Cameo Clips

The trial court improperly found that the owner of the rights to 'Rin Tin Tin' breached a loan settlement agreement with an individual he partnered with to colorize the TV episodes and develop a feature film based on the property, the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, held in an unpublished opinion. Kleven v. Leonard, B153534. Max J. Kleven had agreed to loan money to 'Rin Tin Tin' rights owner Herbert B. Leonard to be paid out of proceeds earned from exploiting the property. Kleven later filed suit to collect, but the parties entered into a settlement agreement placed on the court record. The trial court subsequently granted Kleven's motion to enforce the settlement agreement based on Leonard's alleged breach by not giving Kleven a security interest in 'Rin Tin Tin.' On appeal, Leonard argued that the security documents Kleven presented to him didn't conform to the settlement agreement. Leonard also denied previously granting a security interest in 'Rin Tin Tin' to a third party. Reversing, the court of appeal noted, 'While it is true that Leonard and his companies entered into an agreement with a third party that granted a security interest in some of Leonard's various properties, the evidence demonstrates that he never encumbered any of his rights to the Rin Tin Tin character.'

Copyright/Expert Witness Fees

A music lawyer required to pay accrued fees owed an expert witness before the witness would testify at trial wasn't forced to do so under duress, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Nashville, has decided. Harrington v. Smith, M2002-00840-COA-R3-CV. Expert witness E. Michael Harrington had been retained through John Ascione, an associate of Nashville music lawyer Grant Smith, to work on a lawsuit filed by Smith's office alleging country artist Joe Diffie's song “Prop Me Up Beside the Jukebox If I Die” infringed on the plaintiff's song “Lay Me Out By the Jukebox When I Die.” Ascione left Smith's office before the case ended. When Smith failed to pay accrued expert-witness fees, Harrington required Smith to execute a promissory note before he would testify at trial. After the district court dismissed the case, Smith, who had taken the copyright case on a contingency-fee basis, declined to pay Harrington, who then sued Smith. Smith argued in part that he had signed the promissory note under duress. The Chancery Court for Davidson County ruled, however, in favor of Harrington in the fee dispute. Affirming, the court of appeals noted, “It is no more duress for Harrington to force Smith to pay the unpaid invoices as a condition to giving his testimony than it would be for Smith to be able to compel Harrington to give his testimony before making payment to him of what was already due.”