Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
CASE CAPTION: Marcus Chong v. Warner Bros., AOL Time Warner Inc., Anarchos Productions Inc., Eon Entertainment and Village Roadshow, L. A. Superior Court # BC295799.
CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of contract; breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; promissory estoppel; and slander/libel per se.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: In 1998, Chong and the defendants entered into an oral agreement for Chong to star in the film 'The Matrix.' The defendants agreed that Chong would also be featured in the two 'Matrix' sequels. The agreement was later reduced to writing, but Chong was not given a copy. The defendants ratified the agreement in 2000, and told Chong that he would undoubtedly be paid more than the $150,000 he got for the first 'Matrix' film. But Chong was not used in or paid for the sequels. The defendants also published numerous false statements about Chong including that he was a terrorist. The defendants conspired to blackball Chong from further professional acting work in Hollywood.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?