[Updated January 15, 2012: I changed the post title, because I am still learning that search engines dislike non-literal titles. The original title was “‘W”‘ Stands for Infringement.”]
An emerging by-product of Pittsburgh’s claim to be a new entertainment capital (see blog post here – the claim is not entirely without merit, as a lawyer might say) is that the incumbent local copyright / trademark academic gets a particular blend of interesting questions from the local media.
Last week, I explained the in’s and out’s of infringment of music copyright to the music critic of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (you read that right: a small urban daily still has a music critic!) in connection with an allegation that Pittsburgh’s own hip hop megastar, Wiz Khalifa, appropriated “Black and Yellow” from a local unknown, who recorded “Pink and Yellow.” The problems that Wiz’s accuser faces are two-fold. One, it appears to be unlikely that Wiz ever heard or otherwise had access to the plaintiff’s song. Two, on my quick listen, the original elements of the songs don’t sound much like each other. The core of the claim seems to be the similarity in the titles — “and Yellow” — which is a thin foundation for a successful copyright suit.
Today, the local angle is Andy Warhol, son of Pittsburgh. The Velvet Underground has sued the Andy Warhol Foundation, which administers rights to the late artist’s works, for trademark infringement. I haven’t seen the complaint, but I am told that VU is unhappy that the Foundation licensed the banana image that Warhol designed for the band’s 1967 debut, Velvet Underground and Nico, for use on i-related (that is, Apple iPad-related) products.
The IP issues there are a little bit tortuous.
The complaint apparently alleges that Warhol’s banana image was never “officially copyrighted.” Presumably the reference is to the possibility that the work was distributed (as cover art) without an appropriate copyright notice. I don’t have a copy of the album lying around, but if you do, you can check that. If there was no notice on the cover, then there’s a good chance that the image itself went into the public domain — the copyright public domain, that is, right away. Just about anything is possible in IP, but that (the absence of notice) strikes me as unlikely. The other argument that VU has raised is that the image was in the public domain in the first place, apparently because Warhol based his design on a picture of an actual banana. That argument is unlikely to fly, unless Warhol’s banana is actually identical to the source banana image. If Warhol made any “creative” changes to the source image, then there’s little doubt that a valid copyright was possible. Nevertheless, it’s possible that copyright is out of the picture. If the image is protected by a valid copyright, then the Foundation has an argument under Dastar that arguable trademark claims should not interfere with the Foundation’s right to license the image. That preemption argument would keep anyone from even getting to the points in the next paragraph.
As for the trademark claim, the suit apparently alleges that the banana image has become the very symbol of the VU. That may be true, but that doesn’t quite establish the band’s trademark rights; the legal question is whether the band has used the mark commercially so that consumers have come to associate the mark as designating the source of products (or services) that the mark is attached to. Let’s assume that the band can make *that* case. Then the question is whether the Foundation infringed the mark — used it in commerce in a way that caused likely consumer confusion. Usually, one would think that any arguable confusion would arise at the point that the mark is used on the i-products (an iPad cover, say), but it appears that the actual sellers of the products are not targeted. I’m guessing that the producers don’t have assets worth pursuing. The Foundation clearly does. But the tie between signing the license and causing consumer confusion seems … pretty weak. VU may be Waiting for the Man to provide trademark redress, but at the end of the day, I predict a case of There She Goes Again.
Updated Jan. 13 2012: Here is a link to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette story about the case. The story doesn’t get the issue right; the question is not whether the public associates the banana image with VU or with Warhol. The question is whether the defendant’s use of the mark (assuming that it is a mark), in connection with goods or services, causes a likelihood of confusion in the minds of consumers. I’ve now had a chance to read the Complaint. The key allegation reads this way: “The use of the Mark on goods purportedly licensed by defendant will likely cause, and continue to cause, confusion, mistake or deception as to the source or affiliation of such third party goods.” If that’s the crux of the case, then I don’t think that the Complaint alleges facts sufficient to meet the statutory definition. The Warhol Foundation has a decent chance of getting the trademark claims dismissed.