Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Right Of Publicity/Plaintiff's Death
A right-of-publicity claim filed under New York law by actor Jerry Orbach before his death in 2004 can proceed, the New York County Supreme Court decided. Orbach v. Hilton Hotels Corp., N.Y.L.J., Aug. 1, pg. 18. Orbach had agreed to narrate a documentary that he claimed he thought would be used only for the 100th anniversary of the Waldorf-Astoria hotel. Orbach's suit alleged “that [Hilton Hotels] has illegally used and displayed the video far beyond the terms of the original agreement thereby causing harm to him.” Hilton Hotels argued that Orbach's right-of-publicity claim under New York Civil Rights Law Sec. 51, the state's right-of-privacy statute, ended when he died. New York courts have held that Sec. 51 isn't a descendible right. But the trial court noted that the issue in the Orbach case was answered in Groucho Marx Productions Inc. v. Playboy Enterprises Inc., 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13900 (S.D.N.Y. 1979), which “held that if an individual files a Sec. 51 action and then dies, his legal representative may be substituted. Judge [Morris] Lasker [of the Manhattan federal district court] distinguished cases in which the action was brought after the death of the plaintiff as follows:
'Those cases held merely that it was no violation of Secs. 50 and 51 to use the picture of a person already dead at the time of the initial use of the picture, a proposition with which we agree. However, in this case, the use (and the complaint as to the use) of the pictorial material in question preceded the death of Groucho Marx [plaintiff], and nothing in the statute or the cases cited precludes his legal representatives from continuing to press the claim he asserted before he died.'”
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?