{"id":1005,"date":"2014-10-09T17:00:57","date_gmt":"2014-10-09T21:00:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/?p=1005"},"modified":"2023-07-25T12:18:49","modified_gmt":"2023-07-25T16:18:49","slug":"james-bond-victory","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/2014\/10\/james-bond-victory\/","title":{"rendered":"James Bond Victory"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Although Judge Otero\u2019s opinion on the <em>Section 6<\/em> case was filed in late September, this past week a <a href=\"http:\/\/variety.com\/2014\/biz\/news\/universal-mgm-trying-to-prevent-lawful-competition-with-james-bond-lawsuit-1201323996\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">redacted version of the decision was released<\/a>\u2014shedding light on his reasoning to not dismiss the case. In late April, MGM filed a suit claiming that Universal\u2019s <em>Section 6<\/em> project infringed on the copyright of its James Bond franchise. However, the interesting part is that <em>Section 6<\/em> was merely a pending project; therefore there was little material, besides the script, available to compare to the Bond films. Universal claims that MGM merely is trying to prevent competition in the spy film genre. However, now it is known that Judge Otero compared the potential infringement of <em>Section 6<\/em> to a previous case brought by MGM\u2014involving a 1995 Honda commercial that featured \u201ca charming British spy character and other elements that suggested, but did not name, Bond.\u201d The court found in that case that the Bond films were protected by copyright because they were \u201c\u2018unique in their expression of the spy thriller idea,\u2019 and although James Bond has been portrayed by different actors in different movies, his \u2018specific qualities remain constant.\u2019\u201d Ultimately, Judge Otereo found more similarities in the <em>Section 6 <\/em>script (including the introduction of the main character with the line \u201cDuncan. Alec Duncan\u201d), than in the Honda commercial. Thus, he did not dismiss the claim. Based on this ruling will more pending projects or film ideas be deemed to infringe on various copyrights?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Although Judge Otero\u2019s opinion on the Section 6 case was filed in late September, this past week a redacted version of the decision was released\u2014shedding light on his reasoning to not dismiss the case. In late April, MGM filed a suit claiming that Universal\u2019s Section 6 project infringed on the copyright of its James Bond [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":39,"featured_media":1006,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[31],"tags":[36,15],"ppma_author":[382],"class_list":["post-1005","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-highlight","tag-copyright","tag-entertainment-2"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/78\/2014\/10\/4231944680_4bf03d8c69_z.jpg","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZjrR-gd","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"authors":[{"term_id":382,"user_id":39,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jsel","display_name":"JSEL","avatar_url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4abb87a025d5a7951a4b4249facf4d22ea8002b216770229a96689038d0f83bc?s=96&d=mm&r=g","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1005","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/39"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1005"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1005\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1006"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1005"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1005"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1005"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jsel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=1005"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}