THE COPYKAT - A copyright infringement oriented week!

This CopyKat by Lolita S.
Let’s start with a videogame, shall we?

Many of you have already heard about League of Legends, a MOBA (Multiplayer Online Battle Arena) extremely famous in the videogame world. A lot of tournaments based on this game are organised each year, and its reputation spans America. And who says fame, says copyright infringement. 

A Chinese video game studio is currently accused of making a very similar version of League of Legends!

From the characters to the map, everything is very similar! A report took an example of one of the most prominent figure of the game, the young girl “Annie”. And as you see below, well, it seems very clear doesn’t it?

The owner of League of Legends, Riot Games, has sued the Chinese company in the federal court in Los Angeles for copyright and trademark infringement. And soon we will see how this battle is going to end!

Forever 21, again and again!

Forever 21 is once again being sued by Mara Hoffman for copying one of her original prints. According to it’s complaint, Forever 21 infringed her copyright-protected “Leaf” fabric print.

The complaint is as follow: according to Mara Hoffman, Forever 21 ““infringed [its] copyright by manufacturing, importing, displaying, distributing, selling, offering for sale, promoting and advertising women’s swimwear which exploit, use or otherwise incorporate a design unlawfully taken from Mara Hoffman’s copyrighted work.”

And apparently, it’s not the first time! Mara Hoffman said that she has been the target of Forever 21 in the past: in 2012 and in 2013.

She is seeking for monetary damages in connection with the alleged copyright infringement.

The case: Mara Hoffman, Inc. v. Forever 21, Inc., 1:17-cv-05393 (SDNY). 

“Reproduction” of an original work

A lawsuit filed in New York this week has at heart a quite complicated question: how much can you conserve an artwork before it becomes something entirely different?

Cady Noland claims that a conservator has been paid to repair her sculpture Log Cabin without consulting her. By “repair”, she claims that it was way beyond the bounds of normal conservation.

According to her, this reparation is so different from the original work that it became a copy of her work. For her, the conservator destroyed the original work and created an unauthorized reproduction. According to the law, this is copyright infringement – yes, again!

Can unauthorised reproduction of Charlie Hebdo cartoons be an infringement? French readers' perspective wanted!

Is unauthorised reprinting
an infringement?

1709 Blog readers who do not subscribe to/read The IPKat might have missed an item that I posted last Saturday, which called for some elucidation from French readers.

The question is whether under French law unauthorised reproduction of Charlie Hebdo cartoons may be considered a copyright infringement.

The IPKat post followed the debate surrounding the opportunity or not of reprinting this French satirical newspaper's irreverent cartoons.

Let's assume that French law was the applicable law. 

In the case of unauthorised reproduction of Charlie Hebdo artistic works, the potentially applicable exceptions, as enshrined in the Code de la propriété intellectuelle, could be:

• Article L 122-5, No 3 [likely derived from Article 5(3)(d) of the InfoSoc Directive], which allows, provided that the name of the author and the source are clearly indicated:
• (lett a) the analysis and short quotation of a work because of the critical, polemical, educational, scientific or information character of the (new) work in which it is incorporated; 
• (lett b) press reviews.
• Article L 122-5 No 9 [likely derived from Article 5(3)(c) of the InfoSoc Directive], which allows - among other things and subject to the indication of the name of the author - the reproduction, as a whole or in part, of a graphic work of art, by print, broadcast or online, for reasons of exclusive and immediate information directly related to the work. The exception does not apply to works, notably photographs or drawings, that in themselves are meant to convey information [this bit is pretty similar to s30(2) of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988].  

In my post I concluded that unauthorised reproduction of Charlie Hebdo artistic works by press publications would not really qualify for the news reporting exception under French copyright law. Nonetheless such unauthorised publication could be saved by the wonderfully loose language of Article L 122-5 No 3. However, similarly to Article L 122-5 No 9, Article L 122-5 No 3 requires that a number of conditions are met, notably that (not just the source but also) the author of the work is indicated. 

I would greatly appreciate if French readers could provide any insights as to the judicial interpretation of these French copyright law provisions.