Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens, Incorporated

Facts

P has a ninth-grade education, and now works as a front entrance security guard at the State of Maryland Office building. P often showed his artwork to people passing through the building's main entrance. As news of an NFL team for Baltimore spread in 1995, P created drawings and designs for the team based on his favorite possible team name -- the Ravens. P created a helmet design and affixed his creation to a miniature football helmet. P gave the design and helmet to Eugene Conti, a state official who worked in the St. Paul Street office building. Conti kept the helmet displayed in his office. P showed other team drawings to employees of the building and gave two drawings away as holiday gifts in December of 1995. Conti asked a colleague to arrange a meeting between P (an enthusiastic Baltimore fan) and John Moag, chairman of the Maryland Stadium Authority (the man who brought the team to Baltimore) in order to include a story about P in the employee newsletter. On March 28, 1996, P was taken to meet Moag at Moag's law office on Pratt Street. D and David Modell (the team's owner) occupied the same office suite in the Pratt Street building as a temporary space at this time. Photos were taken and Moag told P that the team was going to be named the Ravens. When Bouchat described his drawings, Moag told P to send his drawings along, and Moag would give them to D for consideration. The next day, P got permission from his supervisor to use the office fax machine in order to send his drawings to Moag at the Maryland Stadium Authority (MSA). Jan Drabeck, P's immediate supervisor, showed P how to use the fax machine. On April 1 or 2, 1996, P faxed his drawings. He received a fax confirmation but did not retain the printed confirmation receipt. One of the drawings P faxed to the MSA was his shield drawing. On April 2, 1996, Modell met with the NFL Properties Design Director to discuss the development of a D logo. Thereafter, Modell communicated with the design team concerning the logo project. D unveiled its new logo in June of 1996. The new logo was a Raven holding a shield. P and several of his co-workers immediately recognized the new logo as P's work. P contacted a lawyer, and in August of 1996, he obtained a copyright registration for his shield drawing. In May of 1997 P filed this lawsuit against Ds for infringing his copyright.  The jury returned a verdict in favor of P, but only as to his shield drawing. The district court then certified the following questions for interlocutory appeal: (1) Was P's proof of a reasonable possibility of access legally insufficient? (2) If so, will the Fourth Circuit adopt the 'strikingly similar' doctrine inferring access? (3) Should the copyright infringement claim be dismissed because P failed to note the derivative nature of the shield drawing on the application for copyright, where Ds have not proven fraud or a purposeful failure to advise the copyright office of facts that might have caused the rejection of the application? (4) Did the court improperly coerce the jury to reach its verdict?

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.