Critics, linebackers, and Mark Sanchez are not Tim Tebow’s only competition.

Tim Tebow has already found his name at the center of several hotly contested intellectual property disputes.  Before Tebow even received his new playbook from the New York Jets, a controversy erupted in federal court in Lower Manhattan between sports merchandise moguls Nike and Reebok over the right to sell Tebow Jets jerseys.  Not long after, three New Yorkers battled over the trademark rights to the phrase “Timsanity,” a play on the viral phrase “Linsanity” inspired by Knicks sensation Jeremy Lin.  Most recently, Tebow has sent his own lawyer into the fray to challenge two of his fans for trademark rights to the term “Tebowing,” a pop-culture craze named after Tebow’s on-field, one-knee prayer stance.

Deserved or not, the Jets’ newly acquired backup quarterback is a media darling, an international sensation, and one of the biggest names in professional sports.  During the 2012 season, the only jersey that sold more than Tebow’s Denver Broncos shirt was that of league MVP Aaron Rodgers, marking the second straight season that sales of Tebow jerseys ranked in the top three.  Reebok International Ltd., who has been the exclusive licensor of NFL merchandise for the past ten seasons, was a big beneficiary of Tebow’s popularity.

Reebok’s deal, a 10-year, $300 million contract signed back in 2000, expired on March 31, 2012.  Nike immediately succeeded with a five-year contract, figured to be worth upwards of $150 million, for the exclusive supplying rights to uniforms, base layers, sideline gear, and fan apparel.  But when Tebow was traded to the Jets on March 21, Reebok attempted to swoop in for one last push by selling 6,000 Tebow-Jets jerseys and 25,000 T-shirts.

Nike immediately sued to enjoin Reebok from selling the merchandise, alleging that Reebok “misappropriated publicity rights, interfered with business relationships and unjustly enriched itself” by failing to get the quarterback’s permission for the product launch.  Further, Nike claimed that Reebok’s tactics were an impermissible attempt to capitalize on a “”unique and short-lived opportunity” that should belong to Nike.  Judge Kevin Castel of the S.D.N.Y. granted the injunction, criticizing Reebok’s midnight effort to sell apparel for players changing teams (he also cited the sale of jerseys of Tebow’s Denver replacement, Peyton Manning), and finding that Nike had shown a “probability of success” in its pursuit to permanently stop Reebok from selling Tebow-Jets jerseys.  The two sides eventually reached a “mutually agreeable resolution”, as Reebok removed all of its Tebow-Jets merchandise from stores.

The battle for Tebow is not confined to the corporate arena.  Three New Yorkers (all of whom, incidentally, are Giants fans) are vying for the trademark rights to the phrase “Timsanity.”  Daniel and Christian Perez, a pair of brothers from Brooklyn, filed their applications with the US Patent and Trademark Office one day after Frank DeGrim, a hedge fund manager from Manhattan.  The men all see an opportunity to make and sell Tebow merchandise in a very lucrative New York sports market.  Noting that the “typical test is sight, sound, and meaning,” trademark lawyer Kurt Anderson says that neither application may stand a chance due to the phrase’s obvious similarity to “Linsanity.”  Anderson notes that should Tebow challenge the trademarks, the one saving grace for the opportunistic New Yorkers may be the generic nature of the name “Tim.”

Ipad or Kindle?  This is a question many avid readers debate as they enter the modern world of reading.  My memory of reading as a kid was sensory and tangible: flipping dog-eared, yellowing pages at the library; savoring the smell of a new hardcover book as I attempted to earn my free “Book It” pizza.  The advent of tablets and e-readers has created a market of gadgets to read more.

Today, how we read transforming.  E-readers and e-books are a fast booming industry with the assurance of making reading more convenient, and, more importantly, cheaper.  But it seems like the promise of affordable prices has not been kept.  While sales of iPads, Kindles and other e-readers have risen, so have prices of e-books for those devices.   Also, as the marketplace for e-books has evolved so have the conflicts between competitors, specifically accusations of collusion.

The results of the U.S Justice Department’s recent civil suit against Apple and five of the nations biggest publishers may settle these tensions, if it makes a decisive verdict regarding charges of colluding to raise e-book prices.  The justice department alleges that the CEOs of publishing companies had “secret meetings” in Manhattan’s high life restaurants to plot to work with Apple to raise the “wretched $9.99” price point set up by e-book pioneer Amazon.com.  While Hachette, HarperCollins, and Simon & Schuster have decided to settle their cases, Apple, Macmillian, and Pearson PLC’ Penguin Group have decided to charge on to trial.

Are e-books really overpriced?  The government claims e-books went up an average of $2 to $3 in a three-day period in 2010.  Is this part of Apple’s plan to join forces with publishers to sabotage Amazon?  The answer requires a bit of history in the evolution of e-books.  When books moved from hard book cover to an online medium the natural perception among consumers was that prices should be much cheaper considering there is no cost for warehousing, shipping, printing and binding e-books.  CNET writer Nathan Bransford, however, astutely points out an overlooked fact in the debate, “Paper doesn’t cost very much.”  E-books actually do not save publishers from their biggest expenses, namely compensating authors, designing and marketing the book, and other necessary overhead.

In fact, publishers are not saving much money.  Consumers, however, were paying less than half for books on average ($24.99 vs. $9.99).  When e-books first arrived on the market publishers sold the books on a “wholesale” model.  Publishers would sell for half of a “list price” they sell to vendors such as Amazon.  In exchange, vendors were allowed to sell to the market at their own price.  Amazon’s strategy at the time was to pay $12.50 per copy and then sell the e-book on the market for a loss at a discounted rate of $9.99.  This loss leader pricing strategy was instituted in hopes of selling more kindles and to establish a strong foothold early in the e-book marketplace.  Publishers, however, were troubled by the discounted pricing and preferred for more competition to increase prices and break Amazon’s tremendous leverage over the market.  Bransford also points out publishers became concerned that Amazon was devaluing consumers notion of what a book really should cost.  

Earlier this month, at the annual Coachella Music Festival, concertgoers were stunned to witness the performance of a lifetime, or should we say, an afterlife-time.  At the festival, nearly 100,000 fans witnessed a holographic Tupac Shakur, who died in 1996, performing alongside Dr. Dre and Snoop Dogg.  Shakur appeared on stage, performing two songs and even gave a shout out to the Coachella concertgoers.  The hologram was created by Digital Domain Media Group, which also produced the Oscar-winning virtual versions of Brad Pitt in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.  While the exact techniques utilized have not been disclosed, the technology allowed for the creation of new moves and new audio for the Tupac performance.

Now that the technology is available and unveiled, this performance will likely not be the only one of its kind.  Dr. Dre and Snoop are reportedly considering taking the Tupac hologram out on tour.  There is also speculation about what other stars we will see in posthumous holographic performances.  According to AV Concepts President Nick Smith “You can take [celebrities’] likenesses and voice and . . . take people that haven’t done concerts before or perform music they haven’t sung and digitally recreate it.”  Raju Mudhar of The Toronto Star speculates that reanimating dead celebrities could be a real trend as it would likely result in a real “windfall for the estates of the deceased performers.”  Such possibilities raises questions about the protections against misuse of performers’ images for holographic performances.

Of course, any public performance of music, by living musicians or by holograms, requires permission of the copyright owner for the composition.  Typically, the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers license out songs performed in concert.  For the Tupac performance, it is likely that the performance of “Hail Mary” and “2 of Amerikaz Most Wanted” was permitted by the copyright owner.

The holographic performance also implicates the Right of Publicity.  The Right of Publicity is the “inherent right of every human being to control the commercial use of his or her identity.” (McCarthy, The Rights of Publicity and Privacy 2d § 1:3.)  A state common law right, the Right of Publicity provides people with the right to control the commercial use of her name, image, likeness, or any other unquestionable aspects of her identity.  The right protects against the loss of the ability to control one’s persona, even if there is not necessarily any commercial harm.  (31 COA2d 121.) Most states recognize that the right is descendible though it varies as to the length of time one’s estate maintains the Right to Publicity, ranging from 20 to 100 years. (31 COA2d 121.)   In order to use the image of Tupac, Dr. Dre had to get consent from the executors of Tupac’s estate which is controlled by Afeni Shakur, who gave permission for the performance.

With the potential rise of holographic performances, stars should take care to protect themselves from appearing as holograms in ways not in their own interest.  The Right to Publicity, like many rights, is one which can be transferred.  (Haelan Laboratories, Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., 202 F.2d 866, 868 (2d Cir. 1953); McCarthy, The Rights of Publicity and Privacy 2d § 10:8). The Miami Entertainment Law Group warns that signing away this right “could potentially cut off your right to share in a very lucrative stream of income AND your ability to determine how you will be remembered.”

It is unclear whether Tupac would have wanted to be remembered for this holographic performance.  However, at least his mother, who carefully controls the use of Tupac’s image, was pleased with the performance.

Recently, pictures of the wedding ring that Brad Pitt has designed for wife-to-be Angelina Jolie have been released.  Undoubtedly, replicas of such rings are soon to follow.  Kate Middleton’s sapphire ring has yielded many imitations and there is no reason to believe that Angelina’s ring will be any different.  Some have speculated that Brad may seek legal protection to maintain the exclusivity of the ring.  One of the requirements for attaining copyright protection for such is that the design contains originality.  Arguably that requirement is easily satisfied and Brad should have no problem as it took the jeweler over a year to obtain certain emerald-cut diamonds to use in the ring.  Yet it seems unlikely that lawsuits will be brought since for an infringement suit to be successful the knockoff must be exact.  Practically all of these future duplicates are likely to just be “inspired” by Angelina’s ring or close imitations.

It is important to note that Mr. Pitt has previously tried covering his basis by filing a similar lawsuit.  In 2000, Brad Pitt presented his own custom design to an Italian jeweler named Silvia Damiani.  Damiani who created the famous Jennifer Aniston/Brad Pitt wedding rings, both engraved with the names Jen 2000 and Brad 2000.  Jennifer’s 18k white gold band featured twenty inset diamonds encircling each side of the ring.  Brad’s ring was simpler and featured a simple broader space of ten inset white diamonds.  The couple reportedly paid the jeweler £36 million for the wedding and engagement rings.  According to reports, soon thereafter, Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anniston filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against Damiani for replicating Pitt’s custom design, alleging that Damiani “embarked upon an outrageous, fraudulent scheme to manufacture copies of Aniston’s engagement ring and the couple’s wedding rings.” The new Damiani rings were being sold online and featured the same 10/20 diamond design as Pitt’s prototype with diamonds costing $1000.00 a piece.  Eventually, the lawsuit was later settled in favor of Pitt and Aniston and Damiani was barred from using the design.

With this is mind, potential replicators should beware that Brad may come after them.  If exact copies of the rings do hit the market we won’t be surprised if, resurfacing like his role in Sleepers, Pitt brings the wrongdoer to court.