Every year on January 1, works protected under copyright law enter into the public domain due to their copyright protection expiring. Thus, as a new year approaches, those in the field of copyright look to see which works will expire at the end of the year. As the world entered January 2023, many excitedly anticipated that �پ����Ա��’s copyright protection of Mickey Mouse in the United States (US) would expire at the end of 2023, allowing Mickey Mouse to . This means that  reproduced, adapted, published, publicly performed, and publicly displayed by anyone in the United States without infringing upon �پ����Ա��’s copyright.

As a general rule in the U.S., for works created after January 1, 1978,  for the life of the author plus 70 years. However, for works created before January 1, 1978, the duration of copyright protection depends on several factors as set out by  in the United States. Mickey Mouse  in the US in 1928 with the film “Steamboat Willie,” so its copyright protection term was dictated by several factors outlined in chapter 3.Additionally, the expiration of the copyright term only applies to the original version of Mickey Mouse displayed in Steamboat Willie; later versions of Mickey Mouse will still be protected by copyright. This original version of Mickey Mouse is a black and white rat-like depiction with a long snout and black eyes, whereas later versions of Mickey Mouse include the version of Mickey with his signature red shorts and white gloves.  

Copyright law in the US has evolved many times in part as a result of Disney lobbying for copyright term extension. Originally, the Mickey Mouse copyright was supposed to expire in 1983 because when Mickey Mouse was first debuted to the public in 1928, copyright law only protected works for 56 years. However, in 1976 Congress passed the  which extended the copyright term to 50 years after the death of the author or 75 years after the death of the author if the author was hired by an employer to create the work. As a result, the Mickey Mouse copyright was then set to expire at the end of 2003.

Starting in 1990, Disney pushed hard for an extension of copyright protections. This resulted in the  which extended copyright protection to 70 years after the death of the author. This extension is why Mickey Mouse’s copyright protection is set to expire at the end of 2023. The extreme lobbying from Disney to extend copyright protections earned the 1998 act the nickname of the “Mickey Mouse &�Բ�����;������.”

Although the original Mickey Mouse’s copyright protection will expire at the end of 2023, Disney will still be able to protect the Mickey Mouse brand through trademark law. Mickey Mouse is  as �پ����Ա��’s property because . Trademark protection can theoretically last forever if Disney can continually show that Mickey Mouse is associated with its company.  Disney will likely be able to continually show an association with Mickey Mouse. In 2007, Walt Disney Animation Studios  to incorporate the original version of Mickey Mouse. Therefore, although someone may use the original version of Mickey Mouse in a work, they are not able to use this version of Mickey Mouse for any branding purposes or any purpose that would cause consumers to be confused about the source of the Mickey Mouse product. These intersections between trademark and copyright law may stop Mickey from strolling into public use for the coming years.

The post Mickey Mouse to Enter Public Domain in 2024 appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Michelle Mao is an IPilogue Writer and an incoming 2L JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The fantastical and mind-blowing virtual worlds of and may soon be within reach as the for virtual reality technology heats up between major companies like , , and . Virtual reality has been dubbed by entertainment and media companies as the next big advancement in modern-day lifestyle. The appeal of virtual reality has been further developed as people have been cooped up in their homes for over two years as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The desire to feel connected while in the comfort and safety of one’s home can be uniquely targeted by innovations in virtual reality.����

To get to that immersive ideal, companies are racing to own patents for innovative, user-friendly technologies that would entice everyday consumers to use virtual reality platforms in a hassle-free way. One notable example is Meta’s (formerly known as Facebook) ownership of a that can when worn around the torso. Apple, on the other hand, owns the patent for a , where the user can manipulate objects in virtual and mixed reality environments. Notably, both devices are less bulky than current-day VR headsets and allow for much finer control over a virtual avatar’s interaction within a virtual environment. Companies are racing to patent the most comfortable options for VR hardware.��

As a result, are being bought up by large tech companies. In the , Microsoft, and Samsung continue to top other companies in the number of new AR/VR patents assigned.����

What does this mean for Future Patent Issues in the Virtual Reality Context?

As the patent collections of large corporations grow and products begin to materialize, one should expect an increase in surrounding virtual reality soon.�� In the face of increased patent litigation, IP lawyers and lawmakers interacting with the AR/VR patent landscape should consider 2 potential problems.

��AR/VR developers face two different legal interests that IP lawyers must balance when advising these developers Firstly, developers and the companies they are employed at want broad protection of their patented innovation. They want their patents, when read at the “”, to sufficiently block competitors from infringing on their patentable innovation. The patent must be strong enough to sufficiently protect the level of investment and time spent on developing an innovation – which is especially important in AR/VR patent issues, where development is .

Second, developers want to be protected from patent litigation. The descriptions of their patent must also be detailed and fully described such that other competitors cannot accuse them of intellectual property theft.

IP lawyers may need to navigate the increasing practice of when working with AR/VR developers. With the thousands of patents being issued around AR/VR technology each quarter, it is not surprising that NPEs are purchasing patents to assert their patent rights against companies . Thus, IP lawyers and companies targeted by NPE litigation must learn to prepare themselves in the AR/VR patent world, where patent issuance moves at a much faster pace than ever before.

While the pace of patent issuance in AR/VR can bring a diverse set of issues that IP lawyers must navigate in an already fast-paced legal environment, the developments and innovations surrounding AR/VR technology are exciting. It will be interesting to see how the legal profession and policymakers step up to deal with these issues as AR/VR technology continues its trajectory into modern, everyday living.

The post The Race Between Tech Companies for Patent Ownership in the Development of Immersive Virtual Experiences appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Andrew Masson is an IPilogue Writer and 2L JD candidate��at Osgoode Hall Law School.��

I have not explored the comedy-horror genre much, but Director Rhys Waterfield's vision of a has intrigued me from a legal perspective. The IPilogue previously published about when Ryan Reynolds created a fun featuring the iconic original 1926 Winnie the Pooh. Ryan Reynolds's fun-loving commercial was generally well-received by the public, but some claimed that this would “”. ��

Purpose of Public Domain

Some may view this as the “darker” side of works entering the public domain, but the public domain is meant to be a wellspring for future creativity. Therefore, although some may find it distasteful, it does fit within the overall purpose of works entering the public domain. The Supreme Court of the United States held in that copyrights are meant to be a “special reward” and that the “products of [creators] genius” would be made public after a “limited period of exclusive control.” The “limited periods” of copyright — now 70 years in Canada and 70 or 95 years in the US — is significant because most copyrighted materials loses its value at that point, and is rather at risk of being lost.

If copyrights were temporarily unlimited, then there may be a risk of material being physically lost because there is no way for it to be legally replicated. ��Although advancements in digital storage and technology in the last few decades have minimized these concerns, a lot of materials in the 20^th century were analog. This means that if the physical works were lost, damaged, or destroyed, those cultural artifacts would no longer exist. Additionally, has shown that works that entered the public domain compared to copyrighted best sellers of that time were significantly more likely to be in print, with more editions available, and cheaper in costs. Since most copyrighted work is not as popular as Winnie the Pooh, they do require 95-year copyright — the public domain acts as a resource to persevere the work as well as provide inspiration for creative uses of that work.

Is Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey Violating �پ����Ա��’s Copyright?

Although policy reasons justify this film’s release, there is one significant distinction between the Ryan Reynolds interpretation and Director Waterfield’s. Disney owns the copyright to the post-1926, red-shirt wearing Winnie the Pooh, rather than the original shirtless Winnie the Pooh which entered the public domain. The still-shots, however, depict Winnie with a red plaid shirt. Disney has an alternative argument in that the film infringes on their copyrighted version. It is intriguing that the original Mickey Mouse is set to enter the public so Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey could be a litmus test for how Disney will approach these copyright and public domain conflicts .

The post Copyright and Public Domain Issues with Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by capri23auto ()

Meena Alnajar is an��IPilogue��Writer, IP Innovation Clinic Fellow,��and a 2L JD Candidate at��Osgoode��Hall Law School

��

Turning Red, a animated movie set in Toronto and directed by Canadian filmmaker was initially set to be released in theatres on . However, due to the surge of COVID-19 cases, Disney has moved the film’s release online to their streaming service . Streaming services have provided a platform for safely watching films from the comfort of your own home. Yet financially, films released via streaming sites can generate starkly different revenues than releases in theatres. In July 2021, Disney encountered legal issues when Marvel moved the film release to Disney+. The leading actress, Scarlett Johansson, felt that her contract did not the film’s streaming site release. Her legal team claimed that this release changed the actress’ . However, with the rise in streaming and general reluctance to go to in-person theatres, are streaming services the best profit mechanism for filmmakers? What could be lost when films are released on home screens?

Is the theatre dead?

In Canada, movie theatre chain Cineplex has suffered extreme losses due to constant closure from the COVID-19 pandemic. Cineplex recently chose not to renew its lease for its large theatre in . Many people were upset not only at the loss of a family outing, but also at the loss of potential Canadian often presented in Cineplex theatres. Although streaming sites deliver movies instantly for viewers, these sites may further detriment movie theatres in your hometown.

Implications for studios and directors

The decline in movie theatre releases affects many local businesses and takes away community activity. On a practical note, however, these streaming service releases may be the only way for big studios to justify a big budget. For instance, Universal Studios was one of the first to try a streaming service release instead of theatre. In , Universal released “Trolls World Tour” as an on-demand purchase at $19.99. The film earned over $100 million in the US within . In contrast, the first “Trolls” film released in theatres in earned only $120 million over a five-month theatrical run.

Disney would certainly factor in this rapid profit-making capability for streaming services after witnessing a 75% spike in after Hamilton was released on . Disney not only makes a quick profit, but streaming releases also promote �پ����Ա��’s platform, allowing the company to earn additional revenue from Disney+ memberships. If �پ����Ա��’s primary goal is revenue for every film release, streaming service releases seem to be the more profitable in a pandemic. ��

Domee Shi sets the film Turning Red in as an homage to her hometown. She explicitly wanted to highlight her life in Canada and Toronto’s diverse culture and scenery . As Canadian VP of Walt Disney Studios notes, “Turning Red is truly a love letter to Toronto and Canada.” With Korean-Canadian Hollywood Star as a lead voice actor in the film, Turning Red is intended to showcase all Canada has to offer in the arts. Unfortunately, the movie will not be released in any local Toronto theatres. The celebration of the film’s release and Toronto’s vibrant culture will be contained to our home screens.

The post Turning Red Turns to the Home Screen appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo from , Smithsonian Design Museum, 1926.

Sabrina Macklai is an IPilogue Senior Editor and a 2L JD Candidate at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law.

��

Nikita Munjal is an IP Innovation Clinic Fellow, a Student Editor with the Intellectual Property Journal, and a third-year JD/MBA Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

��

While many were observing the new year, intellectual property scholars and the artistic community were celebrating . January 1^st marks the expiration of most jurisdictions’ copyright terms. The previously copyrighted works enter the public domain, free to use and copy. In 2022, A. A. Milne’s Winnie the Pooh, among other famous characters like Felix Salten’s Bambi, entered the U.S. public domain. Already, versions of the beloved teddy bear are making rounds on , with celebrity even introducing his own “Winnie-the-Screwed” book in an ad for Mint Mobile.

Though the expansion of the public domain is cause for celebration, the honey-loving bear was already freely available for use in Canada since 2006. Works enter the public domain on a country-by-country basis, depending on the jurisdiction’s laws. Canada currently maintains a shorter copyright term than the U.S, set at . In contrast, generally subsists for 70 years after the death of the author or 95 years after first publication for works-for-hire. In other words, all works of corporate authorship first published in 1926, such as Winnie the Pooh, did not become freely available to use in the U.S until the end of 2021.

Copyright terms were not always this long. The U.S.’ first established a copyright term of 14 years, with an optional 14-year renewal period for living authors. This term was eventually extended to 28 years (with a 28-year renewal option) by a , then even further to 50 years from the author’s death in . Lobbying by the American entertainment industry, especially Walt Disney Co, led to the enactment of the , which not only increased U.S. copyright terms but applied them retroactively. Under the former legislation, Winnie the Pooh was to enter the public domain in 2006, 50 years following A. A. Milne's death, but the Extension Act delayed its entrance by 16 years.

The mismatch between copyright terms amongst jurisdictions poses various problems, especially in our digital age. While the public was free to use and copy Winnie the Pooh’s image in Canada long before January 1, 2022, they had to be careful not to make their works accessible in the U.S. or other jurisdictions such as the where the work was still protected by copyright. Though the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, worldwide, attempted to provide some standardization by mandating a minimum copyright term of 50 years after the author’s death, countries like the U.S. have adopted longer terms and ignore the “rule of shorter term”, which provides that the term of copyright in a work created in a foreign country may not exceed the term received in its origin country.

While U.S. copyright terms remain one of the world’s longest, this will soon change due to the (CUSMA), which came into force on July 1, 2020. , Canada has until the end of this year to extend their term of copyright protection to 70 years after the author’s life, in harmony with the U.S. This requirement has garnered much controversy, as user rights advocates are concerned that it will lead to a 20-year gap of materials entering the public domain, significantly restricting access to works. In response to these concerns, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada released a noting several limitations and accompanying measures that Canada may choose to adopt to mitigate any potential harms of term extensions.

What does this mean for Winnie the Pooh? As it has already entered the public domain, any changes to copyright terms will not retroactively affect the bear’s status. However, it is important to note that the Winnie the Pooh available for use differs from �پ����Ա��’s version, which is still under copyright and protection. Only the characters and stories from A. A. Milne’s original 1926 works are freely available. As author Tim X Price , “Red shirt on the bear, artists beware. If nude he be, your bear is free.”

Although Disney did not protest Winnie the Pooh’s entrance into the public domain, some intellectual property experts expected the corporation to lobby for extended copyright terms, as it has successfully done in the past. Granted, the rise of the Internet has , as empowered grass-root organizations and the public fight back against such efforts. Nevertheless, if Disney were to revive its lobbying efforts, it would likely be soon as the Steamboat Willie version of its beloved mascot, Mickey Mouse, is set to enter the public domain on January 1, 2024.

The post Oh Dear, Piglet, They Kept My Shirt! appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by Tyler Nix ()

Emily Prieur is an IPilogue Writer and a 3L JD Candidate at Queen’s University Faculty of Law.

��

��

What happened?����

Kelly Knievel, the son of infamous motorcycle stuntman Evel Knievel, brought a trademark infringement action against Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures for their character “Duke Caboom” featured in Toy Story 4. Knievel sued through�� Inc., which owns the intellectual property rights of the former daredevil. K&K alleged that �پ����Ա��’s “Duke Caboom'' character was confusingly similar to Evel Knievel and pointed to several elements of the character, specifically his stunts, jumpsuit, and commercials. Knievel described the Caboom character as a “” of Evel Knievel. K&K took particular issue with the Toy Story 4 Duke Caboom action figure given its resemblance to the Evel Knievel Stunt Cycle toy that was released in 1973. feature a stuntman costumed in a white and red jumpsuit. ��

What were K&K’s��claims?����

K&K Promotions Inc. sued��the��Disney��company��under the��Lanham Act for false endorsement/false description, trade dress infringement, and trademark dilution. Outside the scope of the Lanham Act, K&K Promotions Inc. sued Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures under Nevada common-law for trademark infringement, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and a claim for right of publicity.����

What did the court decide?����

Judge James C. Mahan of the U.S. District Court of Nevada ruled in��favour��of Disney. Justice Mahan applied the two-part test from the U.S.��case����to assist in his decision. The��test requires that the defendant’s use of the plaintiff’s trademark is artistically relevant to the underlying work. Notably, the threshold for this is “very low” and the artistic relevance “merely must be above zero”. The test also requires that the alleged use explicitly misleads consumers about the source or content of the work. The use of a trademark is not enough to prove consumer confusion. ��

For the first part of the test, the judge asserted that the Duke Caboom character was highly relevant and integral to the storyline. Duke Caboom’s storyline had continued from the original storyline to the most recent iteration (Toy Story 4). For this reason, Justice Mahan believed that Duke Caboom had substantial artistic relevance to the Toy Story franchise and was not merely a “”, as K&K Promotions Inc. had suggested.��

For the second part of the test, Justice Mahan concluded that K&K Promotions Inc.�� enough evidence that Disney tried to confuse consumers into thinking the famous stuntman was associated with, or endorsed, Toy Story 4.����that the film character has a different name and clothing, is Canadian rather than American, has a mustache, and has a different hair��colour��and style��than��Knievel. Justice Mahan also ruled��that��the animated toy��is sufficiently transformative,��. ����

What would have happened if the same case was decided in Canada?����

Although��Toy Story 4’s animators were clearly inspired by the 70s style motorist, Duke Caboom’s nod to the era did not meet the threshold as set out by U.S. courts. In Canada, similar remedies are available to notable figures whose likeness has been stolen for commercial purposes. K&K Promotions Inc. would likely have made similar arguments in Canada as they did in the U.S., making claims through the torts of passing off and ����

In Canada, the use of a famous individual's personality for personal gain without authorization may amount to the tort of “”. The tort is often analyzed in three parts: the plaintiff’s personality is exploited for a commercial purpose, the personality is clearly captured so they are identifiable, and an endorsement by the plaintiff is suggested. In 1973, the Ontario Court of Appeal created a new tort, the appropriation of personality, in . In��Krouse, a Canadian football player sued Chrysler for using his personality for commercial purposes. Chrysler had used a photograph of the football player in an advertisement without his permission. The court held that the tort of passing off did not apply to Krouse’s claim as he was not engaging in the same business as Chrysler. In this case, a tort of passing off likely would have been a more appropriate cause of action for Knievel, especially since both organizations are selling similar action figures. ��

In Canada, three requirements must be met for a successful passing off claim; . The tort��was��expanded��upon in����Similar to the second part of the��Rogers v. Grimaldi��test in the United States, the tort requires��that��the defendant’s product or business��is��seen as “”.��

The post An "Evel" Outcome? Evel Knievel's son unsuccessful in trademark suit against Disney appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by on

Meena Alnajar is an IPilogue Writer, IP Innovation Clinic Fellow, and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

��

American actress Scarlett Johansson, known for playing the Black Widow in Disney & Marvel’s The Avengers franchise, took action against Disney on July 30, 2021 for an alleged breach of contract involving the recent Black Widow film’s distribution. According to , Johansson’s contract read that Black Widow would be guaranteed a ‘wide release’, meaning that “the film would be shown .” The caveat here in the streaming service age is the term ‘screens.’ Johansson’s legal team argues that ‘screens’ means movie theatre screens exclusively. This implies a theatrical release, where a . Disney countered the argument, stating that Black Widow received a theatrical release, but that this release does not imply an exclusive release to theatres only. As such, Disney was within their rights to simultaneously launch the film on their streaming service, Disney Plus.

Experts argue that this may be a case of ambiguity with the phrase ‘wide release.’ In contract law, ambiguity is addressed in several ways. Absent fraud or misrepresentation, the court may choose to examine —verbal agreements made between parties, usually in the negotiation stage. Johansson’s legal team stated that they between them and Marvel’s Chief Counsel, Dave Galluzzi. In the email, the studio attorney promised a release “like our other pictures” and that if plans should change, they would be “discussed with [Johansson’s legal team].” Further, even without the email, courts generally resolve ambiguity , which in this case is . Therefore, Johansson is likely to win in court.

On August 21, 2021 Disney responded to Johansson’s suit with a motion to move the suit to . Arbitration is a method of whereby parties choose a sole arbitrator and venue of arbitration to settle a dispute. The arbitrator’s ruling is . Hollywood dispute lawyer would make this move back in July. Moving this issue to arbitration helps and contract drafting out of the public eye and protects their public image from damage. But �پ����Ա��’s representatives counter this view, stating that they simply wish that was agreed upon between both parties to the contract. Disney also argues that the company made good on its contract by displaying the movie on .

Additionally, instead of coming after Marvel, as the party involved in the contract, Johansson’s team is pushing for a public suit against the parent company Disney. Disney suggests that Johansson is participating in “gamesmanship” by making Johansson’s compensation �پ����Ա��’s responsibility, rather than carrying out the dispute in arbitration with Marvel. is a dubious technique where lawyers create additional expense or agitate the other side to put them in a tough position where they must either settle or abandon the case. Since arbitration is often dispute resolution than a public lawsuit, Johansson’s team may indeed be partaking in gamesmanship with the constant push for a public lawsuit.

Whether the parties decide to settle the dispute confidentially or publicly, this contractual disagreement emphasizes the new contractual landscape for actors and production companies. With the rise in streaming services and decline of theatre capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic, movie production companies should work to be more explicit in their compensation plans and in their definition of ‘wide release.’ 30,000 movie theatre screens versus 30,000 users on Disney Plus can make millions of dollars of a difference.

The post Scarlett Johansson v Disney Black Widow: What is a Theatrical Release in the Age of Streaming Services? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by ()

Ryan Erdman is an��IPilogue��Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at��Osgoode��Hall Law .

��

��

In 2015, Inside Out captivated audiences with its creative insight into the emotional landscape of a pre-teen girl named Riley. The film’s main characters are manifestations of young girl’s internal emotions that attempt to help her navigate various experiences and challenges in her life. The brilliance of the film’s storytelling was realized through its depth and the way it resonates with individuals of all ages. Winning the that year, it has grown to be regarded as one of the best animated films of all time.

While the general and critical response was overwhelmingly positive, one individual who did not experience the same initial “joy” was , a graduate of Sheridan College in Oakville, Ontario. In July 2018, Pourshian commenced an action against Walt Disney Pictures Inc., Pixar Animation Studios, and four other subsidiaries claiming that they infringed on his copyright to a film he initially conceived as a high school student. The claim was brought under��sections 3��and��27��of Canada’s��

In 2000, Pourshian, then a film student at Sheridan College, wrote the screenplay and produced a short movie similarly titled Inside Out, where the protagonist was guided by their personified internal organs. According to Pourshian, the film was “widely shown” at the school, and the defendants, having a “close relationship” with Sheridan College, would have had access to his film on numerous occasions. Further, he claims former students at the college now working with Disney and Pixar were tied to the production.

The recent did not surround the substance or efficacy of the infringement claims, but revised a preliminary jurisdictional order. The U.S.-based defendants initially brought a motion to stay the action on the basis that Ontario lacked jurisdiction. In October 2019, a Master granted the order against all defendants, except for Pixar, Walt Disney Pictures Inc., and Disney Shopping Inc.

Pourshian appealed, and the remaining defendants cross-appealed the decision on the basis that the Master erred in applying the test for determining if the court has jurisdiction over claims against foreign defendants. The test, as established by the Supreme Court of Canada in , looks to determine if there is a “real and substantial connection” between the subject matter of the litigation and the chosen forum. To do so, the court will determine whether there is a presumptive connecting factor (established or novel) between the claim and the jurisdiction. As noted in Van Breda regarding tort claims, connecting factors that��prima facie entitles a court to assume jurisdiction include the defendant residing or carrying out business in the province, the tort being committed in the province, or a contract connected to the dispute being made in the province.

The court found that the Master made at minimum three legal errors, including failing to analyze the meaning of “carrying on” business in Ontario and disregarding evidence filed by the parties. Seeing no utility in sending the case back, the court proceeded to determine jurisdiction in relation to each individual defendant. Pourshian argued that Ontario had jurisdiction because it was the “jurisdiction of reception” for��the movie, the claim was in respect of (intellectual) property in Ontario, and some of the defendants carry on business in Ontario.

Most significantly, the court clarified that copyright infringement is “essentially a statutory tort,” such that the Van Breda analysis is correctly applied, and the analogous connecting factor is whether the alleged copyright infringement occurred in the jurisdiction where the action was brought. Relying on , they note that the infringement can occur both where the communication was transmitted from and where it was received. Subsequently, the court looked to the main issue of whether Pourshian’s claim established a “good arguable case” that each defendant played a role in authorizing the “transmission” or distribution of��the film in Ontario.

Ultimately, the court found sufficient evidence that Ontario had jurisdiction in relation to six of the defendants, largely due to direct connections to the film’s production or its distribution to third-party providers. This reversed the original decision in relation to three defendants. The two remaining defendants, Walt Disney Company (the parent company to the remaining defendants) and American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., successfully rebutted the presumption by proving a lack of involvement in the production and distribution of the film in Ontario.

In what should be an extremely intriguing copyright case moving forward, Pourshian seeks a declaration that he owns the intellectual property to the screenplay, live theatrical production, and the short film Inside Out, and that the defendants infringed his copyright through their production and distribution of��the Disney film. In addition, he is seeking a permanent injunction and damages, which would be significant given that Inside Out more than $850 million worldwide. Interestingly, Pourshian has been in a similar U.S. claim, voluntarily withdrawing a 2018 California lawsuit two months after it was filed.

The post Judge Partially Flips Decision “Inside Out” as "Pourshian v Walt Disney Company" Moves Forward in Ontario appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Meena Alnajar is an��IPilogue��Writer, IP Innovation Clinic Fellow,��and a 2L JD Candidate at��Osgoode��Hall Law School.��

��

Costumes can memorialize iconic movie characters even off-screen. Behind every costume is a designer whose vision and design breathes life into characters. But behind every designer, other figures may undercut and miscredit them.

�پ����Ա��’s Cruella, , tells the story of two haute couture designers battling for recognition in the fashion industry. The film is also an origin story for . Oscar-winning costume designer created the film’s mesmerizing costumes with plenty of colour, whimsy, and, of course, animal prints. Life now imitates art as Beavan battles Disney for attribution for her work.

Beavan that Disney discussed co-branded products for Target and Singer Corporation as well as a possible fashion collection. But these talks ceased once production on the movie ended. Then, in May 2021, the fashion brand advertised a new, officially-licensed Cruella-inspired collection—without Beavan’s knowledge or attribution.

This is not the first time this has happened, even recently. In 2020, a licensed Harley Quinn-inspired did not involve the film’s costume designer, . These incidences raise the question: are creators unfairly excluded from these licensing processes?

The answered that question in June 2021 by calling out �پ����Ա��’s practice in reference to the Cruella-inspired licensing. Disney has . CDG President Salvador Pérez Jr. : “Our work is reproduced for toys, costumes, fashion collections and more. Not only are we not allowed to participate in the profits made off of the merchandising, we aren’t even credited for our work on the original designs.”

Licensing requires ownership of the designs, which calls into question who owns a costume—the costume designer or the production company who them? Many costume designers’ contracts with big production companies currently . There are, however, some exceptions. , the designer for the television show Mad Men, entered a multi-year collaboration for a .

Conflict arises in contracts’ terms. Contracts typically allocate the rights to the film, , to the company. However designers may push back by arguing that . Many designers believe that they do not sign away their ownership rights for external merchandising or collaborations, while production companies counter that this is implied in their contracts. Two apparent approaches can resolve these contractual issues.

First, designers can negotiate and carefully draft s. But this approach can be unpredictable. Merchandising opportunities may only arise when designs become popular or if the film is successful. Further, it is uncertain how much of the costume design will be included in future merchandise. Creating a film character involves many contributors, so the merchandise may not relate to the character’s costume and therefore for the costume designer.

The second approach is more collaborative. Costume designers can pitch collaborations with certain brands to the production companies, , to ensure their attributions. But this approach also carries uncertainty based on whether companies would agree to such collaborations prior to the film’s release.

While the Cruella-inspired line continues to generate discussions on designer ownership and compensation, the issue still depends on whether big production companies will collaborate with individual designers beyond what they create for films. With the CDG’s continued public support, the film industry could implement changes to allow designers to receive compensation for not just their designs, but for their ability to immortalize characters through merchandise and fashion lines.

The post Cruella Costume Licensing: A Fashion Faux Pas appeared first on IPOsgoode.