Does Katy Perry Have a Copyright Interest in the Infamous “Left Shark” in her Super Bowl Halftime Show?

References to “Left Shark” flooded social media after Katy Perry’s Super Bowl halftime show as viewers were puzzled by the left shark’s unique dance moves. As “Left Shark” has become somewhat of an overnight phenomenon, Katy Perry’s legal team is aggressively asserting its ownership of the “Left Shark’s” likeness.  

Fernando Sosa uses his 3-D printer to create sculptures of political figures and sell them on his website. After the Super Bowl, Sosa created and printed a shark figurine modeled after the “Left Shark,” which he sold on his website. Shortly thereafter, Sosa received a a cease and desist letter from Perry’s legal team demanding that he stop manufacturing, distributing, selling, and marketing the figurines as his actions were infringing Perry’s exclusive rights to reproduce, display, and distribute the “Left Shark’s” likeness.


Given Katy Perry is attempting to assert a copyright interest in a shark costume, it is questionable whether she would succeed on her claim of copyright infringement in court. The United States Copyright Office has taken the position that costumes are useful articles and are generally not afforded copyright protection unless there are separate artistic features that do not contribute to the utilitarian nature of the costume, which can receive copyright protection. Presently, the standard for identifying separable artistic elements is ill-defined, but the Copyright Office has stated that “fanciful costumes” can obtain copyright protection if they contain pictorial or sculptural elements that are independently recognizable and do not add to the utilitarian purpose of the costume. In the present case, it appears that the “Left Shark” costume is a useful article, and there do not appear to be any unique artistic or pictorial elements that materially distinguish the “Left Shark” costume from any other standard shark costume presently on the market.  

Cybersecurity Attack on Anthem Inc.’s Networks Compromises Customers’ and Employees’ Personal Information

         
         Health insurer, Anthem, Inc., is the latest organization to become a victim of a cyberattack. On January 29, 2015, Anthem, Inc., which is the parent company of Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Connecticut’s largest health insurer, determined that hackers had invaded its network and obtained the personal information of more than 80 million customers and employees. Based on preliminary  reports, it is believed that the hackers obtained customers’ and employees’ names, addresses, birth dates, Social Security numbers, email addresses, employment information, income data, and medical identification numbers, but the hackers did not obtain medical and financial information.

          In Connecticut, the breach could impact more than 1 million customers. Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy has instructed residents to monitor all financial accounts because individuals may use the obtained information to open new lines of credit, open new credit cards, and steal tax refunds. In addition, experts have cautioned that hackers may use the combination of an individual’s Social Security number and medical information to perpetuate identify theft and email phishing scams, and to file false insurance claims.

          It has been reported that the compromised information was particularly vulnerable because Anthem did not encrypt the data. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) mandates that covered entities and health plans, such as health insurers, encrypt electronically protected health information. Specifically, the HIPAA Security Rule establishes administrative, technical, and physical safeguards that entities must use to protect the confidentiality and security of individuals’ electronic protected health information. Given that encryption can be a powerful tool in thwarting hackers’ infiltration attempts, it is worthwhile for businesses to encrypt confidential personal information even if businesses are not legally mandated to do so. 

New Department of Justice Policy Bans Federal Prosecutors From Asking Defendants to Waive Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims Against Defense Attorneys

        The United States Department of Justice recently released a new policy that will ban federal prosecutors from asking defendants to waive any potential ineffective assistance of counsel claims that they may have against their attorneys as a condition of accepting a plea. Previously, federal prosecutors had the ability to ask criminal defendants, who pleaded guilty, to waive their right to bring claims sounding in ineffective assistance of counsel. Now, federal prosecutors may not include language that constitutes such a waiver in plea bargain documents, and waivers included in documents that were executed prior to the implementation of this new policy may not be enforced.

       A criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel may be violated if an attorney did not adequately and competently represent the defendant and the result of the defendant’s trial or sentencing would have been different if the attorney had competently represented the defendant. Attorney General Eric Holder has stated that this new policy is reflective of the Justice Department’s commitment to preserving citizens’ constitutional rights, namely the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. In addition, this new policy will ensure that individuals receive competent representation as they respond to the criminal allegations stated against them.

          The criminal defense lawyers of Brown Paindiris & Scott can help you navigate the criminal justice system. For more information, visit our website.   

       

Cell Phone Privacy and the Law

In 2014, the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a police officer may search a cell phone without a warrant. In Riley v. California, the Court held that police officers may not search a cell phone without a warrant, absent some extreme circumstances such as a terrorist attack or child abduction. The Court went on to describe a cell phone as a “minicomputer.”  The Court recognized a cell phone’s ability to serve as an address book, tape recorder or camera, among other functions, thus making the material stored on a cell phone of a private nature. 

The law is much clearer on law enforcement’s ability to search a cell phone, as compared to the law on whether a private individual can be civilly liable for the unauthorized search of a cell phone. Unauthorized searches of cell phones have increasingly become an issue in middle and high schools. Some students have sued their schools, alleging invasion of privacy or negligence after teachers and other school personnel have seized and searched the students’ cell phones. 

The cell phone privacy issue may also arise in the context of employment situations. An employee may potentially have a cause of action against his or her employer for the unauthorized search of a cell phone, so long as the employee had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the cell phone. Whether the employee had a reasonable expectation of privacy in an employer owned and issued cell phone, however, is questionable.

A recent decision from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut discussed cell phone privacy in the context of a civil lawsuit. In Bakhit v. Safety Marking, Inc., the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to inspect the cell phones of the defendants. The court discussed the Supreme Court’s decision in Riley, concluding that in the present case, the plaintiffs’ motion implicated the defendants’ privacy interests given the private material that was likely stored on the defendants’ cell phones.  

The issue of cell phone privacy, especially within the context of a civil lawsuit, is continuing to evolve. As technology becomes increasingly sophisticated, courts and lawmakers will likely need to set parameters regarding cell phone searchers, while taking into account the privacy interests of cell phone users.

BPS Attorneys Richard Brown and Kate Haakonsen to Moderate Panels at 13th Annual Connecticut Bar Association Bench-Bar Professionalism Symposium

On Friday, November 7, the Connecticut Bar Association, in collaboration with the Hartford County Bar Association and the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch, will sponsor “Raising the Bar: A Bench-Bar Symposium on Professionalism in the Judicial District of Hartford.” In its 13^th year, the Connecticut Bar Association Bench-Bar Professionalism Symposium brings together attorneys and judges for thoughtful discussions on the future of the legal profession. BPS Attorneys Richard Brown and Kate Haakonsen will be moderating two of the sessions at this event.

The event will feature a presentation on the maintenance of ethical standards and the preservation of professionalism in the legal profession, as well as a series of panels that will focus on professionalism topics and concerns specific to criminal, family, civil, probate, and real estate/business law. Attorney Richard Brown will serve as the moderator of the criminal law session, while Attorney Kate Haakonsen will moderate the family law session. Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen will deliver the keynote address and will discuss maintaining and enhancing professionalism in his office, which is the state’s largest civil law firm.

To learn more about the November 7 symposium, click here.

Does Connecticut have Permanent Alimony?

In a word “No.”  There is nothing in Connecticut law which uses the term “permanent alimony.” Alimony, regardless of the form it takes, is simply referred to as “alimony.”  Almost all alimony orders terminate on the death of either party or the remarriage of the recipient.  This is commonly referred to as open-ended alimony because it has no specific end date.  Almost all alimony orders issued a court are subject to modification in the event of a substantial change in circumstances or if the payor proves that the recipient is living with another person under circumstances which reduce his or her needs (sometimes called “cohabitation”).  It is common for alimony orders to end on a specified date if alimony has not terminated earlier, but there is no specific term for this in Connecticut law.

Connecticut General Statute Section 46b-82 provides the courts with authority to award alimony. In deciding whether to award alimony, the statute requires a court to consider the following factors in determining the duration and amount of the alimony award: the length of the marriage, the causes for the annulment, dissolution of the marriage or legal separation, the age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate and needs of each of the parties, property distribution award, and if the parties have minor children, the desirability of such parent’s securing employment. The statute makes no explicit reference to the term permanent alimony. 

In Connecticut, open-ended alimony awards are fairly uncommon. The statute was recently amended to require a court awarding open-ended alimony to state with specificity its reasons for making this award. Once the court issues an alimony award, the parties may request modification or termination of that award upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances pursuant to Connecticut General Statute Section 46b-86. 

Nationwide, many states have recently considered whether to eliminate “permanent alimony.” In Connecticut, legislation introduced in the 2014 session purported to make it easier to modify or terminate alimony when the paying spouse wants to retire or when the recipient spouse cohabitates with another person.  The bill failed to pass at the end of the session.

With questions on how alimony factors into your divorce, please contact the experienced family law attorneys of Brown, Paindiris & Scott, LLP.

The Connecticut Benefit Corporations Act Brings B-Corps to Connecticut

The Connecticut Benefit Corporations Act became effective on October 1, 2014. This law allows for the creation of a new business structure known as the benefit corporation or what is more commonly referred to as the “b-corp.” A benefit corporation has two functions: to maximize profits and to help society and the environment or to create specific public benefits. Connecticut is now the 26^th state to enact laws establishing b-corps.  More than twenty companies registered as b-corps with the Connecticut Secretary of State on the first day the law took effect. 

The non-profit company B Lab was formed in 2006 for the purpose of promoting the b-corp structure. B Lab’s goals in creating the b-corp were twofold: to create a business that could focus on issues beyond shareholder profit and to implement standards to aid consumers in distinguishing between a “good company” and a company that simply advertises as such. An example of a well-known b-corp is Ben & Jerry’s, which became a b-corp in 2012.

Directors and officers in a traditional corporation have a fiduciary duty to make decisions that will maximize shareholder profit. As compared to a traditional corporation, the directors and officers of a b-corp may consider other interests of the corporation, in addition to the maximization of the corporation’s profits. The Benefit Corporations Act provides that directors and officers may consider the following interests when making decisions for the company: the impact on the corporation’s shareholders, the impact on the corporation’s employees and others associated with the corporation, the interests of the customers and related public benefits, community and societal factors, the environment, and short and long-term interests of the corporation. 

The Connecticut b-corp law is unique in one respect. The law contains a legacy provision, which the b-corp can adopt after two years of existence. The legacy provision provides that if the b-corp is dissolved, its assets must go to a charitable organization or other b-corps with a legacy provision. Connecticut is the first state to include the legacy provision within its b-corp laws.

For more information about benefit corporations or for assistance with the formation of a benefit corporation, please contact the experienced business lawyers of Brown, Paindiris & Scott, LLP.