Law and Magic Blog

A Little More On That Globo TV Lawsuit

Here's a little more on that Brazilian magicians' lawsuit against Globo TV, courtesy of  Vicenç Feliu, a law librarian here at LSU Law.

...[this case was up in the Tribunal of Justice, court of first instance of the State of Rio Grande do Sul; Judge Eduardo Khote Werlang of the 11ª Vara Cível de Porto Alegre (11^th Civil Chamber of Porto Alegre) presiding.  The decision was passed on 30 April 2003 and the docket number was 00101156694. There were 21 magicians (see list at bottom of message) bringing suit against Rede Globo and their attorneys were Dr. Marco Antonio Birnfeld and Dr. Marcio Oliveira Puggina, who died on 01 October 2001, while the case was ongoing. As you know, the judge ruled in their favor. I have searched the court’s website (http://www.tj.rs.gov.br) using the docket number as well as different combinations of the known facts and have been unable to find any documents related to this case.  I have also searched the web and beyond finding more news items, like the one you have, or blog entries, I have not been able to find any actual official court documents.   

Vicenç 

List of magicians: 

• - Andréa Araújo Viana (ANDREA)
• - Leda dos Santos Souza (PASSOQUINHA)
• - Andréia Maria Alexandre Henrique (MARY)
• - Caetano Miguel Tótaro Neto (ROCAMITONI)
• - Claudio Alves Machado (WULLICHANG)
• - Daniel Silveira Pereira (LE DENIER)
• - Edgar Poggetti (IBIS)
• - Guacira Terezinha da Silva (GUACIRA)
• - Hilton da Rosa Melecchi (HIDROMEL)
• - José Benedito Galtieri Filho (MAGRINE Jr.)
• - Juliana Cristofari (JULLY)
• - Marco Antonio Rodrigues (THU)
• - Maria Lucia Schneider (LÚCIA)
• - Paulo Roberto Britto Martins (TONY) – Actual Presidente
• - Rita de Cássia Vareira dos Santos (RITA)
• - Sérgio Albino Schneider (ALBIN)
• - Solange Carvalho Araújo (SOLANGE)
• - Valéria Martinak Soares (VALÉRIA)
• - Vera Lúcia Santana Dias (ALINE)
• - Vilson José Schneider (VILSON)
• - Vitor Hugo Cardia (KARDINI)

District Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against James Randi For Lack of Jurisdiction

You may remember the lawsuits that Christopher Roller filed last year against James Randi and others (including David Copperfield in 2005, David Blaine, a church, and President Bush), claiming that these individuals had somehow infringed various of his rights. In the case of Mr. Randi, Mr. Roller alleged that the magician and skeptic had failed to pay him that famous one million dollars in spite of the fact that Mr. Roller had demonstrated paranormal powers, and also that the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) had "infringed" his patent on "godly powers." The district court eventually ruled as follows: 

"Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant also filed a motion to consolidate the two actions and a motion for sanctions for abuse of judicial process. The Magistrate Judge determined that Roller had failed to demonstrate that the defendant had "minimum contacts" in Minnesota sufficient to support a finding of personal jurisdiction. ...Roller's objections contain no new plausible allegations that defendant has minimum contacts in Minnesota. For this reason, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and grants defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendant's motion for sanctions requests that the Court impose a $ 25,000 fine on Roller that would be suspended if Roller ceases all litigation, threats, and contacts with defendant. The Magistrate Judge determined that Roller's litigation history constitutes an abuse of the judicial process, and that the Clerk of Court should be directed not to accept any further cases filed by Roller unless the pleading is signed by an attorney admitted to practice before this Court. In addition to the instant cases, Roller has filed no fewer than eleven actions in this District. Six of the seven adjudicated cases were dismissed for failure to state a claim or other pleading deficiencies under Rule 12(b), with the remaining case transferred for improper venue. In short, Roller has established a track record of frivolous litigation before this Court. The Court is mindful of the liberal standards applicable to pro se pleadings,... and it does not sanction lightly. But the "Court's goal of fairly dispensing justice is compromised when the Court is forced to devote its limited resources to the processing of repetitious and frivolous requests."... The Court therefore adopts the Report and Recommendation and grants defendant's motion for sanctions. However, the Court modifies the recommended sanction as follows. Roller shall be precluded from filing any additional actions in this Court against defendant, or regarding claims or allegations similar to those alleged in the Complaint, without the signature of an attorney admitted to practice before this Court or prior leave of an appointed judicial officer of the federal court of Minnesota."

The case is Roller v. James Randi Educational Foundation, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75506.

   

Legal Fallout From Those "Masked Magician" Specials

I was browsing for more information about possible legal fallout from the broadcast of the "Masked Magician" specials on the Fox network in the late 1990s and found an article published in the Herald Sun (Melbourne), dated June 4, 2003, called Magic Cat Is Out of the Bag. Apparently twenty-one Brazilian magicians sued the Globo TV network, Brazil's biggest, for broadcasting the specials, because the conjurors lost income after audiences saw the secrets of the illusions (and presumably lost interest in going to magic shows). One magician, Paulo Roberto Brito Martins, said he lost more than $800,000 in income. The court ruled that the network should pay each magician damages in the amount of his (or her) lost income. I'd be curious to know more about the legal basis for the ruling, and to get a copy of the opinion. Anybody out there have access to Brazilian case law? The case comes out of Rio Grande do Sul; the judge is Eduardo Kothe Werlang.

Michio Kako On Science Fiction Physics

In his provocative new book, Physics of the Impossible (Doubleday), Michio Kaku discusses all sorts of speculative technologies, particularly those that we've become used to through science fiction, like time travel, robots, and force fields. Many of them he explains as possible, and he lays out why for us folks who did not do well in high school physics. But a couple of them--precognition and perpetual motion machines--are what he calls "Class III impossibilities"--"technologies that violate the known laws of physics," and he explains why clearly, and with originality, they are a no go as far as that science is concerned. With regard to perpetual motion machines, he also repeats what IP lawyers know, which is that the US Patent Office won't grant a patent for such devices if the inventor doesn't supply a working model. Dr. Kako's latest book, like his other works, is easy to read for the non-specialist, and very informative.

Harry Potter and Copyright Law

Jay Dougherty, one of the contributors to the Law and Magic volume, is quoted in this thr.com article about the "Harry Potter Lexicon" lawsuit. He points out that a crucial question is the transformative nature of the use of the original materials.

In determining whether use of copyrighted materials is "fair use" a court looks at four factors:

1. the purpose and character of the use
2. the nature of the copyrighted work
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market.

Has Mr. van der Ark "transformed" or created something new out of the materials Ms. Rowling created? Or has he just copied hers?

But another question is the effect that the Lexicon will have on Ms. Rowling's sale of her proposed Lexicon or Encyclopedia. Will avid Potterites fail to buy her title because they've bought Mr. van der Ark's?

I don't know much about the first question; I haven't examined the Lexicon website that closely. But I can venture an answer to the second, having been around some Potterites. No. I cannot believe that those folks wouldn't buy ANYTHING Ms. Rowling writes. And after this lawsuit, they'll be even more curious to see what her book contains, and perhaps much less interested in the RDR title. So there.

FindLaw's Julie Hilden on the J. K. Rowling/RDR "Harry Potter" Lawsuit

FindLaw's Julie Hilden discusses the Rowling/RDR lawsuit here, evaluates the claims, and finds that Ms. Rowling has a good chance of winning her case.

More Harry Potter Testimony

Steven VanderArk testified April 16th in the Harry Potter lawsuit, and was apparently quite emotional on the stand, according to New York Times reporter Anemona Hartocollis.  Meanwhile, the blogosphere abounds with Potterisms, or at least titles: Harry Potter and the Supernatural Courtroom (from Gawker); Harry Potter and the Presentation of Power (from Mediabistro); J. K. Rowling and the Courtroom of Muggles (from the New York Times's Jennifer 8 Lee); Harry Potter and the Testimony of Fire (from MediaBistro); Fairuse Obliteratus (from Ars Technica); Harry Potter Goes to Court (P2P.net).

According to this AP account, the judge in the Harry Potter "Lexicon" case has told the parties they should try to settle their differences out of court. Judge Robert Patterson told Ms. Rowling and RDR Books that he believed that the case could "with imagination" be settled out of court. Both sides rested their case Wednesday. Read more here.

Here's an account of what happened on Wednesday. Ms. Rowling tried to be conciliatory--well, sort of--but it apparently fell flat.

Ms. Rowling told the judge in Federal District Court in Manhattan that she had been misunderstood. Mr. Vander Ark watched from the back of the room as the trial drew to a close.

“I never ever once wanted to stop Mr. Vander Ark from doing his own guide — never ever,” she said as she took the stand for the second time in the three-day trial, as the last rebuttal witness. “Do your book, but please, change it so it does not take as much of my work.”

The judge assured the courtroom that he really loved literature. But the lawyers soldiered on.

Ms. Rowling’s lawyer, Dale M. Cendali, concentrated on marketing, saying the guide could hurt Ms. Rowling’s ability to sell books and Warner Brothers’ interest in marketing movies and merchandise related to Harry Potter.

If the guide were published, Ms. Cendali said, she envisioned readers saying: “‘You know what? I guess I don’t really need the rest of the Harry Potter books because I just read the big giveaways.”

...

In his closing arguments, Anthony Falzone, another lawyer for the publisher, said that under the law, what mattered was not the quality of the book but whether it transformed Ms. Rowling’s material in some way....Mr. Falzone said that if spoiling plot points was a reason to suppress the book, as Ms. Cendali argued, then: “It’s spoiled all over the place. It’s everywhere. You’d have to suppress it all.”

In April 15th's New York Times, Motoko Rich further explores the Rowling lawsuit against RDR Books, which seeks to publish that Harry Potter encyclopedia by Steven VanderArk. Here's background: The J. K. Rowling lawsuit over Steven VanderArk's encyclopedia of everything Harry Potter, based on his website, began April 15. Ms. Rowling, the author of the fabulously famous and bestselling Harry Potter books, claims that Mr. VanArk's printed work infringes her copyright. Mr. VanArk (who's not being sued) and his publisher, the small RDR Books, which is, say it is a "reference guide" to her works, and as such is protected by the First Amendment. The RDR website provides links to its brief and other material filed in the case. Read more in a New York Times article here.

The Times offers a Harry Potter lawyercon (a guide not only to all things Potterish, but to J. K. Rowling's courtroom bouts, won and lost) here.

Harry Potter, Esq.

It's J. K. Rowling v. RDR Books, which proposes to publish The Harry Potter Lexicon, by Steven VanderArk, based on Mr. VanderArk's popular website of the same name. Ms. Rowling says that doing so would infringe her intellectual property rights, and she wants an injunction. RDR Books says allowing her to prevent the book's publication would infringe its (and Mr. VanderArk's) right of free speech. Showing this matter isn't just a quibble over Quidditch, it's on with the battle in a Manhattan courtroom today. Read more here in a New York Times article by Motoko Rich.

Post Your Spells!

From Cameron Parkins, in a post dated February 4, 2008:

Lysse Smith Wylle’s The Art of Magic Words, a book focused on spell poetry and magickal prose, is published with an instructional spell section licensed under a CC BY-NC-SA license.

Read more here.

Art Metrano ("The Amazing Metrano") Sues Fox For Infringement

William Patry has an interesting post on Art Metrano's case against Fox and The Family Guy, alleging that the network infringed on his comedy routine "The Amazing Metrano." Mr. Metrano no longer performs; he was injured in a fall at his home in 1989. Here's a link to the complaint against Fox from the tmz website. This case raises questions about the copyrightability of jokes and routines, an issue also raised in conjunction with magic tricks and routines--a very hot topic right now--as well as Lanham Act claims. Fox is likely to raise a parody defense. See also Rebecca Tushnet's post here. Here are clips of Mr. Metrano and "The Family Guy."