Editing Betty Boop (section)

==Legal issues==

===Helen Kane lawsuit===
[[File:Helen Kane and Betty Boop - Photoplay, April 1932.jpg|thumb|Helen Kane and Betty Boop – ''Photoplay'', April 1932]]
In May 1932, [[Helen Kane]] filed a $250,000 infringement lawsuit against Fleischer Studios, [[Max Fleischer]] and Paramount Publix Corporation for the "deliberate caricature" that produced "unfair competition", exploiting her personality and image. While Kane had risen to fame in the late 1920s as "The Boop-Oop-a-Doop Girl", a star of stage, recordings, and films for Paramount, her career was nearing its end by 1931, and Paramount promoted the development of Betty Boop following Kane's decline. The case was brought in New York in 1934. On April 19, Fleischer testified that Betty Boop purely was a product of his imagination and detailed by members of his staff.<ref name="Salt Lake Tribune 1934-04-20 p. 13">{{cite news |title=N.Y. Supreme Court Hears 'Boop-Boop' Vs. 'A-Doup'; Artist Denies Helen Kane Was Used as Model in Trial of $250,000 Damage Suit |url=https://newspaperarchive.com/other-articles-clipping-apr-20-1934-4259648/ |newspaper=Salt Lake Tribune |publication-place=Salt Lake City, UT |date=April 20, 1934 |volume=129 |issue=6 |page=13 |issn=0746-3502 |via=NewspaperArchive}}</ref><ref name="Paris News 1934-04-19 p. 10">{{cite news |title=Betty Boop Creator Sued |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-paris-news-betty-boop-creator-sued/139301525/ |newspaper=The Paris News |publication-place=Paris, TX |issn=8756-2081 |volume=65 |number=167 |page=10 |date=April 19, 1934 |via=Newspapers.com}}</ref>

Theatrical manager Lou Bolton testified that Kane had witnessed an African-American child performer, [[Baby Esther]] (Esther Jones), using a similar vocal style in an act at the Everglades Restaurant club in [[midtown Manhattan]], in "April or May 1928".{{sfn |Taylor |2017 |pp=184–185, 187–188}} Under cross-examination Bolton said that he had met with Kane at the club after Esther's performance, but could not say when she had walked in.{{sfn |Taylor |2017 |pp=187–188}} Bolton also stated that Paramount's lawyers had paid him $200 to come to New York.{{sfn |Taylor |2017 |p=192}}  Esther's name was given in the trial as Esther Jones. (During the trial, Lou Bolton, who was Esther Jones' manager, also testified his belief that she was probably in Paris.{{sfn |Taylor |2017 |pp=185-186}}) An early test sound-on-disc film (lost after the trial), was produced, which featured Esther performing in this style and introduced as evidence.{{sfn |Pointer |2017 |p=100}} In the film, Esther sings three songs that had earlier been popularized by Helen Kane – "Don't Be Like That", "Is There Anything Wrong with That?", and "Wa-da-da" – which writer Mark Langer says "was hardly proof that Helen Kane derived her singing style from Baby Esther".<ref>Langer, Mark (Winter 2005). [https://www.animationstudies.org/v3/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/vol18_2005_iss1.pdf "Birth of the Boop"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220331115215/https://www.animationstudies.org/v3/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/vol18_2005_iss1.pdf |date=March 31, 2022 }}. ''Society for Animation Studies newsletter'', Volume 18, Issue 1.</ref>
Jazz studies scholar [[Robert O'Meally]] stated this evidence, though, "might very well have been cooked up by the Fleischers to discredit Kane, whom they later admitted to have been their model for Betty Boop."{{sfn |O'Meally |Edwards |Griffin |2004 |p=[{{GBurl |id=u3EUvy2P2v8C |pg=PA184}} 295]}}  O'Meally also questioned if some sort of deal existed between Paramount and Bolton, and questioned if Esther were ever paid for her presumed loss of revenue.{{sfn |O'Meally |Edwards |Griffin |2004 |p=[{{GBurl |id=u3EUvy2P2v8C |pg=PA184}} 295]}}

New York Supreme Court Justice Edward J. McGoldrick ruled, "The plaintiff has failed to sustain either cause of action by proof of sufficient probative force". In his opinion, based on the totality of the evidence presented in the trial, the "baby" technique of singing did not originate with Kane.<ref name="Harrisburg Telegraph 1934-05-05 p. 1">{{cite news |title=Boop-A-Dooping Not Property of Miss Helen Kane; Court Rules Bewildering Sound Not Cause for Heavy Damages |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/harrisburg-telegraph/2096450/ |date=1934-05-05 |newspaper=Harrisburg Telegraph |volume=104 |number=108 |via=Newspapers.com |page=1 |issn=2376-3442}}</ref>{{sfn |Taylor |2017 |p=208}} No confirmed recordings of Jones are known to exist.<ref name="Blakemore 2017">{{cite web |last=Blakemore |first=Erin |title=The People v. Betty Boop |website=HISTORY |date=2017-07-20 |url=https://www.history.com/news/the-people-v-betty-boop |access-date=2024-01-22}}</ref>

Under current US copyright law, Betty Boop is due to enter the public domain on January 1, 2026.<ref>{{harvp|Sergi|2015|p=214}}</ref>{{efn|See [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Code/Title_17/Chapter_3/Sections_304_and_305 USC Title 17, Chapter 3, § 304(b)]}} Later versions of her character will enter the public domain in the years that they become eligible.

[[File:BettyBoopCollection.jpg|upright=1.1|thumb|A display of Betty Boop collectibles]]

===Lawsuits and recent ownership===

Ownership of the ''Boop'' cartoons has changed hands over the intervening decades due to a series of corporate mergers, acquisitions, and divestitures. In 1954 [[Paramount Pictures]] sold the TV rights to UM&M TV Corp, Paramount was selling off all of their library to pay off debts. UM&M TV Corp. went bankrupt before ever distributing the films, they only got as far as modifying the original masters with their TV titles. In 1955 [[National Telefilm Associates]] purchased all of the licenses & films owned by UM&M TV Corp. and made 16mm prints to distribute to TV stations. In 1985 NTA changed their name to [[Republic Pictures]] since much of their feature film library was old Republic movies. [[Aaron Spelling Productions]] absorbed the new Republic Pictures in 1994 and shortly after was acquired by Viacom, which also acquired Paramount Pictures. Then in 2006 [[Viacom (2005–present)|Viacom]] made a corporate split into two separate companies: CBS Corporation and [[Paramount Pictures]] (the original distributor). As of  2021, Olive Films (under license from Paramount) holds home video rights and [[Trifecta Entertainment & Media|Trifecta]] retains television rights.

The rights to the "Betty Boop" character were not sold with the cartoons by Paramount, but were transferred to Harvey Comics in 1958 along with the 'Famous Studios' cartoon characters (Casper, Herman & Katnip, Baby Huey, etc.), regardless of whether they had the rights to transfer Betty Boop, according to a 2011 US Court verdict.<ref name="law.justia.com">{{Cite web|url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/09-56317/09-56317-2011-08-19.html|title=Fleischer Studios, Inc. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., et al., No. 09-56317 (9th Cir. 2011)|website=Justia Law}}</ref><ref name="cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov">{{Cite web|url=http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/02/23/09-56317.pdf|title=Fleischer Studios, Inc. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc. Transcript of the verdict, US Courts, p. 7}}</ref> The courts, however, were unable to come to a majority decision concerning ownership of the copyright.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hull |first=Tim |date=February 24, 2011 |title=Court Says Right to Betty Boop Is Anyone's Guess |url=https://www.courthousenews.com/court-says-right-to-betty-boop-is-anyones-guess/ |access-date=2024-01-25 |website=Courthouse News Service}}</ref> A trademark on the name (but not legitimately the likeness) of Betty Boop is owned by Fleischer Studios, for which the character was created in the 1930s, but which was unable to claim copyright infringement in a 2008 district court case;<ref>{{cite web|title=Fleischer Studios, Inc., Plaintiff, v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc.; Artnostalgia.Com, Inc.; X One X Movie Archive, Inc.; Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Co.; Leo Valencia, Defendants 772 F. Supp. 2d 1135 Case No. 2:06-cv-06229-FMC-MANx Dec. 16, 2008 United States District Court, C.D. California.|date=2008-12-16|url=https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2476031/fleischer-studios-inc-v-avela-inc/|quote=Neither NTA's 1972 acknowledgment in a letter nor the 1997 settlement agreement between Republic and Plaintiff effected a transfer of rights that are good as against the world. At most, these documents evidence the parties' recognition of rights effective only between the parties. Moreover, neither party to the instant litigation has argued or established that the rights in the original character were or are severable from the works in which the original Betty Boop appears.<br />Accordingly, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a chain of title in the relevant cartoon films or the component parts thereof that leads to and terminates with Plaintiff. Stated otherwise, Plaintiff has not established its ownership of the Betty Boop cartoon character. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Permanent Injunction is DENIED with respect to Plaintiffs copyright infringement claim, and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED with regard to Plaintiffs copyright infringement claim.}}</ref> the merchandising rights to Betty's name were licensed to King Features Syndicate,<ref name="law.justia.com"/><ref name="cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov"/> until 2021 but since then are licensed to Global Icons Inc.<ref>{{Cite news |title=Fleischer Studios Names Global Icons New Licensing Agent for Betty Boop and its Slate of Beloved Classic Characters |url=https://licensinginternational.org/news/fleischer-studios-names-global-icons-new-licensing-agent-for-betty-boop-and-its-slate-of-beloved-classic-characters/ |date=2021-01-12 |access-date=2022-05-15 |work=Licensing International}}</ref>