Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Bit Parts
Reconsideration Motion Denied in Jay-Z Recording Suit
A Manhattan federal district court denied a defense motion for reconsideration of a ruling over alleged rights in the Jay-Z recording “Izzo (H.O.V.A.).” Ulloa v. Universal Music and Video Distribution Corp., 01-9583. Plaintiff Demme Ulloa had alleged copyright infringement and unjust enrichment based on a vocal phrase she contributed to the recording while a visitor at a studio session. Reconfirming its earlier denial of summary judgment for the defendants on those claims, the district court noted that whether the melody occurred in prior art wasn't relevant to the originality of Ulloa's vocal phrase because the defendants “do not contend that Plaintiff copied the Vocal Phrase from those prior works.” The district court also noted in its latest ruling that Ulloa's unjust enrichment claim wasn't preempted at this point by copyright law because she would be able to proceed with the claim if “Defendants prevail at trial in establishing that the Vocal Phrase was either created as a work for hire (and thus Plaintiff has no copyright in the work) or licensed to Defendants.”
Implied Contract Claim Can Continue
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that plaintiff Jeff Grosso can proceed with his claim of breach of implied contract over the screenplay to the film “Rounders.” Grosso v. Miramax Films Corp., 01-57255. (But the appeals court upheld a grant of summary judgment for the defendants on Grosso's copyright claim.) The Ninth Circuit noted in its unpublished opinion: “Plaintiff's complaint alleged circumstances that, if true, would sustain an action for implied contract: Plaintiff submitted the idea, in script form, to Defendants, at least indirectly, through Defendants' agents. Plaintiff submitted the idea in response to a solicitation by Defendants. Finally, it is alleged that 'the idea was submitted by Plaintiff to Defendants with the understanding and expectation, fully and clearly understood by Defendants, that Plaintiff would be reasonably compensated for its use by Defendants.'”
Spawn Suit Rehearing 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?