Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Courthouse Steps
CASE CAPTION: Diana Locke v. Endeavor Agency, Sean Perry, Lighthearted Entertainment Inc. and Howard Schultz, L.A. Superior Court # BC316918.
CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of confidence; interference with prospective economic advantage; conspiracy; unjust enrichment; violation of Calif. Bus. & Prof. Code Secs. 17200 et seq.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: After writing two books on cosmetic surgery, the plaintiff conceived of the idea of a reality television series that would focus on real-life subjects as they underwent plastic surgery. She presented her concept to the defendants on the condition that it be kept confidential and that they not produce a show without her involvement. The defendants purported to decline to use the idea but instead disclosed the idea to ABC and produced “Extreme Makeover,” a series nearly identical to Locke's concept. The defendants are reaping millions of dollars from the concept, which has sparked a whole genre of reality shows with cosmetic surgery themes. The plaintiff hasn't been compensated. The defendants claimed that the show producer, Howard Schultz, “came up with the idea in the middle of the night.” Schultz owns Lighthearted. Endeavor is a talent agency. Perry is a talent agent with Endeavor. Locke's books are “Nips & Tucks: Everything You Must Know Before Having Cosmetic Surgery” and “The Cosmetic Surgery Bible.” Locke is also a model and actress. She pitched her show to Jeff Margolis, a TV producer. Margolis forwarded the concept to Perry. Margolis decided to cease pursuing development after Perry told him that Locke had “zero credibility” as a producer. Perry then forwarded the concept to Schultz.
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?