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: Initial Entertainment Group Inc. v. Nicholas Cassavetes, Virginia/Sasha Inc., A-Mark Entertainment LLC and Alpha Dog LLC, L.A. Superior Court # BC324958.
CAUSES OF ACTION: Unjust enrichment and breach of implied contract.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiff, which finances and distributes films, has a first-look production deal with Appian Way, actor Leonardo DiCaprio's film production company. In March 2002, DiCaprio and his friend Tobey Maguire decided to co-produce a film based on the life of Jesse James Hollywood, a San Fernando Valley drug dealer and murderer who became one of the youngest men ever on the FBI's Most Wanted list. Maguire brought his friend Kevin Connolly in to direct. Connolly's friend, Nick Cassavetes, agreed to write the screenplay. It was made clear to Cassavetes that DiCaprio and Maguire intended to have the low-budget film financed and distributed by Initial. Initial proceeded to pay for assorted pre-production and legal expenses. Although Cassavetes wrote two version of the screenplay, he delayed signing his commissioned-work writer's agreement. By Jan. 2004, it became obvious that Cassavetes was determined to force a breakdown in negotiations because he had changed his mind about how the script should be developed. A-Mark, a company Cassavetes has an interest in, formed Alpha Dog with Sidney Kimmel Entertainment to produce the film (called “Alpha Dog”). Kimmel was to finance, New Line would distribute, with Cassavetes directing. Initial has not been reimbursed for its investment.
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.