Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Bit Parts

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
February 28, 2006

Motion Pictures/Defamation

The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut found that the 1970 film “A Man Called Horse” didn't defame the plaintiff, a Native American who claimed the movie depicted his people as “savages.” Dontigney v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 3:04cv2171 (JBA). The district court noted that the plaintiff “alleged no facts from which a reasonable person could infer that any statements or characterizations in 'A Man Called Horse' mentioned or were 'of and concerning' plaintiff himself. … Nor can it be said that the group or class of Native Americans is so small that a reasonable viewer necessarily would believe the film was directed toward [the plaintiff].”


Video Games/Content Regulation

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, refused to dismiss a due-process challenge to a state video-game content law by groups involved in the manufacture, distribution and sale of video games. Entertainment Software Association v. Granholm, 05-CV-73634. The court had previously preliminarily enjoined enforcement of Part II of Michigan 2005 Public Act 108, which mandated fines for “knowingly disseminat[ing] to a minor an ultra-violent explicit video game. The plaintiffs claimed Part II improperly delegated “the power to determine what video games are subject to the law's restrictions to a private organization, and without any accompanying legislative standards.” (The statute provided an affirmative defense for complying with the voluntary rating system of the Entertainment Software Rating Board.) But the district court noted in its latest ruling that there is no reason for this court to abstain from considering the delegation issue.”

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

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 Image

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 Image

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? Image

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 Image

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?