Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Bit Parts
Film Award Screeners/Copyright Infringement
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted a motion by Warner Bros. Entertainment for a default judgment against an official screener of films submitted last year for Academy Award consideration. Warner Bros. Entertain- ment Inc. v. Caridi, CV 04-582 SVW (JWJx). The screener had been involved in the unauthorized distribution of the motion pictures “The Last Samurai” and “Mystic River,” including for Internet downloading purposes. In issuing its judgment, the district court awarded the film studio a permanent injunction, maximum statutory damages for willful infringement of $150,000 for each of the films and $9,600 in attorney fees.
Film Investments/Punitive Damages
The Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reversed and remanded an $8 million punitive damage award handed down against a film production whose affiliated producer misappropriated some of the more than $1 million in funds that the plaintiff had invested for a motion-picture project. StreetScenes L.L.C. v. ITC Entertainment Group Inc., B168835. The jury had awarded the plaintiff investor approximately $9 million, to include out-of-pocket damages but mostly for lost profits. The court of appeal later reduced the lost-profits award as too speculative. The latest appellate ruling was based on the refusal of the trial court to subsequently lower the $8 million punitive damages award against the production company. According to the court of appeal, an award of punitive damages about seven times the final compensatory award violated due process. The court of appeal noted in its unpublished opinion, “[T]his unextraordinary fraud case concerned misrepresentations by a corporate agent to experienced investors in an inherently risky project. While the speculative nature of the project should not (and did not) foreclose imposition of punitive damages, neither does it demand the kind of substantial award exceeding ratios representing the constitutional maximum in cases of 'extreme reprehensibility' resulting in death or substantial injury.”
Musical Compositions/Copyright Infringement
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.