Case Comment Ainane Maryam

Il caso Disney e i principi del diritto d'autore

Il caso Disney affronta tre principi fondamentali del diritto d'autore: il diritto di riproduzione dell'opera, il diritto d'autore sui personaggi dell'opera e il principio dell'uso lecito.

Riguardo ai diritti di riproduzione, il riferimento normativo è il Codice degli Stati Uniti, sezione 106. Secondo l'approccio statunitense, la copia illecita si basa su due elementi principali: "la copia effettiva" e "la copia illecita".

La "copia effettiva" implica una prova che il convenuto abbia avuto accesso ai prodotti Disney. Infine, in base a quanto stabilito dalla clausola sul diritto d'autore della Costituzione, il tribunale ha dichiarato la mancata prevenzione dell'emissione di un'ingiunzione preliminare, nonostante il Primo Emendamento. Il tribunale ha stabilito che le pubblicazioni dei convenuti violavano i validi diritti d'autore di Disney e che erano colpevoli di concorrenza sleale. Il tribunale ha ordinato ai convenuti di distruggere tutti i materiali che violavano i diritti d'autore.

The plaintiff's work is evaluated through the "Reasonable opportunity to view (or hear)" test, which has a limitation known as the "inverse ratio rule". When it comes to "wrongful copying", courts need to determine the similarities at the correct level of abstraction and dissect protectable expressions from unprotectable ideas. US courts have applied various tests to determine substantial similarity, such as the ordinary observer test, total concept and feel test, extrinsic/intrinsic test (both must be met to prove substantial similarity), and the abstraction, filtration, and comparison test.

American intellectual property law aims to encourage authors to create new literary, artistic, and other works of authorship. The Constitution grants authors exclusive rights in their copyrighted works, including the original characters contained therein that are original and fixed in a tangible medium. Character creators must develop their characters with original expression.

make them distinctive. Thiscopyright. The copyright upon composite works or periodicals shall give to the proprietor thereof all the rights inrespect thereto which he would have if each part were individually copyrighted under this title."7 Article I, § 8, Cl. 8, empowers the Congress "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing forlimited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."The balancing of competing interests of free speech and the press against "encouraging creation by protecting theexpression" of ideas.8 US Code §106 (“...to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; to prepare derivative works basedupon the copyrighted work; to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale orother transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending...”)9 While the former provides that the defendant factually

Copies the work, the latter provides for the presence of a substantial similarity between the two works. Both these two elements are required to prove copying but, actually, there is another preliminary condition for copyright infringement, i.e. the plaintiff must have a copyrighted work.¹⁰ It is used in cases where the bare possibility of access does not suffice.¹¹ The more a work is popular, hence the more plausible is the access to the work, the less important are the similarities between the works; See Skidmore v. Zeppelin, 952 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2020)¹² See Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., -45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930) (story; plot outline; general characters/scenes; specific characters' elements; text)¹³ See Rentmeester v. Nike, Inc. – 883 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2018)¹⁴ U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 8.; U.S. CONST. amend. I.¹⁵ US Copyright Act, Sec. 102 "Copyright protection subsists [...] in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of

expression …”. Originality generally means “independent creation plus a modicum of creativity”.16 17 U.S.C. §102 (2012) (corresponding to the language of the Copyright Act of 1909 Act, § 3) (“That the copyrightprovided by this title shall protect all the copyrightable component parts of the work copyrighted . . . .”).17 See Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930) 2