Lawsuit over marching technique ? ?

[ekrebs102]

I can understand copyrighting drills (not moves, just the whole show) and selling them, but how does one copyright a marching step?

A step would be functional. Not copyrightable I believe. Plus, one could argue that it is uncopyrightable because it is equivalent to copyrighting a single note or rhythm, which is not allowed. Those are the basic building blocks of music such as a step is the building block of a marching band performance. There are many ways that this could be argued. I guess I would really need to know what moves he is actually suing over. I am sure that it would be described in the petition somewhere. I must research.

Disclaimer:

This is not intended as legal advice.

[JimF-LowBari]

Good luck with that.

This guy doesn't realize that all people have to do is show videos of year and years of this technique going on before his said copyright and he won't have a leg to stand on.

And even if you copyright something like that, you have to protect it (IOW - go to court) everytime you see it used without your being compensated. At least that was the law in late 50s/early 60s.

That's how MAD Magazine got to legally use their Alfred E. Newman character. MAD was using it for a while and the grandchildren of the original artist sued to get the $$$$.

In court MAD proved that:

1) The "image in question" (Alfred E) had been used by others. (MAD asked readers to send in postcards, advertisments, etc to help their case. MAD was floored when a few hundred pieces with drawings that looked like Alfred came in.)

2) The original artist and descendants knew about the use of some of these images (testified in court).

3) Original artist and descendants did nothing about it (again testified in court).

Main reason why MAD was being sued was 'cause big $$$$ could be gotten. Or so was thought... Oooops....

[sburstall]

A step would be functional. Not copyrightable I believe. Plus, one could argue that it is uncopyrightable because it is equivalent to copyrighting a single note or rhythm, which is not allowed. Those are the basic building blocks of music such as a step is the building block of a marching band performance. There are many ways that this could be argued. I guess I would really need to know what moves he is actually suing over. I am sure that it would be described in the petition somewhere. I must research.

I know, that's what I'm trying to wrap my mind around. What precidence is there for such a thing? I don't hear about Dorothy Hamill sueing figure skaters for using the Hamil Camel in their routines. What I do is a someone who was promiced something (was there a written or verbal contract?) and it was broken. If he wants to sue on that ground, then he does have something to stand on, but a marching technique? The bad part was he found a lawyer that agreed to represent him.

[JerseyBoy_]

Is he saying he created the " roll step " ?

for he did not.

CHEZ

[jake_the_hydra]

Is he saying he created the " roll step " ?

for he did not.

CHEZ

I know someone who went to school there and they said they used a roll-step, so I guess so.

To some degree, he's definitely inferring it. Or implying. I forget which is which . . .

[prodigal bari]

I know, that's what I'm trying to wrap my mind around. What precidence is there for such a thing? I don't hear about Dorothy Hamill sueing figure skaters for using the Hamil Camel in their routines. What I do is a someone who was promiced something (was there a written or verbal contract?) and it was broken. If he wants to sue on that ground, then he does have something to stand on, but a marching technique? The bad part was he found a lawyer that agreed to represent him.

I am reading between the lines...but Bush was paid by both the band and the district for his work...and yes, he gave a friendly discount. My understanding of the law here (and I am neither pre-law or pre-med) is that once payment is made the work (if it is a drill design) becomes property of the clients (in which the director is the agent for the group, not the retainer of the product..it is now the school's property for the duration of the season).

With the disgruntlement of the director could there have been collusion between the former director, Bush..and the attorney..to pull this right at the end of the season? Also, I find it strange that they would sue the interim director; not the school or the district. This shows the intent of a shakedown rather than a legitimate case...hit the weakest link hard...and scare for a settlement. (McKinney would not sue the districts...he would sue the directors.)

This is despicable. Remove the former director from the arguement...it is pretty obvious what is going on here (especially with the backgrounds of the plantiff and counsel). I hope the VISD is aggresive to set an example here. And maybe even call a famous resident there to 'stun' them!

I cannot think of anyone who oughta get a Stone Cold Stunner more than them!

Edited May 4, 2007 by prodigal bari

[ekrebs102]

I read the complaint and the answer. These docs are generally very braoad in acusations and denials and only need to show a claim for which relief may be granted, in this case copyright infringement, and a general denial of the claims.

Here are some things I gleaned, which isn't much. The juicy parts come out later in the procedure.

1. FACT: The manual B&S Basics is copyrighted and registrered with the US copyright office. The written material is protected.

2. Bush alleges that he had an agreement that the school could use the manuals and techniques in the manuals freely while Perkins was director, but that the agreement stated that if he were to leave, the school must license the written materials at $60 a head (much like a software use license, I suppose).

3. The new band director (Miller) disputes this. Claims no such agreement.

4. In the complaint, Bush claims that a week after Perkins quit, Bush notified Miller of the need to license the materials, (sort of like a software use license).

5. Bush claims that the school informed him by letter from counsel that the school did not use the manual since the day of Perkins leaving.

6. Bush claims that the school continued using the manual after that date.

7. Miller denies.

This seems to be a question of whether the manual was still being used, not necessarily the ideas in the manual. He is not claiming that he copyrighted the role-step, just the manual which he wrote that demonstrates these techniques. I think Bush believes that his book was being used by every student, and I think that he is claiming that the way that they were marching in the parades shows proof that the manuals in question are still being used without a licensing fee.

That is my take so far. Maybe that will clear up some issues on this thread. Maybe not. I may be wrong.

This case may become very interesting.

Again, this post is not intended to act as, nor should it be construed to be legal advice.

[Jimisback]

No disrespect to Marc cause I love him, but he didn't invent the roll step. I can't tell you who did...maybe one of the "older" guys can.

Ummmmm!!!! I did!! Ye, thats the ticket. I also invented the words Bugle and Corps. And I want all the fees due to me. Ye, thats it. b**bs

[prodigal bari]

I am not sure that agreement can hold up. Every district I have taught in owns the property once it becomes their property. This is gray area at best.

AND...it was the end of the season...what group is going to be refering to a fundamental manual in LATE OCTOBER???

Either way...that guy will not be able to GIVE IT AWAY as word gets out...and did he not think that this publicity might open HIMSELF up for litigation? It is clear to me that this is NOT original work. There are too many videos to prove THAT. :sshh:

Edited May 4, 2007 by prodigal bari

[sburstall]

Ummmmm!!!! I did!! Ye, thats the ticket. I also invented the words Bugle and Corps. And I want all the fees due to me. Ye, thats it. b**bs

And Algore invented the Internet.