Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
CASE CAPTION: Deleese Williams, individually and as guardian of minors Karalee McGee and Sean McGee and as personal representative of the Estate of Kellie McGee v. American Broadcasting Companies Inc.; New Screen Entertainment Inc.; New Screen Concepts Inc.; Greengrass Productions Inc.; Lighthearted Entertainment Inc.; The Walt Disney Co.; and Howard Schultz, L.A. Superior Court # BC339581
CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of contract; breach of convenant of good faith and fair dealing; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligence; unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices; and wrongful death.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiff and her two sisters, Patty and Kellie, applied to be on the TV show “Extreme Makeover.” After an interview, Deleese was chosen to meet with the producers in Los Angeles. She had to go through a series of painful interviews and meetings with doctors, and was then presented with a contract granting rights to use her likeness and to use film of her in order to be considered for the show. The plaintiff also released any claims for injuries. She was invited to a taping of a show called “Life After Extreme Makeover.” During a Dec. 2003 segment, the host announced that Deleese was going to get a makeover. When the defendants came to film the plaintiff's family, their goal was to create extreme emotional turmoil, asking questions that would cause such. The interviewer attacked and shamed Kellie for her sometimes cruel past treatment of Deleese. At one point, the defendants physically restrained the plaintiff from comforting her 9-year-old daughter so that they could tape the daughter crying. Deleese then went back to Los Angeles for 2 weeks to see dentists and doctors. In late January, she was told she that wouldn't get the makeover after all. Her family relationships all deteriorated because defendants elicited statements from them saying Deleese was ugly. Kellie suffered overwhelming guilt and killed herself.
RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages.
PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: Wesley Cordova and Casie L. Gotro of Houston's Cordove & Gotro (281-931-7000) and Robert Scott Dreher of San Diego (619-230-8828).
CASE CAPTION: Gy Waldron and Gy Waldron Productions Inc. v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and Warner Bros. Television Production Inc., L.A. Superior Court # BC339554.
CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of contract; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; fraud; unjust enrichment; an accounting; and declaratory relief.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: Waldron is the credited “creator” of “The Dukes of Hazzard” TV series. In 1974, he wrote and directed a movie called “The Moonrunners.” He pitched the “Dukes” series to Warner in 1978 because Warner wanted a series like that film. Warner released a “Dukes” film in 2005 that is also based on the “Moonrunners” film. But Warner never got the theatrical rights and didn't contact Moonrunners Ltd., a limited partnership that produced the film, to inquire about the rights. United Artists, which distributed “The Moonrunners,” also had a first-refusal right on sequels and owned 50% of the merchandising rights. There was litigation in 1980 over a spinoff of “Dukes” that led to a settlement giving Waldron 10% of the profits from the series, and another settlement in 1987, after Waldron claimed Warner had concealed profits, in which Warner agreed to a 6.5% gross participation in excess of $276 million. This was later changed to $293.6 million. That figure was exceeded in the late 1980s. Warner has refused to pay Waldron the 6.5% from the film receipts. Moonrunners sued in federal court last February. That was settled in June.
RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages.
PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: Marc Toberoff, Larry S. Greenfield, Nicholas C. Williamson, and David T. Michaels of the Law Offices of Marc Toberoff in Los Angeles (310-246-3333).
CASE CAPTION: Deleese Williams, individually and as guardian of minors Karalee McGee and Sean McGee and as personal representative of the Estate of Kellie McGee v.
CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of contract; breach of convenant of good faith and fair dealing; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligence; unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices; and wrongful death.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The plaintiff and her two sisters, Patty and Kellie, applied to be on the TV show “Extreme Makeover.” After an interview, Deleese was chosen to meet with the producers in Los Angeles. She had to go through a series of painful interviews and meetings with doctors, and was then presented with a contract granting rights to use her likeness and to use film of her in order to be considered for the show. The plaintiff also released any claims for injuries. She was invited to a taping of a show called “Life After Extreme Makeover.” During a Dec. 2003 segment, the host announced that Deleese was going to get a makeover. When the defendants came to film the plaintiff's family, their goal was to create extreme emotional turmoil, asking questions that would cause such. The interviewer attacked and shamed Kellie for her sometimes cruel past treatment of Deleese. At one point, the defendants physically restrained the plaintiff from comforting her 9-year-old daughter so that they could tape the daughter crying. Deleese then went back to Los Angeles for 2 weeks to see dentists and doctors. In late January, she was told she that wouldn't get the makeover after all. Her family relationships all deteriorated because defendants elicited statements from them saying Deleese was ugly. Kellie suffered overwhelming guilt and killed herself.
RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages.
PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: Wesley Cordova and Casie L. Gotro of Houston's Cordove & Gotro (281-931-7000) and Robert Scott Dreher of San Diego (619-230-8828).
CASE CAPTION: Gy Waldron and Gy Waldron Productions Inc. v.
CAUSES OF ACTION: Breach of contract; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; fraud; unjust enrichment; an accounting; and declaratory relief.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: Waldron is the credited “creator” of “The Dukes of Hazzard” TV series. In 1974, he wrote and directed a movie called “The Moonrunners.” He pitched the “Dukes” series to Warner in 1978 because Warner wanted a series like that film. Warner released a “Dukes” film in 2005 that is also based on the “Moonrunners” film. But Warner never got the theatrical rights and didn't contact Moonrunners Ltd., a limited partnership that produced the film, to inquire about the rights. United Artists, which distributed “The Moonrunners,” also had a first-refusal right on sequels and owned 50% of the merchandising rights. There was litigation in 1980 over a spinoff of “Dukes” that led to a settlement giving Waldron 10% of the profits from the series, and another settlement in 1987, after Waldron claimed Warner had concealed profits, in which Warner agreed to a 6.5% gross participation in excess of $276 million. This was later changed to $293.6 million. That figure was exceeded in the late 1980s. Warner has refused to pay Waldron the 6.5% from the film receipts. Moonrunners sued in federal court last February. That was settled in June.
RELIEF SOUGHT: Unspecified damages.
PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: Marc Toberoff, Larry S. Greenfield, Nicholas C. Williamson, and David T. Michaels of the Law Offices of Marc Toberoff in Los Angeles (310-246-3333).
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
Businesses have long embraced the use of computer technology in the workplace as a means of improving efficiency and productivity of their operations. In recent years, businesses have incorporated artificial intelligence and other automated and algorithmic technologies into their computer systems. This article provides an overview of the federal regulatory guidance and the state and local rules in place so far and suggests ways in which employers may wish to address these developments with policies and practices to reduce legal risk.
This two-part article dives into the massive shifts AI is bringing to Google Search and SEO and why traditional searches are no longer part of the solution for marketers. It’s not theoretical, it’s happening, and firms that adapt will come out ahead.
For decades, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act has been the only law to expressly address privacy for minors’ information other than student data. In the absence of more robust federal requirements, states are stepping in to regulate not only the processing of all minors’ data, but also online platforms used by teens and children.
In an era where the workplace is constantly evolving, law firms face unique challenges and opportunities in facilities management, real estate, and design. Across the industry, firms are reevaluating their office spaces to adapt to hybrid work models, prioritize collaboration, and enhance employee experience. Trends such as flexible seating, technology-driven planning, and the creation of multifunctional spaces are shaping the future of law firm offices.
Protection against unauthorized model distillation is an emerging issue within the longstanding theme of safeguarding intellectual property. This article examines the legal protections available under the current legal framework and explore why patents may serve as a crucial safeguard against unauthorized distillation.