Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
No sexual harassment case has received as much attention in the press recently as the one brought against Fox News and television host Bill O'Reilly by former Fox producer Andrea Mackris. This case grabbed the headlines with almost as much fervor as did Anita Hill's claims against then-U.S. Supreme Court Justice nominee Clarence Thomas in 1994, which had previously been the most notorious of sexual harassment claims.
The Mackris/O'Reilly case has frequently been compared with the Hill/Thomas case — not only because of the cases' relative notoriety, but also because they involve similar allegations: that a subordinate employee was subject to verbal harassment. Ms. Mackris, like Ms. Hill, excelled in her job. And, like Ms. Hill, she was given significant opportunities for plum assignments — by her alleged harasser. Among other things, Ms. Mackris interviewed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Ms. Mackris even appears to have accepted O'Reilly's entreaties to return to Fox after she had resigned and gone to CNN. She did this notwithstanding O'Reilly' allegedly harassing conduct, which began, she claimed, even before she left Fox for CNN, and continued after she returned.
What It Means to Attorneys
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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?