Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Bit Parts
Suit's Still Up
The Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, held that Al Jardine can proceed with his claim of breach of fiduciary duty against individuals who control The Beach Boys' business entity. Jardine v. Love, B161099. The Los Angeles Superior Court had found that a trademark ruling by a federal appeals court against Jardine over concert use of The Beach Boys' name barred the state court suit. Jardine alleged in the state suit that the other shareholders and directors of Brother Records Inc. had improperly turned control of the Beach Boys' business over to band member Mike Love and had refused to pay Jardine a share of monies earned from Beach Boys' performances. Reversing and remanding in an unpublished opinion, the state court of appeal noted, however, “We find that the primary right claimed by [Jardine] under his federal breach of implied contract [counterclaim] was his right to perform [using The Beach Boys' name] under the implied contract, while the primary right claimed under his breach of fiduciary duty claim was his right as a minority shareholder not to have the value of his share of the corporation diminished by the actions of the remaining shareholders as directors.”
Concert Injury Suit to Continue
The Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate Division, Division One, reversed a grant of summary judgment that had been granted in favor of a club owner in a suit by an injured patron. Anton v. The Roxy Theater, B165830. Plaintiff Robert Anton was allegedly attacked and beaten unconscious when he attended shows by a “faux facist” band and a hardcore punk group. Anton claimed in his negligence suit that none of the Roxy's security guards offered him help either during or after the attack. The club argued that the attack wasn't foreseeable. But in an unpublished opinion, the court of appeal stated, “Without expressing a view about what would be sufficient at trial, the point now is that [the] evidence is entirely insufficient to support summary judgment because it does not defeat Anton's claims that the guards were inadequately trained and inadequately supervised, and that they acted unreasonably under the circumstances of the unprovoked attack on Anton.”
Royalty Software Injunction Denied
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?