Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Cameo Clips
Copyright/TV Show Ideas
Three seminal scripts used as the basis for a TV sitcom belonged to the company that produced the show, rather than a co-host of “De Noche con Iris y Sunshine” who had participated in a brainstorming session to develop a sitcom to air within the “Iris y Sunshine” program, the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico ruled. TMTV Corp. v. Mass Productions Inc., 00-1338. The show-within-a-show sitcom “20 Pisos de Historia” was about life at a condominium. The show's producer filed a declaratory action against co-host Emmanuel Logrono and others after Logrono left the plaintiff's program and moved to a different channel to appear in the sitcom “El Condominio.”
Granting summary judgment for the plaintiff, the district court found that Logrono wasn't an author of “20 Pisos de Historia.” According to the court, “Logrono has alleged in a conclusory and unsupported manner that he wrote an outline or storyline of the first scripts at the brainstorming session. … Accepting his version would mean that Logrono wrote not one, but three outlines or storylines for the three scripts at the brainstorming session. … We find that Logrono has failed to adequately controvert the fact that these initial scripts were actually written after the introductory brainstorming session by the two scriptwriters on their own, without supervision. Further, the documentary evidence on the record shows that the scripts ' as written by [Miguel] Morales and [Roberto] Jimenez ' are virtually identical to the final [product as reformatted by Logrono] used for the broadcasted programs.
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.