Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
With the increase in 'Survivor'-type reality TV shows ' and competition between program producers ' has come the need for greater protection of production secrets. Applicants and contestants for such reality programs are often asked to sign confidentiality agreements to prevent trade secrets from being divulged. But how binding is a confidentiality agreement if a contestant accuses a producer of manipulating a reality show's outcome?
A confidentiality agreement ' one that includes life story rights ' for the reality show 'Survivor' states:
I understand any appearance I may make on the Series is strictly for the purpose of participating in the Series as a contestant. Except as specifically provided herein or as otherwise authorized by Producer and/or CBS, I will not myself, and I will not authorize others to, publicize, advertise or promote my appearance on the Series, receive or generate any monetary advantage from my appearance on the Series, or use or disclose to any party any information or trade secrets obtained or learned as a result of my participation in the Series, including without limitation any information concerning or relating to the Series, the contestants, the events contained in the Series or the outcome of the Series, for a period from the date of this agreement until three (3) years after the initial broadcast of the last episode of the Series. Without limiting the foregoing, I acknowledge that the initial broadcast of the episodes in which I may participate will occur, if at all, after the contest is completed and that any information revealed or disclosed prior to broadcast will cause irreparable harm to Producer and CBS. In that connection, I specifically agree that any information regarding the elimination of contestants and the selection of any winner is to be held in strict confidence by me and cannot be disclosed by me to any third parties. ' I agree that disclosure by me in violation of the foregoing shall constitute and be treated as a material breach of this agreement which will cause irreparable harm to Producer and/or CBS and will cause substantial damage in excess of $5,000,000, entitling Producer to seek, among other things, (a) injunctive relief, without posting any bond, to prevent and/or cure any breach of threatened breach of this paragraph by me, (b) return or recovery of the value of any prize received or to be received in connection with the Series, (c) recovery or disgorgement of the monies or other consideration received in connection with such disclosure, if any, and (d) recovery of Producer's attorneys' fees incurred to enforce this paragraph.
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?