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."
they will just shift the blame to some other person or just pin it on a intern.
Now, according to the usual MPAA calculations and the fact that petilions* of people will see that movie, they now must pay Louis Vuitton about 5 zetalions* dollars.
* The MPAA and RIAA aren't the only ones who can come up with stupid numbers.
It is always an intern. It is a little known fact that Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes Booth were intern patsies.
It's a damn bag. For crying out loud it's a damned ugly bag too.
The Warner Bros lawyers are poring over every Louis Vuitton advertisement and product, desperately looking for something to neutralize the issue. Even a stain which is vaguely in the shape of Wile E Coyote would do.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
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
Bwahahahhahahahahahah!!!!
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
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.
If they had said that Louis Vuitton bags caused cancer and alien leprosy, maybe I could see the point of a slander/libel suit (no idea which applies to films), but for using a lookalike prop? OMG - They'd have to start using the real Mona Lisa, Spacecraft, Prize winning Livestock, etc... Yeah, right.
I think they'd also have a case if the filmmakers were selling the props as the real thing. Obviously selling a prop as a prop is just memorabilia, and not counterfeiting, but as far as I know, they aren't even doing that.
The Louis Vuitton bag makers have apparently lost their sanity, and this lawsuit is the proof.
Why it is required permission of the manufacturer to show item in the movie? Second if item is going to be destroyed wouldn't it be expected for fake to be used? Is it legally required or "keep court away".
No, they will say either 1) "It's not a knock-off; it's a parody." or 2) "We bought the bag, we can use it however we like."
I haven't seen the film so I can't confirm it, but in the clip Zach's character clearly mispronounces Louis Vuitton as Lewis Vuitton. That would seem to suggest he knows jack shit about fashion. I can't find a high quality shot of the bag itself, but TFA says the bag is "marked LVM." That would seem to suggest that it's a rather pathetic knockoff, and that's possibly the joke itself. Thus, LV wants WB to pretend a real LV is a fake LV, and deserves to be slapped for being so stupid.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
You're not legally allowed to make advertisements for counterfeit products even if it's not your counterfeit product.
Because the companies that owned the rights to those logos wouldn't pay for product placement.
Because, of course, it's impossible to create a Slashdot name like that unless the creator is a lawyer.
No, but we know he is.
Circumcision is child abuse.
While it may not apply across the board, it is certainly possible that they don't want to give said brands free advertising, or don't want to be seen to be endorsing a particular company/brand/idea.
Personally, after reading a little about Hollywood accounting years ago, I shed my last tear for Big Celluloid.
Yeah, really. When you read the list of movies that have "lost money" on paper (Forrest Gump, Coming to America, The Lord of the Rings films, Spider-Man, JFK...to name a few) it's hard to take any claims they make seriously.
When all you want to do is make a few bucks off a few thousand dollar thing, copying the specs to the letter isn't your top priority. The fakes usually only care about getting the logo in.
Most of the fakes are not exact copies of real LV bags. My wife LOVES LV stuff and is particularly expert at spotting the fakes. We just got back from a week in LA; you'd be surprised how many of those bags even in Beverly Hills aren't real...
We just got back from a week in LA; you'd be surprised how many of those bags even in Beverly Hills aren't real...
The fun-bags aren't real there either.
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.
None of which is relevant in a prop, as you can't see "soft", "durable", or "hand-stitched" on the screen. I mean, as much as I'd love to see WB lose some sort of high-profile IP infringement case to make a mockery of them, this may be the dumbest possible example of IP infringement I can think of.
Heck, I'm not convinced it is actual infringement. At no point did WB claim that the product was an LV bag. A character in a fictional story made the claim. A character can also make the claim that the White House just blew up. Nobody is going to go running out of the theater to call a family member in D.C. to make sure he or she is okay. It's fiction. A character can claim that they have a LV freezer bag and it's still not likely to be a problem in a court of law.
The only thing dubious is that technically the use or continued possession of a known counterfeit might be a violation if the original design is protected by a patent and the knock-off violates it. Other than that, LV should have no case, and the judge should laugh them right out of the courtroom.
The best part was the comment by an AC that WB was warned before releasing the DVD and Blu-Ray. So apparently LV expects WB to go back and remake part of a movie that has already been shown in theaters to fix what amounts to a very minor technical error in the props department. Even though I would love to see WB lose an IP case, it shouldn't be this case. I hope WB spanks LV and gets a damage award of court costs and fines for frivolous litigation on top of the win.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
yes, as opposed to the 'pirate' who will take the blame with pride and meet them head-on in court!
oh, wait.. no...
their wireless was hacked!
it was a DHCP'ed connection and it was somebody else!
it was somebody else in the household and even though they pay for the connection that doesn't make them responsible!
their IP was spoofed!
their ISP's DHCP records are mistaken!
the upload was only named after the movie but it was actually a private collection of poems in third person!
the file was shared automatically by the software and they didn't know this was happening!
a guy saying they were a representative told them to share it - and he looked very trustworthy - sounds legit!
For further 'shifting the blame' awesomeness, see every single story on 'piracy'.
Somehow I suspect that WB will either A. pay up or B. (don't know the movie) suggest that the knock-off LV was actually part of the story as being a knock-off.. at which point LV will have to claim that knock-offs still command royalties to them and that'll be that.
It's 'embarassing' only when the audience is e.g. Slashdot, not when it's any of the legal eagles who deal with exactly this (product placement/featuring in audio/visual productions) subject matter day in, day out.
No, they will say either 1) "It's not a knock-off; it's a parody." or 2) "We bought the bag, we can use it however we like."
2) I cant help but be reminded of those retarded adds at the beginning of DVDs: Buying pirated DVDs is stealing.
Buying pirated goods is stealing. Seems like as good an analogy as any, I hope someone faces some jail time for this. It seems the only fair way to proceed given the content industries attitudes and stance in these and related matters...
-=Geoskd
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
then why do some many reality shows show people with blacked out / taped over t-shits and some times background logos as well?
In addition to what others have mentioned, it is also sometimes done to protect the privacy of the person filmed. A T-Shirt saying "Old Dime Bag High School" makes it too easy for stalkers and haters. Similar with logos that can be used to identify locations.
Then there are also sometimes legal issues of other kinds, like prohibition against alcohol, tobacco and medicine advertising in some countries requiring that brand names on such products be hidden, while the generic product is allowable.
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.
I didn't read the articles (Hey, this is Slashdot), but here goes:
Couldn't the use of a LV bag in a movie be considered fair use? And if the fact that it was a knock-off is material to the script*, that to might be 'fair use' of the right to make a knock-off prop.
If fair use doesn't apply, then how would it be possible to make a film on location someplace like NYC? You can't swing a deceased feline in that city without seeing a trademark on the side of a building. And if its not a location shoot, but a CGI recreation of a city, then the studio is effectively copying an entire scene full of trademarks.
*If its not material, then WB could sue the supplier for selling a fake to their prop department.
Have gnu, will travel.
Maybe I'm not really a lawyer. Maybe it's just a long nightmare from which I've yet to awaken.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
The best part of those adds is that only people who DIDN'T pirate the DVD had to sit through the stupid thing!
you wouldn't steal a handbag... oh wait.
Yeah, that's kind of the fucking point.
They fight hard against the kids they sue when they try to make excuses for their supposed acts of piracy, but will probably make excuses for their own supposed act of piracy. That's the irony here. Sorry it got lost on you.
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
And this is one of those things that, as a law student (who has done a lot of research into copyright law), shows how the excessive weight given to copyright within Hollywood (combined with people being paid by the hour) leads to a lot of unnecessary work being done. While copyright (or in some places the more limited design rights) can cover things suck as furniture, frames, cars and buildings, in most jurisdictions there will be a suitable defence to including them in the background of a film; in the US, there's a good chance it would be covered by fair use, in the UK there's a specific "incidental inclusion" defence.
That's not to say that clearing isn't important, and that there isn't some stuff that will need licensing, but my impression is that a lot more is licensed than really needs to be licensed - which has the effect of exaggerating the scope of copyright, and discouraging independent film-makers (as discussed).
In this case, of course, it's a trademark issue, as trying to sue for copyright infringement would be rather awkward. In terms of reality TV and the censoring of labels, that may be over-protectiveness but might also be to prevent potential defamation claims. Plus it gives it that edgy, this-is-real-not-completely-staged feel.
They could just say it was their open wifi that someone else downloaded the bag from.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
The uncertainty attendant to what can be done in a movie production is a deliberate product of the intense lobbying efforts by Warner Bros and other big studios, who prefer uncertainty to statutory and regulatory guidelines which spell these things out with clarity.
Why, you might ask, would they prefer uncertainty as to what is or is not a 'fair use', or what is or is not subject to some other defense?
Because they have (or believe they have) hundreds of millions of dollars to work it out on a "case by case basis" -- i.e., through costly litigation.
If you're some guy doing a video cam production with a $10,000 credit card budget, and your lawyer can't tell you what you can and cannot do in your movie, it puts the big houses like Warner at a distinct advantage and prevents you from competing with them. Because you know that only after hundreds of thousands of dollars of litigation will you have your answer, and if you are victorious, your victory will have been pyrrhic.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful