Frederick E. Bouchat Case Study
FACTS: Frederick E. Bouchat is an amatuer artist who has a ninth grade education and works as a security guard at the entrance of Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, in downtown Baltimore. He is known for his original art and frequently showed his work to people at the State of Maryland office building on St. Paul Street. In the fall of 1995, the Cleveland Browns’ football team relocated to Baltimore. Excited about the Cleveland Browns’ move to Baltimore, Bouchat designed a logo for the football team in November 1995. The logo consisted of a portion of the Maryland flag and a raven inspired by the late Edgar Allen Poe. Bouchat designed the logo and affixed it on a mini football and gave it to Eugene A. Conti, Jr the Secretary of the Department of Licensing and Regulation, which Conti kept on display in his office. Conti arranged a meeting on March 28, 1996 with John Moag the chairman of the Maryland Stadium Authority (MSA) to feature him in the employee newsletters with his sketches. Moag instructed Bouchat to fax his logo sketches to team officials whose offices were in the same building after informing him that the new teams name is Baltimore Ravens. Bouchat sent the fax of his sketches on April 1 or 2 1996, but did not keep the fax transmittal receipt. In June 1996, the Baltimore Ravens revealed their logos to the public and the logo was very similar to the logo sketches that Bouchat fax. Bouchat filed a lawsuit
…show more content…
against the Baltimore Ravens for infringement of his logo.
ISSUE: Did the Baltimore Ravens have access to Bouchat logo sketches?
RULE: Under the Copyright Act of 976, protects authorship of original work from being reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. [1] The court used four certifying questions to determine whether or not the Baltimore Ravens had access to Bouchat logo sketches and whether he was protected under the Copyright Act. They included [2]:
1) Was the plaintiff's proof of a reasonable possibility of access legally
insufficient?
2) Will the Fourth Circuit adopt the "strikingly similar" doctrine inferring access?
3) Should the copyright infringement claim be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to note the derivative nature of the shield drawing on the application for copyright, where defendants have not proven fraud or a purposeful failure to advise the copyright office of facts that might have caused rejection of the application?
4) Did the court improperly coerce the jury to reach its verdict?
ANALYSIS: Bouchat had his work copyrighted after the Baltimore Ravens released their logo for the branding of the Ravens. However, Bouchhat was able to prove that the NFL Properties had access to his logo sketches and was able to prove his case based on “strikingly similar doctrine”. Bouchat was able to prove that the logo the Baltimore Ravens released had similar images in their logo and that NFL Properties had access to his work via interference. Meaning that NFL Properties did not have direct access but the chain of events that lead to similarities is enough circumstantial evidence to prove the infringement.
To prevail in a copyright infringement action, a plaintiff must first exhibit ownership of a valid copyright. Secondly, the plaintiff must proffer evidence that the defendant copied the plaintiff’s work. This may be demonstrated through inference or proof of substantial similarity between the original work and the alleged infringer’s compilation, in
combination with evidence that the defendant had access to the work. The requirements for substantial similarity and proof of access are inversely proportional. [1]
The court was accused of pressuring the jury to make a decision in this case and was not guilty of the Allen charge to coerce the jury to make a decision.
CONCLUSION: Bouchat won the lawsuit despite numerous appeals by the defendant. The court affirmed that similarities existed in the logo that the Baltimore Ravens released.
References
[1] Douglas R. Arntsen, Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens: The Fourth Circuit Adopts the Strinkingly Similar Doctrine to Infer Proof of Access: Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal (2003)
[2] BOUCHAT v. NFL PROPERTIES LLC, 910 F.Supp.2d 798, United States District Court, D. Maryland., November 19, 2012.
against the Baltimore Ravens for infringement of his logo.
ISSUE: Did the Baltimore Ravens have access to Bouchat logo sketches?
RULE: Under the Copyright Act of 976, protects authorship of original work from being reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. [1] The court used four certifying questions to determine whether or not the Baltimore Ravens had access to Bouchat logo sketches and whether he was protected under the Copyright Act. They included [2]:
1) Was the plaintiff's proof of a reasonable possibility of access legally
insufficient?
2) Will the Fourth Circuit adopt the "strikingly similar" doctrine inferring access?
3) Should the copyright infringement claim be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to note the derivative nature of the shield drawing on the application for copyright, where defendants have not proven fraud or a purposeful failure to advise the copyright office of facts that might have caused rejection of the application?
4) Did the court improperly coerce the jury to reach its verdict?
ANALYSIS: Bouchat had his work copyrighted after the Baltimore Ravens released their logo for the branding of the Ravens. However, Bouchhat was able to prove that the NFL Properties had access to his logo sketches and was able to prove his case based on “strikingly similar doctrine”. Bouchat was able to prove that the logo the Baltimore Ravens released had similar images in their logo and that NFL Properties had access to his work via interference. Meaning that NFL Properties did not have direct access but the chain of events that lead to similarities is enough circumstantial evidence to prove the infringement.
To prevail in a copyright infringement action, a plaintiff must first exhibit ownership of a valid copyright. Secondly, the plaintiff must proffer evidence that the defendant copied the plaintiff’s work. This may be demonstrated through inference or proof of substantial similarity between the original work and the alleged infringer’s compilation, in
combination with evidence that the defendant had access to the work. The requirements for substantial similarity and proof of access are inversely proportional. [1]
The court was accused of pressuring the jury to make a decision in this case and was not guilty of the Allen charge to coerce the jury to make a decision.
CONCLUSION: Bouchat won the lawsuit despite numerous appeals by the defendant. The court affirmed that similarities existed in the logo that the Baltimore Ravens released.
References
[1] Douglas R. Arntsen, Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens: The Fourth Circuit Adopts the Strinkingly Similar Doctrine to Infer Proof of Access: Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal (2003)
[2] BOUCHAT v. NFL PROPERTIES LLC, 910 F.Supp.2d 798, United States District Court, D. Maryland., November 19, 2012.