About
The UCLA Entertainment Law Review (“ELR”) is an international law journal published once or twice a year by the UCLA School of Law. Since 1994, ELR’s staff has worked diligently to bring to our subscribers academic work of the highest quality, as well as articles that tackle the most novel and cutting edge issues in the field of entertainment law.
Volume 21, Issue 1, 2014
Articles
Substantial Similarity in Literary Infringement Cases: A Chart for Turbid Waters
As home to that fictional piece of real estate known as Hollywood,
the Ninth Circuit has dealt with the copyright law issue of substantial
similarity more than any other jurisdiction, yet it has not developed
useful principles for analyzing it. This article examines the history of
the Ninth Circuit's two-step test for substantial similarity in literary infringement
cases, showing how a quirk in the evolution of the test has
created a confusing and ineffectual body of law on the subject. The article
argues that the courts have underestimated the complexity of the
issue and have given too much credit to their own judgment, unaided
by expert input. The absence of a genuine understanding of the issue
has led courts to look for substantial similarity where it cannot be
found: in the individual elements of literary works. The article presents
a proposed rule to re-direct the court's inquiry from the individual
elements of the work, where copyright protection cannot be found,
to the artistic structure of the work, where it must be found if it exists at
all.
Unresolved Textual Tension: Capitol Records v. ReDigi and a Digital First Sale Doctrine
In Capitol Records v. ReDigi, the District Court for the Southern
District of New York ruled that the first sale doctrine does not apply
when consumers resell copyrighted goods by digital distribution, even
if they use "forward-and-delete" software that ensures that the seller's
copy is deleted during the transaction. This ruling hinged on the
court's interpretation of the word "particular" in § 109 of the Copyright
Act. The court reasoned that when copyrighted music is downloaded,
the specific location on the disk to which it is downloaded is a
"phonorecord." According to the court, a digital copy is made
anywhere else constitutes a reproduction for the purposes of copyright
infringement. Because it is impossible for that physical piece of the
disk to be transferred via digital transmission, and every digital
transmission thus necessarily requires a reproduction, there can be no
first sale protection for the distribution of digital goods.
Because of the metaphysical differences between physical and digital
media, this comment argues that the fair use doctrine cannot be applied
in a media-neutral fashion. Digital goods cannot be moved from place
to place in the same way that physical goods can be moved, even
though the use of forward-and-delete technology (such as the kind
ReDigi utilizes) can cause the functional result to be the same: one
copy before the transmission, one copy after the transmission. The
court's strict demand that the physical substrate where a copyrighted
work is fixed must remain identical in order to be considered the same
"particular" copy (and thus eligible for first sale protection) is at odds
with earlier courts' rulings that repaired and restored works are eligible
for first sale protection. The court's demand is also at odds with its
own conclusion that iPods and other mobile devices containing music
can be legally resold. These inconsistencies demonstrate that the
phrase "particular copy or phonorecord" in 17 U.S.C. § 109 (which
codifies the first sale doctrine) makes the statute unable to account for
digital media and thus unable to apply in a media-neutral fashion. A
specific carve-out for digital media is necessary for the law to keep up
with the development of technology. Such a change is preferable because
media-neutral application of the first sale doctrine permits a secondary
market for digital goods to exist, which better serves both ends
of copyright-the instrumental goal of rewarding authors and the ultimate
goal of providing the public access to creative works-by promoting
economic efficiency.
"An Offer California Can't Refuse": How an Efficient and Adaptable Framework Can Improve Remedies Under the Talent Agency Act and Correct the Issues With its Interpretation
California has a longstanding issue with the Talent Agency Act, which
states that only a licensed agent may seek out, or procure, employment
for an artist. The TAA has caused major headaches for Hollywood's
personal managers, who find their contracts with artists voided for engaging
in even minor acts of procurement. Many commentators initially
believed that Marathon Entertainment Inc. v. Blasi solved the dilemma.
However, it turns out that the Labor Commissioner, who has
exclusive jurisdiction to hear claims arising under the TAA, continues
to void contracts between California's personal managers and their clients
at an alarming rate. Personal managers disapprove of the Labor
Commissioner's failure to employ the doctrine of severability, as advised
by the Blasi court, to these contracts. In response, the personal
managers recently filed a challenge to the constitutionality of the TAA.
The United States District Court for the Central District of California,
however, dismissed the claim and upheld the constitutionality of the
controversial Act. Because this debate spans over one hundred years,
and the constitutional challenge was unsuccessful, the authors of this
comment advocate a two-fold approach to correcting the dilemma: (1)
place the burden of production in Labor Commissioner hearings on the
artist to prove that the entire manager contract should be voided, and
(2) assess statutory civil penalties to those personal managers who willfully
violate the TAA by procuring employment. The authors of this
Comment argue that the California legislature should consider applying
this approach because it is not only easily adaptable, but also in line
with the true purpose of the TAA.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act: A "Good Samaritan" Law Without the Requirement of Acting as a "Good Samaritan"
When Congress enacted Section 230 of the Communications
Decency Act, it made an implicit deal with every Interactive Computer
Service (ICS): at least attempt to clean your website of defamatory or
otherwise illegal third-party content in exchange for immunity from
vicarious liability. However, the majority of courts applying Section
230 have since construed this aptly-titled "good Samaritan" law as a
grant of blanket ICS immunity, offering protection regardless of
whether an ICS actually regulates or edits its website. This piece
analyzes an aparent split among the circuit courts, and explains that
blanket ICS immunity does not square with Congress' underlying
intent of encouraging ICS self-regulation. In the end, this article
highlights four potential scenarios in which an ICS could lose its
Section 230 "good Samaritan" immunity status when it does not act
like a "good Samaritan."