Introduction
On November 14, 2017, I went to the North County Superior Court in Vista, California, where I attended a couple small claims trials. I went with Lauren Bunn, and we arrived at eight in the morning and left at eleven thirty. Upon arrival, we were ushered into a room where the court clerk, Sherry Rose, briefed us on the five cases that were scheduled at 8:15. It was at this point when Sherry began to list off the cases in a sort of roll-call; two of the cases were dismissed, and two entered into mediation. A mediator apologized and explained to us that since trials that are taken into mediation are not public record, we could not stay to listen and keep record. We were moved to the courtroom, where the remaining trial proceeded. The bailiff announced the trial, the clerk swore everyone in, and the judge entered. The judge was William Y. Wood, whom Lauren and I befriended between trials. He asked us if we understood what was going on, and explained to us how he decides on a ruling; I was surprised when Judge Wood laughingly added, “I like to give the impression that I need to think about my decision when the trial has ended, but I really know my verdict before the plaintiff and defendant have even left this room.” When a trial began, the plaintiff(s) and defendant(s) would take their positions and give their evidence to the bailiff, who would bring it to the judge. At the end of each trial, the judge would dismiss the plaintiff and defendant, and they would exit the courtroom.
Haines v. Golka
Morgan Haines is a self-employed graphic designer who works from home. Dan Golka is a businessman who was in need of a graphic design for his company’s website. The two were introduced in May of 2017 by Haines’ husband, who is a friend of Golka, and an agreement was reached that Haines would do the graphic design work for Golka’s website. This contract was executed when the two met again in June and Golka payed Haines the appropriate amount. However, Golka mentioned a need for future work, and in August, Haines received an urgent voicemail requesting last minute revisions to her previous designs. Haines emailed Golka, explaining that since the job was so last minute, she would have to charge him double her usual hourly rate. Golka accepted the new rate, and Haines began the work. Haines invoiced Golka in late August upon completing the work, but Golka refused to pay, saying that the amount he was charged was “insanely high” as Haines worked for “many more hours than [Golka] expected.”
In the words of Judge Wood, “This case is essentially an issue of contract law.” There was a contract formed between Golka and Haines, but the terms were ambiguous. Haines never estimated how long the project would take her, and Golka never inquired. The main issue of this case is if Haines deserves to be paid for her work despite the ambiguous contract. However, I would also add that there is an argument of copyright infringement included in this case, as Golka used Haines’ artwork without payment.
Fleming v. Miles
Similarly, in Fleming v. Miles, Fleming filed a suit regarding artwork created by Miles. Philmore P. Fleming is a musician who recorded an album in December of 1997. Colleen Miles is a graphic designer who was commissioned $50 per hour to do artwork for the album in early 1999. Miles completed the artwork, filed for copyright of the designs, and sent the files to Centerpoint Graphics, where Fleming had agreed to print what was needed. However, Fleming attempted to print the designs without paying Miles, who filed a small claims action against Fleming seeking payment.
In a letter to Centerpoint Graphics, Miles’ attorney clarified that Miles is the legal copyright owner of the artwork, and asked that the company hold on to the files until payment is received by Miles. As a result of not being able to print his CD covers, Fleming demanded that Miles pay for damages, such as “loss of employee productivity, postage, and legal fees” (Fleming v. Miles). In response, Miles then counterclaimed for the outstanding balance on her fee. The issue was taken to court, where the judge ruled in favor of Miles for both the initial claim and counterclaim. Fleming disagreed with the ruling and decided to escalate the issue by commencing new action, this time citing copyright infringement. Miles moved to dismiss the issue of copyright infringement, as Fleming had never registered a copyright. The issue was dismissed voluntarily by Fleming. However, on September 5, 2000, Fleming filed for copyright on Miles’ design. When asked ‘Has registration for this work, or for an earlier version of this work, already been made in the Copyright Office?’ Fleming answered “no,” despite knowing that Miles had previously filed for copyright. Fleming then returned to court, citing this event as copyright infringement and demanding one million dollars in punitive damages. The court ruled against Fleming, and Miles’ summary judgement was “granted in part and denied in part” (Fleming v. Miles).
This case addresses not only copyright, but also contract law, because although Miles and Fleming did not have a physical contract, it was still ruled that Miles deserved monetary compensation for her artwork.
Nourison Industries, Inc. v. Virtual Studios, Inc.
This case deals with copyright infringement and breach of contract. Nourison Industries (“Nourison”) is a “leading designer, producer and importer of high quality floor coverings in the United States” (Nourison Industries, Inc. v. Virtual Studios, Inc.). Virtual Studios (“Virtual”) is a well known company that specializes in “digital photography scanning, design and illustration, digital offset printing, presentation graphics, image setting, digital color printers proofs, mounting and laminating” (Nourison Industries, Inc. v. Virtual Studios, Inc.). In 1998, Virtual started to provide Nourison with ‘digital room scenes’ to showcase differing floor coverings. The parties agreed on a contract, and Virtual sent invoices to Nourison. These invoices contained a set of ‘terms and conditions’ on the back, which specified that Nourison could use any of Virtual’s photos for a year, as well as a clause that mentions the consequences of violating Virtual’s intellectual property.
In July of 2009, a meeting was held between the two Vice Presidents of Nourison and the President of Virtual in which the men would discuss Nourison’s use of Virtual’s images past the licensed time period. Allegedly, during this meeting, one of the Vice Presidents of Nourison acknowledged that the company had breached the agreement and infringed on copyright. Despite this alleged statement, the men were unable to resolve their issue, and Virtual’s counsel emailed Nourison in November of 2009 to alert them of the incoming legal dispute. Upon receiving this email, Nourison “commenced a two count declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that it did not breach “any contract” with Virtual or infringe on Virtual's copyrights” (Nourison Industries, Inc. v. Virtual Studios, Inc.). In January of 2010, Visual filed an answer and counterclaim that alleged copyright infringement, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Nourison wants to get the counts of copyright infringement and unjust enrichment dismissed, and Virtual is fighting to at least keep the count of copyright infringement.
The ruling on the case was that Virtual could amend the count of copyright infringement, but the count of unjust enrichment must be dismissed because it is preempted by copyright law. The breach of contract claim was maintained. After twenty-one days, an amended count of copyright infringement was received and Nourison was expected to pay an