Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Agent Commissions/Arbitration Awards
A Manhattan federal district court ruled that TV sports director William Webb must pay commissions to his agent from monies for TV contract renewals made after the agent won an arbitration award against Webb. Robert Lewis Rosen Associates Ltd. (RLR) v. Webb, 03 Civ 6338 (HB). The arbitrator had ordered Webb to pay RLR $355,084, including for costs of arbitration, as well as “additional payments” from contract renewals. The district court confirmed the award, then noted in its subsequent ruling: “Webb has chosen to read ambiguity into the Judgment and contends that no additional payments can ever be due because no further monies are [specifically] detailed. But because Arbitration Awards are confirmed in their entirety or specifically changed or vacated, and in this case the Court expressly denied Defendant's motion to vacate, any arguments about ambiguity or the effects of final judgment are unavailing.” … Defamation/Innocent Construction. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed a defamation suit by Karla Knafel over unflattering comments columnist Richard Roeper wrote about Knafel's affair with sports figure Michael Jordan. Knafel v. Chicago-Sun-Times Inc., 04-2152. The appeals court concluded: “[I]t is reasonable to read the [contested] passage as saying that although Knafel was having an affair (ie, a longer term relationship) with Jordan, by demanding so much money from him she is demeaning herself. Roeper does not say Knafel has committed the crime of prostitution but, rather, she is making herself sound like she has. The words 'sound like' imply similarity, but not identity. In short, Roeper is hard on Knafel … But his words are reasonably (and easily) subject to an innocent construction; ie, one that stops short of saying she committed a crime.”
Documentaries/Defamation
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted summary judgment in favor of director Michael Moore in a defamation suit by James Nichols, the brother of Terry Nichols (Terry was convicted for his part in the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City) over comments related to the plaintiff in the documentary movie “Bowling for Columbine.” Nichols v. Moore, 03-74313. The court concluded that: “Defendant's statements were factual and substantially true statements. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff's defamation claim as well as his False Light and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claims fail … Even if Defendant's statements were false, the Court still finds summary judgment appropriate because … the Plaintiff is a public figure and he fails to meet the significant constitutional hurdle of actual malice.”
Downloading/Default Judgment
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?