In 1995, Mr. Bouchat designed a proposed logo for use by
Baltimore's new NFL franchise. He obtained a copyright on the logo, which the
Fourth Circuit refers to as the "shield" logo in shorthand. In 1996, 1997, and
1998 the Baltimore Ravens used a substantially similar symbol as its team logo,
which was placed on the players' helmets, and the Ravens' home field-- among
other locations. The Court refers to the symbol actually used by the Ravens as
the "flying b" logo. The District Court has previously determined, a decision
that was upheld on appeal, that the flying b logo infringes Mr. Bouchat's
copyright.
Specifically before the Court in this case was whether
the use of the "flying b" logo in Baltimore Ravens highlight films
documenting the 1996, 1997, and 1998 seasons and/or the Baltimore Ravens'
use of the "flying b" logo in its headquarters' lobby are infringements of
Mr. Bouchat's work in violation of the Copyright law. The Federal District
Court for the District of Maryland determined that the fair use defense to
copyright infringement applied to both. Mr. Bouchat appealed.
The fair use defense to copyright violation was a
common law doctrine, until codified at 17 U.S.C. § 107 by the 1976 Copyright
Act. Although the fair use defense is an equitable doctrine that should not
be constrained by bright line rules, the Fourth Circuit has previously
enunciated four factors to be considered: (1) the purpose and character of
the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for
nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3)
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the
potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Bond v. Blum, 317 F.3d 385, 394 (4th Cir.
2003). The Fourth Circuit therefore set out to apply these four factors to
both the highlight films, and the instances of the logo in the Ravens'
headquarters.
The Fourth Circuit reversed the decision of the
District Court as to the highlight films finding that the use of the "flying
b" logo in those films did not amount to fair use. A key element in applying
the first factor regarding the commercial nature was the Court's analysis of
whether the use of the material was "transformative." That is, does the new
work merely supersede the object of the original creation, or instead add
something new, with a further purpose or different character.
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S.
569, 576 (1994). The Court held that nothing about the use of the "flying b"
logo in highlight films from prior seasons was new in character. Although
appearing on videotape, the logo's purpose was the same, appearing on the
team's helmets and field in order to help identify the particular team. The
Court noted that there is little difference between someone watching the
game live in 1996, or many years later on tape. The Court also put no stock
in the argument that music and narration added to the plays for the purpose
of producing the video was sufficient to be transformative. The Court noted
that those changes had no effect on the logo itself.
The Court further recognized that the copyrighted work
was a creative drawing, and therefore entitled to a great deal of
protection. As to the third factor, the Court held that the entire logo was
used on the players' helmets, on the field, and in an introductory portion
of the films. Therefore not just a part or portion of the copyrighted
material was used, but the entirety of Mr. Bouchat's original work. Finally,
the Court found that there is a commercial market for NFL team logos as the
same are used on a vast array of products including clothing, posters,
novelties, etc. Therefore, the Court concluded that the use of the logo was
serving a commercial purpose and did not fall into the fair use exception.
The case was remanded to the District Court to determine if the injunction
as to the sale of these films—being sought by Bouchat—was an appropriate
remedy.
The Court applied the same four factors to the Ravens'
use of the logo in its headquarters' lobby and came to the opposition
conclusion. In affirming the District Court's decision that this use was
rightfully considered "fair use," the Court weighed heavily the factor that
the lobby is a display of historical Ravens' memorabilia and is free to view
to anyone who enters the facility's lobby. The non-commercial use and
somewhat historical nature of the display were defining factors in finding
the fair use defense applicable.
Top
