Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
TVT vs. Def Jam Provides Tips On Evidence Use
On March 21, a Manhattan federal jury ruled that the Island Def Jam Music Group (IDJ) committed breach of contract, copyright infringement and fraud over TVT Records plans to release an album by hip-hop producer Irv Gotti featuring Ja Rule and his group Cash Murda Click (CMC). (TVT alleged that IDJ wrongfully prevented Gotti from delivering a CMC album for a November 2002 release date. The district judge bifurcated the trial into separate liability and damages phases.) In addition, the judge denied TVT's motion to dismiss IDJ's counterclaims for tortious interference with contractual relations. TVT Records v. The Island Def Jam Music Group, 02-6644. The district court's decision'and related March 4 and March 7 rulings issued just before the trial began ' offered valuable tips on what evidence may be introduced in litigation between record companies over the services of an artist. Among the evidentiary rulings:
A letter delivered by IDJ to TVT on the eve of trial giving consent for Gotti and Ja Rule to deliver a CMC album to TVT was precluded from trial. Otherwise, the court noted it 'would effectively remove from the jury a threshold issue it is here being charged to determine: whether the parties' interactions culminating in the Side Letter Agreement [between IDJ and TVT for the services of Gotti and Ja Rule] formed a binding contract in the first place and, if so, whether that contract was breached by IDJ in [a repudiation letter from] August 2002.'
A March 5 deposition statement by IDJ executive Lyor Cohen that IDJ was ready to waive its contractual exclusivity over the services of Gotti and Ja Rule was also precluded from trial because, the district judge noted, 'It is conceivable, for instance, that some formal corporate clearances, through the same internal procedure IDJ has asserted would be a prerequisite to its approval of the Side Letter Agreement, may be a necessary condition for IDJ to grant a binding waiver of exclusivity.'
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- 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
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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.
The Article 8 Opt In
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?