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: George Lutz v. Dimension Films; Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.; Metro-Goldwyn Mayer Distribution Co.; United Artists Pictures Inc.; Sony Corporation of America; Radar Pictures Inc.; Dunes Productions; Scott Kosar; and Sheldon Turner, L. A. Superior Court #BC334845.
CAUSES OF ACTION: Libel and breach of contract.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: Ko-sar and Turner are the screenwriters for the remake of film “The Amityville Horror.” Plaintiff Lutz in 1975 bought the house in Amityville, NY in which Ronald DeFero murdered six family members. The Lutz family moved out after 28 days and claimed there were supernatural forces in the house. In 1977, the family entered into a contract with writer Jay Anson to create a book about their experiences. The first movie came out in 1979. In 2002, Lutz signed an agreement with Barstu Productions giving it the right to make a film about events after the period described in the book. The rights finally went to Dimension Films, a division of Miramax Films Corp. The screenplay for the remake purports to tell the “true story” of what happened when the Lutz family moved into the house, and plaintiff Lutz is referred to by name. In the screenplay, Lutz turns into a homicidal maniac who attempts to kill his wife and children and does kill his dog. This was false. Dimension also breached the Barstu agreement by failing to pay $50,000 when box-office gross exceeded $10 million and failed to pay 7.5% of contingent compensation and merchandising profits.
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 Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
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?