claim. After Adkins requested more info on why his images were taken down, Zazzle explained:

...your product was removed due to an infringement claim by Warner Bros. Studios. While the artwork as you claim is original, the characters from the Wizard of Oz are currently property of Warner Bros. As a guideline, designs from the Wizard of Oz that are currently prohibited for sale on Zazzle’s Marketplace are:

• All inspired artwork and character renderings from the Wizard of Oz
• Quotes from the Wizard of Oz Franchise
• All tags and descriptions that reference the Wizard of Oz

- Zazzle

There are a few problems with this. First of all, characters from the Wizard of Oz are not, in fact, "property of Warner Bros." The original book, written by L. Frank Baum, was published in 1900 and is in the public domain. The popular movie version, in which Warner Bros. holds the copyright, came out in 1939. This does lead to some interesting copyright questions, and a few lawsuits. For example, last year, we wrote about a lawsuit involving t-shirts designed with public domain Wizard of Oz images. And then there's a brewing fight over whether or not Disney can make a film based on the public domain parts of the Baum books if it makes no reference to the 1939 movie.

Basically, what the law has said is that if you're making references to the specific characters or character traits that were portrayed in the movie, but which are not from the books, then its under WB's copyright. So, if you were to display pictures of the actual actors or specific expressions or outfits that are from the movie, but not the books, then there's an issue.

From Adkins' post, however, it appears these were the images on the t-shirts that were removed from Zazzle:

It is difficult to see how either of these come anywhere close to infringing on WB's copyright. The first one merely displays a witch's pointy hat. While it seems that the origin of the pointy, wide-brimmed witch's hat has been lost to history, the various reports online suggest it long pre-dates 1939 and the movie. In fact, it appears that images in the original books show the witch in a pointed, wide-brimmed hat. So the hat is not copyright to Warner Bros.

Then there's the flying monkey. Problem being... the flying monkeys were in Baum's books, and Adkins' drawing is quite different from the version in the movie.

The concept of water melting the witch? Also in Baum's books, and as Adkins details in his blog post, it way predates the Oz books anyway.

Basically, everything in Adkins' images appear to reference the original Baum books and not the movie. Assuming Warner Bros. did make a copyright claim, as Zazzle's email stated, then it is engaging in copyfraud here and asserting copyright against images it has no rights over.

That said, Adkins also exaggerates his own rights in his response to Zazzle, which he posted. After explaining to Zazzle why his works did not infringe on WB's copyright, he unfortunately goes on to say:

As such, I respectfully request that my material and corresponding artwork be returned to circulation for purchase immediately.

Failure to do so would be an infringement on my copyright of my created artwork which, as verified by the testimony above, does NOT infringe upon Warner Bros. Entertainment’s copyright on the 1939 film or the specific celluloid representations of the characters made in said film. If my copyright continues to be infringed upon I will seek legal action against both Zazzle and Warner Bros. Entertainment.

Uh... no. Zazzle choosing not to display your work is, in no way, copyright infringement. As a private company, Zazzle has every right to refuse to display any particular work, even if its reasons are dumb. The public (and people like Adkins) are free to mock them, but there is no copyright issue there, and especially not infringement by Zazzle. The service certainly does not have the greatest reputation because of its quick trigger finger in pulling down perfectly legal content, but that doesn't mean it's illegal. Claiming that not displaying someone's work is infringement is just ridiculous, and takes away from Adkins' otherwise strong arguments.

Either way, the original point stands: Adkins' works don't appear to be infringing WB's copyrights. If WB did make the claim, it appears that WB went way too far. Adkins should have just filed a standard counternotice to Zazzle, and one would hope Zazzle does the right thing and puts the works back up.

Filed Under: copyfraud, l. frank baum, public domain, wizard of oz
Companies: warner bros, zazzle

Disney And Warner Bros. Prepare To Fight Over Who Owns The Public Domain Wizard Of Oz

from the sorta dept

You may recall a lawsuit we wrote about last year, involving some questions about which parts of The Wizard of Oz movie were public domain, and which were still under copyright. It's a bit confusing. The books are public domain, having first started being released in 1899. No doubt about that. But the movie, made in 1939, is still under copyright. And here's the tricky part: which parts do the copyright cover? Technically, things directly from the book should be public domain -- but any creative additions put into the movie (such as the ruby red slippers...) can be covered by copyright, and held by Warner Bros.

So, here's the problem. Disney (not WB) has decided that it's going to make a movie out of The Wizard of Oz -- which it has titled Oz, the Great and Powerful. And it appears that WB wants to do everything possible to make life hellish for Disney if it moves forward on this plan. The first step? According to Eriq Gardner over at THResq, it was to quietly apply for a trademark on "The Great and Powerful Oz." Note the similarity to what Disney has called its movie. Except, it turns out Disney was sitting pretty... having filed for a trademark on its version of the phrase/title... a week earlier. Thus, Disney has the lead here and WB's application got tossed.

The THResq piece questions if WB was planning to make wider use of trademark to try to prevent things like this from happening, avoiding the fact that the copyrights on the works have long gone into the public domain.

In the past year, Warners has been one of the most aggressive filers of oppositions at the USPTO's Trademark Trial & Appeal Board. Especially over The Wizard of Oz.

For instance, the company has gone after potential merchandise associated with Dorothy of Oz, a $60 million-budgeted animation film scheduled to be released later this year by Summertime Entertainment.

Warners also has attacked registrations on a series of neuroscience books entitled "If I Only Had A Brain," a restaurant called "Wicked 'Wiches Wickedly Delicious Sandwiches," a clothing line known as "Wizard of Azz," Halloween costumes under the brand name "Wicked of Oz," and dozens of other Oz-related marks.

It goes on to talk about one ongoing case in particular, concerning a company selling wines in Kansas that it's named after aspects of the Wizard of Oz. The company is claiming (correctly) that the book is in the public domain. But WB is claiming it doesn't matter, because public domain only applies to copyright.

While that case continues, you can bet that WB won't let Disney just go ahead and make this movie without putting up a bigger fight.

Filed Under: copyright, public domain, trademark, wizard of oz
Companies: disney, warner bros.

Wizard Of Oz Court Ruling Suggests Moviemakers Can Reclaim Parts Of The Public Domain And Put It Under Copyright

from the we're-not-in-kansas-any-more,-toto dept

Another day, another story of the law letting the public domain be locked up. Back in February, we wrote about an important case about the public domain involving The Wizard of Oz and some other films. Prior to 1976, of course, you had to register works to have them covered by copyright. A company named AVELA recognized that some publicity posters for The Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind and some Tom and Jerry cartoons were not registered (or in some cases, were registered, but not renewed), and thus were officially in the public domain. It then made t-shirts out of some of the images in the poster. The lower court gave a very confused ruling, in which it admitted the original posters were in the public domain, but then said the characters were still copyrighted, even though the movies came out later, because that imbued new characteristics on the public domain works and protected them. Or something. Making this even more complicated, when it comes to the Wizard of Oz, is that the original books are definitively in the public domain, but the original movie is not.

On appeal, the Eighth Circuit court seems to have more or less supported the original ruling, though with different reasoning. The court does say that the publicity materials are in the public domain. But then says that the new works (the designs on the t-shirt) results in a derivative work that "comes into conflict with a valid copyright." Conceptually that makes sense. You can't take a public domain work and then assume that gives you free reign to bring in other copyrighted work. But it's troubling to see how the court then concludes that such derivative works occur in this case. It basically says that because the actors in the movie imbued the characters with specific traits beyond what was in the original works, even the use of still images that are public domain can infringe on the copyrights of the depictions of those characters.

We agree with the district court’s conclusion that Dorothy, Tin Man, Cowardly Lion, and Scarecrow from The Wizard of Oz, Scarlett O’Hara and Rhett Butler from Gone with the Wind, and Tom and Jerry each exhibit “consistent, widely identifiable traits” in the films that are sufficiently distinctive to merit character protection under the respective film copyrights....

AVELA correctly points out that the scope of copyright protection for the characters in the films The Wizard of Oz and Gone with the Wind is limited to the increments of character expression in the films that go beyond the character expression in the books on which they were based. See Silverman, 870 F.2d at 49 (“[C]opyrights in derivative works secure protection only for the incremental additions of originality contributed by the authors of the derivative works.”). While true, this has little practical effect in the instant case, as a book’s description of a character generally anticipates very little of the expression of the character in film....

The film actors’ portrayals of the characters at issue here appear to rely upon elements of expression far beyond the dialogue and descriptions in the books. AVELA has identified no instance in which the distinctive mannerisms, facial expressions, voice, or speech patterns of a film character are anticipated in the corresponding book by a literary description that evokes, to any significant extent, what the actor portrayed. Put more simply, there is no evidence that one would be able to visualize the distinctive details of, for example, Clark Gable’s performance before watching the movie Gone with the Wind, even if one had read the book beforehand. At the very least, the scope of the film copyrights covers all visual depictions of the film characters at issue, except for any aspects of the characters that were injected into the public domain by the publicity materials.

As THREsq notes, it's this section above that may be sending Hollywood lawyers into a bit of a tizzy as it appears to potentially extend the encroachment on the public domain, by suggesting that any general "character" traits that are added by a film adaptation, even of a public domain work, can be copyrighted. Considering there are a bunch of adaptations being made of The Wizard of Oz based on the public domain books, some lawyers are worried that this ruling gives Warner Bros. leverage over those other movies:

As we noted in our past article on this topic, there are nine Wizard of Oz projects currently in development, by one count, including a big-budget 3D film by Disney directed by Sam Raimi and starring James Franco that's meant to be a prequel to the classic film.

Might these films have to be very, very careful going forward?

One lawyer believes so.

"The court's statement that the film copyrights cover 'all visual depictions' of the characters recognizes that there is often a quintessential version of a literary character that exists in the public's mind as a result of a popular film adaption," says Aaron Moss, the chair of litigation at Greenberg Glusker. " Any filmmaker that wants to create a new version of a literary work -- even one in the public domain -- needs to be careful not to use copyrightable elements of characters that first appear in protected motion picture versions of the works. Of course, when it comes to characters depicted by live actors, this may be easier said than done."

In case you didn't get that, if you were to create a movie Wizard of Oz entirely based on the book, if one of the actors does pretty much anything that suggests a similarity to the movie version, rather than the book version, it could be infringing. At the very least, this completely rules out any attempt to make a nod or homage towards the original film. But, more importantly, if just in the nature of being an actor, one of the actors imbues one of these characters with similar traits to the 1939 movie... that can be infringing.

And that's insane. That goes way beyond the intent of copyright law, and again seems to destroy the laughable notion that there's a real split between protection of ideas and expression.

Filed Under: copyright, public domain, wizard of oz
Companies: warner bros.

Appeals Court To Determine If Wizard Of Oz Images Can Be Retroactively Plucked Out Of The Public Domain

from the that's-not-good dept

Patently-O has an interesting discussion about an appeal being heard in the 8th Circuit, involving a question of the boundaries of copyright and the public domain in some images from public domain movie posters for The Wizard of Oz, Gone With The Wind and various Tom and Jerry cartoon films. Of course, back when these came out, in and around 1939, you had to specifically register works to have them covered by copyright. Not surprisingly, the works themselves were registered. However, some of the publicity posters that were used to promote them were released prior to the films being copyrighted (and were not copyrighted themselves) and, thus, are considered public domain.

An operation called AVELA used those public domain posters to make some t-shirts that included characters from these films (or rather, it appears to have licensed the images to others to make shirts). It notes that, as a company that specializes in creating works from the public domain, it was careful to only use images from public domain works. It did not use any images at all from the films themselves. The district court's ruling in the case was odd, to say the least. It accepted the fact that AVELA only used public domain works... but then seemed to argue they were covered by copyright anyway. Basically, the court argues that the characters in these films have enough characteristics that qualify for copyright protection, that the very characters themselves get protection from the copyright in the movie, even if the images in the posters are public domain. Of course, this is complicated by the fact that, with The Wizard of Oz, many of those characteristics come from the original books... which are now in the public domain. The court simply ignores this point.

In effect, the court seems to be arguing that public domain works that later are included within a copyrighted work can effectively be covered by copyright. That seems immensely problematic for those who believe in the public domain. Hopefully the appeals court recognizes this as an error on the part of the district court.

Filed Under: copyright, public domain, wizard of oz