Copyright law grants a commercial monopoly over original expression embodied in fictional characters for a specific time. Thus, the copyrightability of created characters depends on their originality. However, free speech, fair use, and the public domain should not be affected by copyright protection. Conversely, the ideas which the characters are based on are outside the sphere of copyright protection. Problematically, it is not always easy to draw a clear, consistent line distinguishing between the elements of fictional characters which are protected, and those which are not. This paper scrutinises the U.K. and the U.S. Jurisprudence in order to clarify their perspectives on this matter.
2 Feldman, ‘Finding a Home for Fictional Characters: A Proposal for Change in Copyright Protection’ (1990) 78 California Law Review, 689.
3 Smith, ‘The Limits of Copyright: Property, Parody and the Public Domain’ (1993) 42(6) Duke Law Journal, 1243.
4 Biswas, ‘Copyrightability of Characters’ (2004) 9 Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 148.
5 Ibid, 148.
6 Ibid.
7 The Japanese version was called ‘The Jungle Emperor’.
2 Feldman, ‘Finding a Home for Fictional Characters: A Proposal for Change in Copyright Protection’ (1990) 78 California Law Review, 689.
3 Smith, ‘The Limits of Copyright: Property, Parody and the Public Domain’ (1993) 42(6) Duke Law Journal, 1243.
4 Biswas, ‘Copyrightability of Characters’ (2004) 9 Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 148.
5 Ibid, 148.
6 Ibid.
7 The Japanese version was called ‘The Jungle Emperor’.
14 U.S. Copyright Law and Related 1976 Title 17(101).
15 Petridis, ‘Comparative Issues on Copyright Protection for Films in the U.S. and Greece’ (2014) 19 Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 283.
16 Ibid, 283.
17 Biswas, op. cit., 149.
18 United Artists Corp. v. Ford Motor Co., 483 F. Supp. 89 [1980].
19 Feldman, op. cit., 697.
20 720 F.2d 231 [1983].
21 ‘Western Animation / Mickey Mouse’. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/WesternAnimation/MickeyMouse?from=Main.MickeyMouse accessed 9 April 2016.
22 Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates 581 F.2d 751 C.A. Cal. [1978].
23 Bently and Sherman, Intellectual Property Law (Oxford: OUP, 2014), 31.
24 University of London Press Ltd v. University Tutorial Press Ltd. 2 Ch 601 [1916].
25 Ang, ‘The Idea-Expression Dichotomy and Merger Doctrine in Copyright Laws of the U.S. and the U.K.’ (1994) 2(2) International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 126.
26 Bently & Sherman, op. cit., 94.
27 Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 [1991].
28 Kellogg, ‘The Problem of Fictional Facts: Idea, Expression and Copyright’s Balance between Author Incentive and Public Interest’ (2011) 58 Journal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A., 561.
29 Helfand, cited in Leon Kellman, op. cit., 624.
30 Bently & Sherman, op. cit., 95.
31 Petridis, op. cit., 286.
32 Detective Comics, Inc. v. Bruns Publications, Inc., 111 F.2d 432, 2d Cir. [1940].
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid.
35 Biswas, op. cit., 150–151.
36 Feldman, op. cit., 691.
37 In Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894, 9th Cir. [2002].
38 Feist, op. cit.
39 Kellogg, op. cit., 561.
40 Bently & Sherman, op. cit., 97–98.
41 Ibid.
42 Rahmatian, ‘Originality in U.K. Copyright Law: The Old “Skill and Labour” Doctrine under Pressure’ (2013) 44(1) International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 12.
43 Ibid, 12.
44 Bauman v. Fussell 1953 CA [1978].
45 Ladbroke Ltd v. William Hill 1 WLR 273 [1964].
46 Bently & Sherman, op. cit., 95.
47 DC Comics v. Mark Towle, 802 F.3d 1012, 9th Cir. [2015].
48 Ibid.
49 Makulilo, ‘Holy Copyright Law, Batman! The Batmobile is a Copyright Character’ (2016) 11(1) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 13–14.
50 Bezpečnostní Softwarová Asociace C-393/09 [2010].
51 Football Association Premier League & Others v. QC Leisure & Others C-403/08 [2011].
52 Bently & Sherman, cited in Mann, op. cit., 76–77.
53 Lucasfilm Ltd v. Ainsworth EWCA Civ 1328 [2009].
54 Liu, ‘The New Public Domain’ (2013) 4 University of Illinois Law Review, 1445.
55 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) s 12(2). Helfand, op. cit., 629.
56 Kuhne, ‘The Steadily Shrinking Public Domain: Inefficiencies of Existing Copyright Law in the Modern Technology Age’ (2004) 50 Loyola Law Review, 555.
57 CDPA s 17.
58 Ibid, s 18 & Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 1993 Ch II, art 2.
59 Ibid, s 19.
60 Ibid, s 21.
61 Ibid, s 16(2).
62 Allan, ‘After Bridgeman: Copyright, Museums and Public Domain Works of Art’ (2007) 155(4) University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 982.
63 Smith, op. cit., 1245–1247.
64 Madi, ‘Mash-Up Songs: Are There Any Exceptions to the Exclusive Rights in the Light of the Jordanian Copyright Protection and Related Rights Law?’ (2015) 18(3) The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 91–92.
65 Chatelain, ‘Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Copyright Law: Fan Fiction, Derivative Works, and the Fair Use Doctrine’ (2012) 15 Tulane Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 206.
66 Katz, ‘Expanded Notions of Copyright Protection: Idea Protection within the Copyright Act’ (1997) 70 Boston University Law Review, 883.
67 Feldman, op. cit., 696.
68 Christian, ‘Fan Fiction and the Fair Use Doctrine’ (2013) 65(3–4) The Serials Librarian, 281.
69 Warner Bro. Pictures, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 216 F.2d 945 [1954].
70 Ibid.
71 Helfand, op. cit., 633.
72 Christian, op. cit., 281.
73 Ibid, 281.
74 Ibid.
75 Ibid.
76 Ibid, 282.
77 Schuster, ‘Fair Use and Licensing of Derivative Fiction: A Discussion of Possible Latent Effects of the Commercialization of Fan Fiction’ (2014) 55 South Texas Law Review, 537.
78 Masnick, ‘Wizard of Oz Court Ruling Suggests Moviemakers can Reclaim Parts of The Public Domain and Put it under Copyright’ (8 July 2011) https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110707/13110415001/wizard-oz-court-ruling-suggests-moviemakers-can-reclaim-parts-public-domain-put-it-under-copyright.shtml accessed 12 April 2016.
79 Warner Bros. Entm’t v. X One X Productions, 10-1743 [2011] & Dowd.
80 ‘Eighth Circuit: Adding a Phrase or Dimension to Public Domain Work is Copyright Infringement’ (Copyright Litigation Blog, 6 July 2011) http://copyrightlitigation.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/eighth-circuit-adding-phrase-or.html accessed 12 April 2016.
81 Ang, op. cit., 116–117.
82 Anderson v. Stallone, 11 USPQ2D 1161 [1989].
92 Crockett, op. cit.
93 U.S. Constitution s 8.
94 Reese, ‘Is the Public Domain Permanent?: Congress’s Power to Grant Exclusive Rights in Unpublished Public Domain Works’ (2007) 30 Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 532–533.
95 Jones, Lorenzen, & Sapsed, The Oxford Handbook of Creative Industries (Oxford: OUP 2015) 439.
96 Ibid, 440.
97 Ibid.
98 Reese, op. cit., 534.
99 Ibid, 534. See also U.S. Constitution s 8.
100 Kellogg, op. cit., 557.
101 Helfand, op. cit., 655.
102 Liu, op. cit., 1440.
103 Ibid, 1441.
104 Ibid.
105 Silverman v. CBS, Inc, 870 F.2d 40 [1989].
106 Ibid.
+
83 Schuster, op. cit., 537.
84 Liu, op. cit., 1404.
85 Ibid.
86 Ibid, 1400.
87 Ibid.
88 The term of protection was not more than 56 years. Helfand, op. cit., 643.
89 Crockett, ‘How Mickey Mouse Evades the Public Domain’ (Pricenomics, 7 January 2016) http://priceonomics.com/how-mickey-mouse-evades-thepublic-domain/ accessed 18 April 2016.
90 Ibid. Helfand, cited Kellman, op. cit., 626–643.
91 Helfand, op. cit., 673.
92 Crockett, op. cit.
93 U.S. Constitution s 8.
94 Reese, ‘Is the Public Domain Permanent?: Congress’s Power to Grant Exclusive Rights in Unpublished Public Domain Works’ (2007) 30 Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 532–533.
95 Jones, Lorenzen, & Sapsed, The Oxford Handbook of Creative Industries (Oxford: OUP 2015) 439.
96 Ibid, 440.
97 Ibid.
98 Reese, op. cit., 534.
99 Ibid, 534. See also U.S. Constitution s 8.
107 Liu, op. cit., 1442.
108 Ibid, 1444.
109 Rahmatian, op. cit., 26.
110 Ibid, 26.
111 Kellogg, op. cit., 556.
112 Ibid, 558.
113 Helfand, op. cit., 628.
114 Dery, ‘Culture Jamming: Hacking, Slashing, and Sniping in the Empire of Signs’ (2010) Scripted, 5.
115 Egner, ‘Intellectual Property–Trademark Law–Victor/Victoria?—The United States Supreme Court Requires Trademark Dilution Plaintiffs to Show Actual Harm. Moseley v. Victoria’s Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 U.S.
115 Egner, ‘Intellectual Property–Trademark Law–Victor/Victoria?—The United States Supreme Court Requires Trademark Dilution Plaintiffs to Show Actual Harm. Moseley v. Victoria’s Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 U.S. 418 (2003)’ (2004) 26 University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review, 318.
116 Bunker, ‘Mired in Confusion: Nominative Fair Use in Trademark Law and Freedom of Expression’ (2015) 20(3) Communication Law and Policy, 195–196. This would be a device to silence speakers through the threat of an infringement lawsuit in every criticism or mocking.
117 Rimmer, ‘The Black Label: Trade Mark Dilution, Culture Jamming and the No Logo Movement’ (2008) Scripted, 81 & 100.
118 Ibid, 101.
119 Helfand, op. cit., 630.
120 Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates, 581 F.2d 751 [1978].
121 Elsmere Music, Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co., 482 F. Supp 741 [1980].
122 Denicola, ‘Copyright and Free Speech: Constitutional Limitations on the Protection of Expression’ (1979) 67(2) California Law Review, 284.
123 Kuwahara, op. cit., 37.
124 Hobbs & Rice, Gender and Women’s Studies in Canada: Critical Terrain (Canada: Webcom 2013), 337.
125 Klein, No Logo (New York: Picador 2009), 287.
126 Ibid, 287.
127 Said, op. cit., 770.
128 Ibid, 771.
129 Ibid, 772.
130 Ibid.
131 Petridis, op. cit., 286.
132 Ibid, cited Nolan 281.
133 Chatelain, op. cit., 201.
134 Bilsky, ‘From Parts Unknown: WWE v. JIM Heewig in the Ultimate Battle for Character Copyright’ (2009) 19(2) Marquette Sports Law Review, 429.
135 Helfand, cited Judge Hand. op. cit., 632.
136 Aplin & Davis, Intellectual Property Law: Text, Cases and Materials (Oxford: OUP 2013), 51.
137 Hill v. Whalen & Martell, D.C.N.Y. 220 F. 359 [1914].
138 Chung, ‘Drawing Idea from Expression: Creating a Legal Space for Culturally Appropriated Literary Characters’ (2007) 49(3) William and Mary Law Review, p. 912.
139 Schuster, op. cit., 536.
140 Bilsky, op. cit., 429.
LLM in Information Technology and Intellectual Property Rights, University of Sussex; LLM in International Commercial Law, University of Sussex; LLM in Private Law, University of Kuwait; Senior Legal Researcher in Civil Service Commission of Kuwait.
(2017). Copyright Protection of Fictional Characters in Films: U.K. and U.S. Perspectives. Legal issues Journal, 5 (1), https://www.legalissuesjournal.com/article/05-01-12012017/
