Category: intellectual property

Categories
intellectual property internet law Uncategorized

Beer, the Lions, and Intellectual Property: An Updated Cautionary Thanksgiving Tale.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Update: Since I originally published this article, Eastern Market Brewing has resolved its issues with Barry Sanders and no longer uses his likeness on the beer can. Same Old Lager is available again, and instead of a Lions player wearing the number 20, the brewery’s mascot graces the can against a pixilated, video-game style football field. The marketing and slogans still stand and continue to play on the Lions’ reputation for mediocrity – and perhaps Eastern Market can capitalize on the Lions’ recent coaching and GM change to push their cleverly branded lager.

Still, many lessons here for any enterprising business owner. Intellectual property law has many hidden pitfalls, and falling into one not only will cost legal fees to defend against a cease-and-desist, but also disrupt your marketing and sales.

Detroit’s own Eastern Market Brewing Company came up with a genius marketing idea: a beer called “Same Old Lager,” a clever play on the “same old Lions” saying that has become familiar to Detroit football fans after years of mediocre results. The slogan for the crisp 4.5% ABV lager is “don’t set your expectations too high” and the beer itself was announced the same day the Lions suffered a crushing 20-0 defeat to the Panthers, and just about a week out from the Lions’ annual Thanksgiving game. Clever marketing, impeccable timing, free media attention. Hit product, right?

Wrong. Apparently someone forgot to run the new product by their lawyer or if they did, their lawyer missed a big problem. The day after the new lager was announced, it was removed from sales in response to Barry Sanders’ cease-and-desist for unauthorized use of his likeness on the cans. The retro-video-game-style logo featured a pixelated football player in a Lions uniform with the number 20 (Barry Sanders’ famous number) carrying a football against a gridiron backdrop. Mr. Sanders quickly took to social media to disclaim any affiliation with the product and announced that his image was being used without his permission. As quickly as the new beer was announced, production and sales were halted. Opportunity lost and a genius marketing plan derailed.

I have previously written about Peloton and how the billion-dollar publicly-traded behemoth was facing millions dollars in liability for unlicensed use of music in their workout videos. In today’s digital world, intellectual property rights are more critical than ever, and the Eastern Market snafu is just the latest example of how (presumably inadvertent) infringement can happen. So what did the company do wrong? And how could they have done it right?

What did they do wrong?

The brewery’s marketing ploy was actually very clever. Nothing in the slogan or description expressly referred to the Lions. The Detroit Lions is a valuable trademark, along with the logo, so Eastern Market obviously did not want to pay for its use or licensing. A marketing campaign that riffs on the Lions’ reputation for consistent mediocrity, but does not expressly reference the Lions does not violate the trademark itself. In a nutshell, trademark law prohibits unauthorized use of a mark in a manner that is likely to cause confusion about the source of the goods or services. When something is clearly parody, let alone does not use the actual mark, there is no trademark violation. In other words, no one can reasonably claim that they think a beer called “Same Old Lager” is somehow actually endorsed by the Detroit Lions.

The problem was not trademark law – rather, it was the “right to publicity.” A pixelated video-game likeness of a Lions player wearing Barry Sanders’ famous number 20 jersey graces the front of the can. Generally, a celebrity like Mr. Sanders owns the rights to his own image and has the right to control its distribution. Here, the brewery used Mr. Sanders’ likeness on the beer, implying his endorsement. Accordingly, his legal team took action, which lead Eastern Market to take down its new product, likely pending a new can design. Even if Eastern Market decided to make the case in court and fight back, the campaign momentum has been disrupted, and even so, Mr. Sanders’ case appears to be fairly strong and supported by decades of caselaw. The “right to publicity” is a concept dating back to the 1950s and is related to copyright law, although they two are not the same. There are cases that have protected everything from Vanna White’s likeness that Samsung tried to replicate as a robot, to Bette Midler’s voice, to Johnny Carson’s catchphrase “Here’s Johnny,” to a human cannonball circus act. And, of course, there is a number of exceptions, including when a likeness is used for educational purposes, news items, public issues, and even “entertainment and amusement concerning interesting aspects of an individual’s identity.”

How could they have done it right?

The brewery should have requested a legal opinion from an attorney approving the marketing as well as the packaging. Once the attorney flagged the right to publicity issue and the possible misuse of Barry Sanders’ likeness, a minor redesign would have likely taken care of the issue. Changing the number of the player, removing the number, changing the uniform colors, or any other number of tweaks are possible options. Another potential issue is the design’s likeness to the beloved retro football game “Tecmo Bowl” – and an attorney should have researched and cleared that issue (potential copyright infringement) as well before the design went to print.

The bottom line is that the marketing team can get ahead of the legal team. Copyright, trademarks, patents, licensing, and the “right to publicity” are all important concepts that all business owners should be aware of. Doing it right may cost a little bit more in the short run, but can avoid significant costs down the line.

Need a legal opinion about your marketing campaign? New logo? Design? Product? Contact Dan Artaev by email or by text or call today to set up your free consultation.

Disclaimer: This article is for general informational and promotional purposes only. Nothing herein constitutes legal advice and is the author’s individual opinion. Every business is different and faces its own unique set of challenges. Do not take any action with respect to your business until you have obtained specific guidance from a qualified professional.

© 2020 Artaev at Law PLLC. All rights reserved.

Categories
business law esports gaming law intellectual property

A Lesson in Licenses and Why You Own Nothing.

In 2019, Fortnite went offline. No one could play, stream, compete, or access their account. This was part of an in-game “event” known as the Fortnite Blackout or The End. Can Epic Games do that? What rights do you even have as a player, team owner, or competitor? It all comes down to the End User License Agreement (EULA) – so leave it to a gaming lawyer to use Fortnite to teach you about the critical role of licensing in the digital age!

By way of background, Fortnite is certainly one of the most –if not the most popular video game in the world. The game, which is available as free download on modern consoles, PCs, and even iPhones, is a hit with kids, teens, adults, professional athletes, celebrities, and even Prince Harry (the Duke of Sussex) who got so addicted that he called for the game to be banned in Britain. True story. It has also evolved into an international eSport phenomenon, with this year’s World Cup Finals winner taking home a cool $3 million check. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of professional gamers and streamers across the world that make this game their career. Epic Games, the game’s owner and creator, is estimated to have earned between $2.4 and $3 billion from the game in 2018 alone. This is particularly impressive given that the game is free to download and play, with all of the revenue coming from in-game cosmetic content, such as different character outfits.

Now imagine if one day all of that was suddenly gone. Epic shuts down the servers and Fortnite no longer exists. Well, this actually happened (at least for about 24 hours)–during the Fortnite Blackout or The End event. The hundreds of hours you spent playing, earning points, and ranking? Gone. Did you spend all of your birthday money on new outfits so you could look like a James Bond villain in the game? Gone. Even worse if you are a professional gamer who made Fortnite a career. Or a team owner who invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into building the next world champion. What can you do? Who can you sue?

The simple answer is NOTHING and NO ONE. Because you have to understand licensing. And the fact that the traditional concepts of ownership–i.e. I pay money for something therefore I own it–do not transfer to the digital world. Did you read the EULA that you have to accept before logging into Fortnite? I didn’t think so. Yet it contains important rights and obligations–especially if you play professionally. The reality is, by playing Fortnite and even paying real money to “buy” in-game characters, weapons, etc., you own nothing. In simple terms, Epic Games grants you a license to play the game at its sole discretion, but Epic Games owns and controls everything and anything within the game, even the content that you paid real money for.

The Fortnite EULA is a license, which is a right to do something, or access something. Think of it like a ticket to go see a football game or a concert, but in this case it is a ticket that gives you access to a video game. In legal terms, what distinguishes a license is the fact that it is a “revocable” right, meaning the licensor (the owner of the license) can terminate the licensee’s rights of access at any time, subject to any conditions of the license. So what terms do you agree to when playing Fortnite?

Epic grants you a “personal, non-exclusive…limited right and license to install and use the Software…for you personal entertainment use.” Also, ” The Software is licensed, not sold, to you under the License. The License does not grant you any title or ownership in the Software. ” Ok, but can Epic just shut down the game? Yes–read on–” You also acknowledge that any character data, game progress, game customization or other data related to your use of the Software or Services may cease to be available to you at any time without notice from Epic….”

What about all the real money you paid for skins, custom characters, etc.? You get that back, right? Nope. Read on–” Epic, in its sole discretion, has the absolute right to manage, modify, substitute, replace, suspend, cancel or eliminate Game Currency or Content, including your ability to access or use Game Currency or Content, without notice or liability to you.” Meaning, you do not really own any “game currency” or the “content” that you bought–in fact, all you are acquiring when you are “purchasing in-game content” is another license to use the currency or the content that you purchase with the currency for as long as Epic wants.

It’s not really so confusing. When you downloaded and played Fortnite, you agreed that Epic owns everything and you own nothing. If you paid any money to Epic for skin or custom parachute, Epic gave you a license to use that particular skin or parachute. You paid for the “experience”–not a tangible item itself. That’s licensing.

Of course, this reality creates a whole host of follow-up questions. What happens to content I create using Fortnite’s creative mode? Does Epic own that too? Short answer is YES. What about streamers who make a living playing Fortnite? Professional gamers? Team owners? Fortnite World Cup sponsors? There is no easy answer there, as each situation is fact-specific and depends on the various terms of the license agreements, any sponsorship agreements, intellectual property law, etc.

The Fortnite Blackout was a lesson in “ownership” in the digital age. Traditional concepts of ownership do not apply or transfer to to the digital realm. Music, video, games, and even photos that you upload or post on social media–are not “yours” in the traditional sense. Rather, there is an increasingly complex web of rights that becomes even more complex when gaming is a business.

So, like any business owner, if you are investing time, money, and effort into a game–with the idea to play professionally, make streaming revenue, or to otherwise make it in the gaming business–engage and consult with an eSports attorney. Understanding your rights and obligations will help you craft an effective business strategy going forward, and plan for contingencies and er…singularities.

Have more questions? Contact Dan Artaev at dan@artaevatlaw.com or 269-930-0254 to set up your free initial consultation.

© 2020 Artaev at Law PLLC. All rights reserved.

Categories
business law intellectual property

Don’t Spin Out: 5 Lessons for Every Business Owner From the Peloton Copyright Lawsuit.

Those of you who follow me on Instagram know that I am the #Trilawyer (basically, a lawyer whose hobby is doing triathlons). The cycling leg just happens to be my favorite, I love going to spin class at the gym, and I am also a big fan of watching pro cycling on TV. So obviously when I saw the news featuring BOTH the law and indoor cycling training, I had to write about it. A group of music publishers are suing Peloton, the company behind those heavily advertised stationary bikes and on-demand spin classes, for allegedly using popular music in their on-demand videos without the proper licenses.

The Peloton situation actually provides some valuable lessons for every business owner, regardless of industry. But first, some background on what happened with Peloton, at least according to the plaintiffs’ one-sided view in the Complaint. For those who have not seen their advertising barrage, Peloton is a public company that sells high-end stationary bikes and treadmills. How high end? A spin bike will set you back a couple thousand dollars, but luckily you can finance it with low low monthly payments over 36 months (just like your TV, couch, cell phone, pure-bred poodle, and anything else these days). The treadmills are even more expensive at something like $5k, but the lawsuit is about the spin bikes.

Why would someone pay $2000+ for a stationary bike when you can buy a great one for $300-400 on Amazon? I have no idea. But one of Peloton’s central marketing points is a subscription service (for a separate monthly fee) that will give you access to streaming fitness videos, spin instruction, competitions, and other content that simulates an in-studio workout from your mid-town high-rise apartment or summer chalet or weekend home in the Hamptons. At least according to the commercials.

If you have ever been to a spin class at the gym, you know that the instructor’s playlist is a big part of the experience. The instructor plays a list of songs for the workout session that are generally synchronized to the tempo of the current workout intervals. For example, if the instructor wants the class to sprint at 110 RPMs on a flat road (meaning easy resistance), then she may play something fast and upbeat to get the class going. If the session calls for hills at 60-70 RPMs and heavy resistance, then she may play something slower and heavier to match the workout. Peloton offers a library of pre-recorded workout sessions that it streams to subscribers and like the in-gym spin classes, the recordings feature an instructor with a playlist taking the participants through a particular class. The problem – according to the lawsuit – is that Peloton does not have permission to use the musical content in its workout videos. In the world of copyright law, a company must have the proper license for commercial use before it can use music as part of its business. In the case of videos synchronized to music, the law requires what is called a “sync” license that permits that particular song to be used with a specific video. Apparently Peloton failed to secure those “sync” licenses for at least some of the videos that it broadcasts. Copyright law also provides for punitive damages for willful violation of copyright, and Peloton may be facing a steep price tag if the court determines that Peloton’s failure to secure licenses was a deliberate decision. Which it very well may have been, as it is surprising to think that a company that size missed a rather obvious music licensing issue.

Whatever the merits of the litigation, and whatever the outcome, there are some important takeaways for all business owners from this lawsuit. Even if you have never been inside a spin studio, even if you do not use music at your business, there are still valuable lessons to be keep in mind:

  1. Trying to save a few bucks at the beginning may cost you big bucks later on. The most common reaction online to the Peloton lawsuit is that “how could a big public company not have seen this coming?” Peloton grew quickly, and it may be possible that the company deliberately skipped paying licensing fees at the beginning to save money, but this attempt to scrimp at the outset may end up costing millions down the road. This is why no matter your size, it is important to properly budget and anticipate all expenses. For example, talk to an insurance agent you can trust and get the right amount of insurance coverage for your business. Buy workers’ compensation insurance. Comply with MIOSHA regulations. Hire a lawyer to draft a proper business agreement between you and your partner to reflect your respective rights and obligations to the company. Do not co-mingle personal and business bank accounts. You get the picture – a cheap shortcut now can come back and cost you much more money in the future. It could even potentially sink your entire business.
  2. What may seem like common sense to you may be illegal. You may be thinking – but if I buy a CD at the store or a song from iTunes, don’t I own the music? Can’t I play it for whoever and whereever I want? It may be common sense that you own something that you buy, but it is not always true, especially in the modern age of digital media. With respect to music for example, you are often buying a license for personal, in-home use. Say you have a bar or a restaurant, and you decide to play your own iPod playlist over the speakers for atmosphere. Without a separate license, you just violated the music studio’s copyright and can be sued. Or, if you decide to start your own weekend DJ business using your old LPs. Same thing – the CD you buy at the store to listen to in your car does not give you the right to play that same CD at a wedding for money. Sound confusing and counter-intuitive? It may be, but it also protects the rights of the music publisher and keeps the cost of CDs and iTunes singles accessible to the general public. The bottom line is that you need to consult with a professional about all aspects of your business to make sure you are doing it the right way, and to ensure compliance with all applicable laws. And the right professional will identify all the relevant issues, not just the obvious ones.
  3. You are never too big (or too small) to be sued. You might also be thinking, oh who cares, I run a mom-and-pop gas station/grocery store/bar and no one is going to sue me for playing my CD collections over the speakers. Or you might think, my business partner is my friend, he will never sue me. My employees are all like family, right? Wrong. Just one example is a string of lawsuits filed against nightclubs for playing songs without the proper commercial license in 2016. From my own experience as a business litigator, there are far too many cases where business partners break up and decide to sue each other because they never had a written agreement. Actually, one of the major reasons to create a separate legal entity for your business – like an LLC – is to anticipate lawsuits and to protect your personal home, car, and bank account in case of unanticipated trouble. Luckily, creating the right corporate entity and maintaining corporate formalities to ensure protection are not particularly complex or expensive endeavors, and should be done by all business owners.
  4. Anticipate and budget for lawsuits as the cost of doing business. You can take all of the precautions in the world, hire the best attorneys, and run a flawless business. You are still going to get sued. That’s the reality of doing business. There may be a disagreement with a supplier over the quality of the product supplied. One of your workers may get injured on the job. Or, a vengeful ex-partner or employee may decide to use entirely frivolous litigation to harass and extort you. Thus, it is critical to budget for such eventualities just like you budget for utilities, rent, or salaries. I have counseled numerous businesses who think that they can handle a legal proceeding in-house, and end up creating more trouble for themselves that then costs MORE money to untangle down the road. It is a great idea to treat litigation as just a cost of doing business, set aside some funds each month, and have a lawyer on retainer, so that when you do get sued, your attorney can jump on the case right away and minimize any damage.
  5. Hire the right lawyers to review all aspects of your company. Of course, you have to have the right people for the job. Contact a knowledgeable and well-rounded business attorney like me to provide a consultation for your business. That way you can make sure that you have all the right documents, that you have secured the necessary licenses, and that you are fully prepared in case something goes sideways. And remember, there is always someone willing to do it cheaper. Choose your professional wisely!

Contact attorney Dan Artaev today at dan@artaevatlaw.com or by phone or text at (269) 930-0254.

© 2020 Artaev at Law PLLC. All rights reserved.

Exit mobile version