https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/10/etrade-defeats-copyright-claim-over-dancing-old-man-in-commercial-vacchi-v-etrade.htm Mon, 14 Oct 2019 19:48:50 +0000 hourly 1 https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/10/etrade-defeats-copyright-claim-over-dancing-old-man-in-commercial-vacchi-v-etrade.htm#comment-2426 Mon, 14 Oct 2019 19:48:50 +0000 https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=20493#comment-2426 […] E*Trade Defeats Copyright Claim Over Dancing Old Man in Commercial–Vacchi v. E*Trade (Eric Goldman) […]

]]> https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/10/etrade-defeats-copyright-claim-over-dancing-old-man-in-commercial-vacchi-v-etrade.htm#comment-2420 Tue, 08 Oct 2019 18:39:00 +0000 https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=20493#comment-2420 The court blew this one. She assumes that the character is protectable but grants a 12(b)(6) motion on no substantial similarity because E*Trade’s copy isn’t fit enough and wears suspenders? Silly. If you assume the other elements are met, these characters are certainly similar enough to survive a motion to dismiss. Not to mention that the Lanham Act claims get short shrift because of this as well. Oh, and she misstates that law on copying, leaving out the requirement for probative similarity. I don’t think a reasonable observer with experience working with creatives could look at these two characters and conclude that one is not a copy of the other. And wrist tattoos, bracelets, whatever kind of necklace that is, the haircut, the beard, and the glasses are not components of the stock “old man” character:

]]> https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/10/etrade-defeats-copyright-claim-over-dancing-old-man-in-commercial-vacchi-v-etrade.htm#comment-2419 Tue, 08 Oct 2019 15:12:00 +0000 https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=20493#comment-2419 There’s a typo somewhere in the chain.The two ads are actually from 2017, so no statute of limitations issue.

]]>