Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Bit Parts

By Stan Soocher
August 26, 2003

Oral License Upheld

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has denied a music company's motion for reconsideration of an earlier ruling that oral permission to use music tracks in the film 'Jails, Hospitals and Hiphop' on a non-exclusive basis was valid. Rawkus Entertainment LLC v. JHH Pictures Inc., 01-8804 (Feb. 13). Rawkus alleged copyright infringement on the ground that they had never given JHH written licenses to use the tracks. The district court noted, however, '[w]hatever may have been in a contract about a writing being required, it is obvious that the parties went forward to virtual completion of the agreement on a handshake. Plaintiff, having allowed this, in essence waived any requirement of a writing and appears to be in bad faith by refusing later to supply written licenses. This, as the Court sees it, excuses the requirement of what has become a merely formal confirmation in writing.'


Review Petition Denied

The California Supreme Court has denied a petition for a review of a state court of appeal ruling that a motion picture production company was liable for fraudulent acts of an executive producer the company hired to find film properties and gave in-house office space. StreetScenes v. ITC Entertainment Group Inc., S111968. The court of appeal had found that ITC had ratified the executive producer's activities.


Federal Film Loan Suit Stayed

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has upheld a stay of federal court litigation filed by insurance companies against a bank that made loans to Paramount for a group of films, pending the outcome of a state court suit filed against the insurers by the bank. General Star International Indemnity Ltd. v. AXA Reinsurance UK PLC, 02-7659 (Feb 7). The Second Circuit agreed with the district court that because other defendant insurance companies in the state suit weren't parties to the federal action, there was a risk of inconsistent outcomes.


Film Captioning Case to Proceed

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has denied a grant of summary judgment to movie theater operators sued by deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Ball v. AMC Entertainment Inc., 00-867 (Feb. 24). The theater operators argued that the ADA does not require them to provide captioning, but the district court noted that the Act does explicitly prohibit discrimination against deaf individuals 'in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services … or accommodations of any place of public accommodation.' The district court concluded: 'Defendants have failed to prove that installation of [captioning devices] is expressly not required by the ADA or that such installation would fundamentally alter the nature of the service they provide. Furthermore, there are material facts in dispute as to Defendants' undue burden claim.'

Oral License Upheld

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has denied a music company's motion for reconsideration of an earlier ruling that oral permission to use music tracks in the film 'Jails, Hospitals and Hiphop' on a non-exclusive basis was valid. Rawkus Entertainment LLC v. JHH Pictures Inc., 01-8804 (Feb. 13). Rawkus alleged copyright infringement on the ground that they had never given JHH written licenses to use the tracks. The district court noted, however, '[w]hatever may have been in a contract about a writing being required, it is obvious that the parties went forward to virtual completion of the agreement on a handshake. Plaintiff, having allowed this, in essence waived any requirement of a writing and appears to be in bad faith by refusing later to supply written licenses. This, as the Court sees it, excuses the requirement of what has become a merely formal confirmation in writing.'


Review Petition Denied

The California Supreme Court has denied a petition for a review of a state court of appeal ruling that a motion picture production company was liable for fraudulent acts of an executive producer the company hired to find film properties and gave in-house office space. StreetScenes v. ITC Entertainment Group Inc., S111968. The court of appeal had found that ITC had ratified the executive producer's activities.


Federal Film Loan Suit Stayed

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has upheld a stay of federal court litigation filed by insurance companies against a bank that made loans to Paramount for a group of films, pending the outcome of a state court suit filed against the insurers by the bank. General Star International Indemnity Ltd. v. AXA Reinsurance UK PLC, 02-7659 (Feb 7). The Second Circuit agreed with the district court that because other defendant insurance companies in the state suit weren't parties to the federal action, there was a risk of inconsistent outcomes.


Film Captioning Case to Proceed

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has denied a grant of summary judgment to movie theater operators sued by deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Ball v. AMC Entertainment Inc., 00-867 (Feb. 24). The theater operators argued that the ADA does not require them to provide captioning, but the district court noted that the Act does explicitly prohibit discrimination against deaf individuals 'in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services … or accommodations of any place of public accommodation.' The district court concluded: 'Defendants have failed to prove that installation of [captioning devices] is expressly not required by the ADA or that such installation would fundamentally alter the nature of the service they provide. Furthermore, there are material facts in dispute as to Defendants' undue burden claim.'

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.