Slashdot Mirror
Warner Bros Sued For Pirating Louis Vuitton Trademark
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "You have to love a case where Warner Brothers, copyright maximalist extraordinaire, gets sued for 'piracy,' in this case for using a knock-off Louis Vuitton bag in a recent movie. This lawsuit has been described as 'awkward' for Warner; I have to agree with that characterization. Louis Vuitton's 22-page complaint (PDF) alleges that Warner Bros. had knowledge that the bag was a knock-off, but went ahead and used it anyway. Apparently Warner Bros. takes IP rights seriously only when its own IP rights are involved."
It does indeed put WB in an awkward position, because the best defenses here are some variety of permissive fair use. I do think there is a reasonable case for this sort of use of trademarks in fictional settings being given wide leeway, though. For example, mockups of vehicles or boats, or their interiors, are frequently used on film sets as stand-ins for the real thing, usually for practical reasons. Should that be illegal?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
And they'll be doing that as much to satisfy their own dire need to confirm their chosen bias as much as to convince anyone else of its validity. Self-delusion is a costly process, for all of us.
It was used as a prop in a movie. Nobody thinks that's real, like the whiskey and champagne they supposedly drink in the movies, it's just a prop. I'd be amazed if they'd spend the insane amounts of money for one of those ugly bags, when they can get something that looks the same on film for a tenth or less the price.
It may be "something that looks the same", but if they didn't ask LV for permission, then it is IP infringement.
Of course, your argument is based on logic and common sense, something lacking in the murky world of IP 'protection'
"She's furniture with a pulse"
Unfortunately they won't be able to pay it due to the company not making any profit whatsoever.
http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/10/07/09/1621218/hollywood-accounting-how-harry-potter-loses-money
If they had paid LV $10,000 to use a real bag, or obtained genuine LV luggage from other means (like, borrowed it from someone that had the real deal) LV would not have much complaint. However, they have a character claiming out loud that the ripoff luggage is LV, calling it by name, when it is just as much a pirated version as a $3 DVD from Chinatown is of this movie. LV doesn't have much of a chance of winning the lawsuit, but they're proving a point that the Internet isn't the only place copyright infringement occurs, and if WB was serious about battling piracy for everyone they'd take better precautions to avoid violating their own demands.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
Yeah, as others have alluded to, NewYorkCountryLawyer is one of several well-known Slashdot users. Like CleverNickname and some others of note.
Maybe not everyone on Slashdot knows who these folks are, but they are known by many if not most.
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
Lets see what would happen if Louis Vuitton succeeded if SOPA was in place: 1) Louis Vuitton would force all theatres to stop showing the movie 2) Would have all DVD/Blu-ray copies pulled from the shelves 3) Would have all of the WB execs pay a huge fine 4) Have all of WB's websites pulled down 5) Have all of WB's movies pulled from shelves My sick/cynical self kind of wants to see SOPA pass, to see how it would explode in the faces of those who endorsed it.
Actually no - This is one of those "IANAL - but I did do a paper on this in college" deals; getting licensed use of a copyrighted item for use in a movie is a major legal issue for independent moviemakers. It's not by and large things like posters, books, the obvious stuff - it's all the stuff that it doesn't necessarily occur to you is copyrighted - like chairs (well, furniture in general), picture frames, cars, buildings, and on and on.
The major studios have interlocking license agreements that effectively 'freeze-out' independent film-makers on a lot of this. In their turn most experienced independent studios have worked out what can/can't be done, but it can be a real shock to a new artist.
Which if nothing else shows how idiotically Warner Brothers dropped the ball on this - this was stupid. I'd love to see their domain yanked for this - see how *they* like being held to the standards they've advocated for everyone else.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media