Industry Liabilities

LIL’ WAYNE VS. QD3 ENTERTAINMENT

 

Photo Credit bet.com

Rapper Lil’ Wayne is no stranger to controversy and his latest legal woes are nothing new. According to perezhilton.com, Lil Wayne sued Quincy Jones III, the son of Quincy Jones, in the fall of 2012. Jones III released a documentary entitled The Carter about the rapper and also used music from his album The Carter III without obtaining permission for either. Adding insult to injury, “the fire man” was angry about how Jones III portrayed him in the unauthorized documentary.

Ultimately, Lil’ Wayne was not able to appear in court for the trial due to seizure-like symptoms while en route to court and was hospitalized as a result. Consequently, the rapper’s lawyer showed the jury his deposition via video. Check it out below.

Albeit entertaining, it may not have been the best court behavior. Although I must say, Lil’ Wayne being there in person could have made things a lot worse for the rapper.

In the end, Quincy Jones III won the case and filed a COUNTERSUIT against Lil’ Wayne alleging that because his film was blocked from release it’s “potential for profit” was compromised. Jones III claims that Lil’ Wayne owes him over $2 million dollars. Initially, I did not understand why or how QD3 Entertainment won this case, but after further research, I found this disclaimer. 

Apparently, Lil’ Wayne gave the project the green light and later backed out once footage was already taken. So in turn, I guess Quincy Jones III won fair and square.

BRAND DESIGN CO. VS. NBC UNIVERSAL

 

 Photo Credit oneworldsymphony.org

In more recent news, NBC Universal made $3.5 million in a lawsuit over Chalet typeface font theft.  The Hollywood Reporter claims this past Tuesday; a federal judge in New York dismissed the case. Brand Design Co. claims that NBC Universal breached copyright font software contract and says the stolen font is “all over NBCU’s websites.”

Frank Martinez, a Brooklyn lawyer, filed separate multimillion dollar claims against CNBC, Universal Studios and TNT. As of today, all font theft lawsuits have been settled. Martinez avoided litigation after sending cease-and desist letters to other targets, including mega-selling recording acts who allegedly were “less than careful” about crafting the lettering on their album cover art.

Brand Design Co. alleges that its records indicate NBCU subsidiary, Oxygen Media, purchased a “basic, 36 workstation (users) license to use the chalet typeface font software.”

Photo Credit Fontsquirrel.com

 

However, Martinez says the licensing agreement did not permit the use of copyrighted font software on NBCU’s websites. Furthermore, NBCU is believed to have used a free font software conversion utility by the company Font Squirrel to convert and alter the typeface to enable Internet embedding. This alone violates licensing terms on the count of modification.

Proving Martinez’s third font theft in many years can be expensive for both parties, but a settlement is sometimes the cheaper and faster route. NBC Universal chose a very sneaky route to do business. Why draw up a contract if you did not plan to follow it? That’s the question. Disobedience has a hefty price tag in this case to the tune of $3.5 million. The cost of keeping your word? Priceless.

KARDASHIANS VS. BOLDFACE LICENSING + BRANDING

 Photo Credit placeitonluckydan.com

The Hollywood Reporter also reports that Kim, Kourtney and Khloe Kardashian knowingly infringed the trademark on a cosmetics product line. Boldface Licensing + Branding, who licenses the Kardashian’s names and likenesses, sued a makeup business owned by Lee Tillett. Boldface has a product line called “Khroma” while Tillett markets a product named “Kroma”. See the difference? If consumers will be confused and the filing party can show access and similarities, than copyright infringement is permissible in a court of law. However, Boldface was able to obtain a declaratory judgment that the name “Kroma” “consists solely of a descriptive term and lacks any inherent distinctive meaning to the relevant consuming public and therefore is conceptually weak.”

In Tillett's defense, he claims that the promotion of “Khroma” was likely to mislead customers into thinking that his “Kroma” was associated with the Kardashian sisters. In consensus with the counterclaims, Boldface paid the Kardashians upfront for licensing rights for $1 million with guaranteed minimum royalty payments up to $5.2 million, depending on launch dates of various products. Allegedly, the ladies three had some power over the product line and it was the most infamous Kardashian, Kim, who proposed the line be called “Khroma”.

Tillett states that Kim should have known better, especially since representatives for himself and TLK Fusion acted as Kardashian’s product-placement agent for a show being produced by Kim, allegedly.

 Photo Credit b105.com.au

No deal was ever reached in this matter but I wish it were. I love the Kardashian Klan as much as the next trendy, fashion-friendly young woman, yet there’s no question how the name “Khroma” with an 'h' just popped into Kim’s head. I agree with Tillett; she should have known better. I wonder if that’s why Kim and Kourtney Take Miami was delayed in premiering. Or was it the news about Kim and Kanye’s baby news. I don’t know, but I look forward to both.