As Uproxx’s Chief Legal and R&B Music Correspondent, I consider it my duty to bring important law-related matters to your attention and explain them in a professional, straightforward manner to help cut through all the legalese. The law can be very confusing to the layperson, what with all its Latin terminology and jurisdictional issues and various precedents, so I’m more than happy to provide assistance to help you all make sense of it. Take for example the fight over the rights to Martin Scorsese’s classic film Raging Bull, now in front of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. It’s a mess of copyright and legal mumbo jumbo (official term), so allow me to break it all down for you.

So there’s this lady, right? She was all “Yo my dad wrote this screenplay about Jake LaMotta and also a book and y’all straight-up jacked it so PAY UP,” and the studios were like “Whoa toots FIRST OF ALL we based the screenplay on the book but we already paid for that” and the lady was all “Yeah but the book was BASED on the screenplay so really he wrote the movie and since he died before the copyright expired it went to me as his heir so I REPEAT pay up,” and then the studio was like “Ok, A) No, B) You can’t copyright facts and his life story is all facts, and C) Even if this is all true you waited like two decades to bring this case which is unfair to us because everything we need to defend ourselves is all dusty and stuff now,” and then the judge was like “Yeah it’s pretty unfair to wait so long so I am dismissing the case,” the lady was like “I AM APPEALING AND I SWEAR TO GOD I WILL CALL ROBERT DENIRO” which is a classic legal strategy. So, now it’s being argued in front of the 9th Circuit.

Based on a thorough examination of all the evidence in this case, my OFFICIAL LEGAL ANALYSIS of the situation is that Raging Bull is a dope movie and this lady should think about suing Scorcese for something else, like that shot at the end of The Departed where the rat walked across the screen. That was dumb.

You may remember that back in October, an unnamed actress sued IMDB for revealing her age, which she said she had deliberately kept hidden, saying IMDB obtained it from her credit card information and published it without her permission. At the time, a number of gossip sites posted their usual, idiotic blind-item stories where they speculated wildly on the identity of the plaintiff, but they weren’t even close. This despite the answer being right underneath their noses! It turns out it was that household name Junie Hoang (right), whom you may remember from such films as Gingerdead Man 3: Saturday Night Cleaver, and Hoodrats 2: Hoodrat Warrior. (*updates Netflix queue*)

IMDB, who seem like giant dicks, filed a motion to dismiss the case last month unless the actress revealed herself, and won.

In a sharply-worded decision, U.S. District Court Judge Marsha Pechman found that while the anonymous actress who sued for $1 million fears blacklisting and other retribution in Hollywood if her true identity is known, “the injury she fears is not severe enough to justify permitting her to proceed anonymously,” the ruling states.

Judge Pechman gave the woman who sued as “Jane Doe” 14 days to refile the case under her own name or it will be dismissed.  [THR]

Read the rest of this entry »

You just know C-Tates would weasel his way into this somehow.

It’s almost every day that someone files a plagiarism lawsuit against a high-profile film or filmmaker, way too many for me to cover them all, and they usually come to nothing. A town full of derivative ideas just naturally breeds that sort of thing. It’s like someone saying Jay Leno stole their joke — there’s a difference between “stolen” and “hacky.” But bear with me, this one’s more enjoyable than the usual frivolous-lawsuit-from-an-insane-person story.

Jamie Foxx and Tyler Perry are being sued for $1 million each by a prisoner — who claims the duo jacked his idea for a groan-worthy new comedy … starring Foxx, Perry, and Martin Lawrence … all dressed as women.
In case you haven’t heard … the project is called “Skank Robbers” — a wacky action comedy about two lady bank robbers … with Lawrence’s Sheneneh character from “Martin,” Foxx’s Wanda from “In Living Color,” and according to reports … Tyler Perry’s Madea … from every bad movie you’ve seen. The project is reportedly in development.

The project is in development, and I’ve covered it here before (its proposed August 2011 release date came and went, but according to the DailyMail, it had begun shooting), but this is the first I’ve ever heard of Tyler Perry being involved. I think the prisoner just made that part up. And here’s where it gets good…

Read the rest of this entry »

Pixar’s latest movie, Brave, looks like a medieval Scottish version of Whip It, where the main girl’s family want her to wear dresses and braid hair, but she’s all like “WHATEVER, I’MA DO TOMBOY STUFF INSTEAD!” But it turns out reminding people of a Drew Barrymore movie isn’t their only problem, as now the Atlanta Braves are challenging Pixar’s attempt to trademark ‘Brave.’ STOP TRYING TO STEAL OUR WORD THAT WE STOLE FROM THE INDIANS AND USED TO CREATE A CRUDE, RACIAL CARICATURE!

It all started back in March of last year when we reported on trademark applications which appeared to have been confirming a title change for what was then known as The Bear and the Bow, but is now known to be Brave.

Fast forward to this past summer when — after filing a number of extensions — the Atlanta National League Baseball Club, owners of the Atlanta Braves,  formally filed an objection to many of the trademark applications. Although trademarks are specific to their singular and plural forms and the Braves do not possess any trademarks for the word BRAVE (only BRAVES), the organization believes that damages will occur as a result of Disney’s trademarks being approved as they have used the singular form before on merchandise and insist it is common for fans, media, et al to use the singular form when referring to a single player, whereas the pluralized form refers to the entire team.

Private negotiations between The Walt Disney Company and the Atlanta National League Ball Club are currently taking place in regards to several of the objected filings with the ball club intending to file an objection against yet another of the registrations. [StitchKingdom]

Now, I’m not a lawyer, but I think the problem here is that “brave” is actually a common word with various meanings, and people probably shouldn’t be allowed to “own” a word that’s already been in use for thousands of years. Except for that Precious chick with “Precious,” that just seems fair.

If you want to trademark a word, you have to make it up yourself. Like “dickfinch.” It’s a small bird that lives in your pants.

I will never stop enjoying using this picture to go with this story.

About a month ago, an unnamed actress anonymously sued IMDB for revealing her age, which she says they obtained through her credit card information and posted without her permission, saying revealing their age without permission puts actresses pushing 40 at a disadvantage in trying to get roles if they can pass for younger. Which is true, I’m sure it sucks trying to live long enough for your ironic, Betty White fame. Anyway, this week, IMDB fired back, and it was basically the legal and public statement equivalent of a dismissive wanking motion. IMDB AIN’T CARE!

Amazon.com, owner of iMDb, believes it knows the identity of this woman, and it tells a Washington federal court that before she filed the lawsuit, she first tried to get the service to post a false birthdate so she could fool potential Hollywood employers into thinking she was younger than she actually is. Now a judge is being asked to dismiss the lawsuit so as to not perpetuate a fraud on the public.
In its motion to dismiss filed last week and obtained by THR, the company questions whether the judicial system should be used to help an actress hide her 40 years of age. According to IMDb:
“Truth and justice are philosophical pillars of this Court. The perpetuation of fraud, even for an actor’s career, is inconsistent with these principals. Plaintiff’s attempt to manipulate the federal court system so she can censor iMDb’s display of her birth date and pretend to the world that she is not 40 years old is selfish, contrary to the public interest and a frivolous abuse of this Court’s resources.”
The judge is being asked to dismiss the case because the original lawsuit was an alleged violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a). IMDb believes the plaintiff has no proper reason to file her case anonymously, so the company is attempting to get the case dismissed if the woman doesn’t step forward to reveal herself. [THR]

Look, no one’s arguing that aging actresses aren’t all dangerous amoral sociopaths who should be locked up as a preventative measure like the wolfman. I mean, I think we’ve all seen the Real Housewives. But IMDB’s whole statement just seems like a diversionary tactic. You either revealed someone’s age without her permission or you didn’t. If it was naked pictures, I could see, those are for everyone, but otherwise that’s just wrong.