Another J.Lo case gets tossed by 9th Circuit
What's going on in Pasadena? Just last month the issue decided by the Ninth Circuit was use of a sample in Jennifer Lopez's rap song, see prior post. This time it's use of a "Flashdance" sequence in J.Lo's music video for the song "I'm Glad" that's the source of the dispute. This is the album.
In Marder v. Lopez, the Ninth Circuit upholds the validity of a general release relating to the movie "Flashdance". The release was executed by Maureen Marder, a dancer whose life was the basis for the film's story. The money quote (forgive the pun):
"Furthermore, though in hindsight the agreement appears to be unfair to Marder -- she only received $2300 in exchange for release of all claims relating to a movie that grossed over $150 million -- there is simply no evidence that her consent was obtained by fraud, deception, misrepresentation, duress, or undue influence."
California law governs the release. The release is attached as an appendix to the opinion, so you can see the language that survived legal challenge.
Update: Maureen Marder, the plaintiff, has posted comments on the ruling in our comments section below. Thanks for sharing your perspective!
Why the justices bothered to comment on the misrepresentation or fraud aspect of the negotiations which led to the signing of my release with Paramount is beyond me. The statute of limitations ran out long ago for claims on those grounds, I believe.
The issue was the copyright to my story--which I have, in fact, retained due to the NON-EXCLUSIVE right that Paramount received from me to use my story for the one film only.
I will be publishing my memoirs/autobiography in the near future and readers can determine for themselves what happened during the negotiations before the release was signed--as well as how the film was originally conceived--among lots of other experiences that I will share in my own account of my story. I hope everyone who picks up my book will find it an interesting and entertaining read.
The judges most likely commented on misrepresentation based upon the copyright law does not copyright "works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression and works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship." Furthermore, ideas can not be copyrighted, only the expression of them can. Seeing that you signed a release of all claims relating to the movie, Paramount now owns the copyright to the movie because they are considered the author or the movie even though the story was regarding your life.
While it may not seem fair, it may appear as though under the copyright law, you were hired for the story and the author, which is Paramount retains the copyright. Therefore, you do not retain or receive any profits. Basically, you were a "work made for hire".
