Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Anti-Bootlegging Statute/Constitutionality
A Manhattan federal court found the federal anti-bootlegging statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2319A, to be unconstitutional. U.S. v. Martignon, 03 Cr. 1287 (HB). The court first found that the wording of the statute and its legislative history demonstrated that the act was an exercise of Congress' authority under the Copyright Clause. But while what amounts to a copyright “writing” has expanded, the court noted that a writing has never included an unfixed work. In addition, the court stated: “It is undeniable that the anti-bootlegging statute grants seemingly perpetual protection to live musical performances, and therefore would run afoul of the Copyright Clause.”
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, held that right of publicity claims by individuals whose photographs were used without their permission weren't preempted by the federal Copyright Act. Leto v. RCA Corp., 04 C 4514. The defendants had used a photograph of the plaintiffs at an amusement park on packaging for TV sets. After the plaintiffs filed suit in state court under the Illinois Right of Publicity Act and for common law misappropriation of name or likeness, the defendants had the case removed to federal court. Remanding, the federal district court emphasized “Defendants have not evidenced that the photographs were taken 'by or under the authority' of the plaintiffs and, therefore, we cannot find that the works which plaintiffs seek to protect – their personas ' are 'fixed' and copyrightable.” The district court subsequently denied the defendants' motion for reconsideration.
Trademark Claims/Insurance Indemnification
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
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.