Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: July 30, 2014
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comDealing with copyright lawsuits in the music business can be tricky – it’s very difficult to prove that a bass line or melody was stolen, given the likelihood of multiple people coming up with the same tune. A lawsuit caught my eye this week involving the same legal issues, but focusing on a different industry: film.
Seth MacFarlane, the creator of hit show “Family Guy,” and recently debuted films “Ted” and “A Million Ways to Die in the West,” has been sued for alleged copyright infringement over “Ted.” The creator of a web series that debuted in 2009 on YouTube, Facebook, iTunes, FunnyorDie and Vimeo claims that its show, entitled “Acting School Academy”, bears too many similarities to the movie – namely the bear.
The show featured a teddy bear who, like “Ted,” enjoys smoking, drinking, prostitutes and “is a generally vulgar, yet humorous character,” the lawsuit states. Seth MacFarlane, Fuzzy Door Productions, Media Rights Capital II, MRC II Distribution and Thunder Buddies are named as defendants. The creator of “Acting School Academy” seeks actual, compensatory and statutory damages, disgorgement of profits, costs and an injunction.
If successful, this would be quite a payout for the plaintiff, as “Ted” took in over $500 million worldwide. Let’s take a closer look at what it would take for a ruling to be made in favor of the plaintiff.
First off, in order to establish infringement, the plaintiff needs to prove (1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.
Ownership appears relatively easy to establish in this case, as the work was publicly distributed at the time it was created – 2009 – which significantly predates the creation of “Ted.” Originality in the author is a necessary component, however, so there is possibly some room for the defendants to argue that a “vulgar yet humorous” teddy bear lacks originality in this context. In most cases, however, the most attention is paid to analysis regarding whether the defendant’s work resembles the plaintiffs in such a way that (1) original elements of the plaintiff’s work were actually copied, and (2) that such copying constitutes an improper appropriation of the plaintiff’s work.
Element (2) here is easy: if it were to be deemed that “Ted” copied original elements and then sold them for profit, it would absolutely be considered an improper appropriation. Element (1) is much harder. This relies on (1) access to the plaintiff’s work, and (2) probative similarities between the works. Since the plaintiff’s work was widely distributed here, access is generally assumed.
The result is that, in all likelihood, a jury or judge will be called upon to decide whether the similarities between the two works are enough for a copyright infringement ruling.
As an entertainment attorney, the legal aspects of the industry regarding copyright infringement can be tricky. Find out how copyright infringement has affected other areas of the sports and entrainment world here:
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Dealing with copyright lawsuits in the music business can be tricky – it’s very difficult to prove that a bass line or melody was stolen, given the likelihood of multiple people coming up with the same tune. A lawsuit caught my eye this week involving the same legal issues, but focusing on a different industry: film.
Seth MacFarlane, the creator of hit show “Family Guy,” and recently debuted films “Ted” and “A Million Ways to Die in the West,” has been sued for alleged copyright infringement over “Ted.” The creator of a web series that debuted in 2009 on YouTube, Facebook, iTunes, FunnyorDie and Vimeo claims that its show, entitled “Acting School Academy”, bears too many similarities to the movie – namely the bear.
The show featured a teddy bear who, like “Ted,” enjoys smoking, drinking, prostitutes and “is a generally vulgar, yet humorous character,” the lawsuit states. Seth MacFarlane, Fuzzy Door Productions, Media Rights Capital II, MRC II Distribution and Thunder Buddies are named as defendants. The creator of “Acting School Academy” seeks actual, compensatory and statutory damages, disgorgement of profits, costs and an injunction.
If successful, this would be quite a payout for the plaintiff, as “Ted” took in over $500 million worldwide. Let’s take a closer look at what it would take for a ruling to be made in favor of the plaintiff.
First off, in order to establish infringement, the plaintiff needs to prove (1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.
Ownership appears relatively easy to establish in this case, as the work was publicly distributed at the time it was created – 2009 – which significantly predates the creation of “Ted.” Originality in the author is a necessary component, however, so there is possibly some room for the defendants to argue that a “vulgar yet humorous” teddy bear lacks originality in this context. In most cases, however, the most attention is paid to analysis regarding whether the defendant’s work resembles the plaintiffs in such a way that (1) original elements of the plaintiff’s work were actually copied, and (2) that such copying constitutes an improper appropriation of the plaintiff’s work.
Element (2) here is easy: if it were to be deemed that “Ted” copied original elements and then sold them for profit, it would absolutely be considered an improper appropriation. Element (1) is much harder. This relies on (1) access to the plaintiff’s work, and (2) probative similarities between the works. Since the plaintiff’s work was widely distributed here, access is generally assumed.
The result is that, in all likelihood, a jury or judge will be called upon to decide whether the similarities between the two works are enough for a copyright infringement ruling.
As an entertainment attorney, the legal aspects of the industry regarding copyright infringement can be tricky. Find out how copyright infringement has affected other areas of the sports and entrainment world here:
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!