Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Bit Parts
Copyright Infringement/Statute of Limitations
The U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, Southwestern Division, held that a pro se suit against musical artist Michael Jackson and producer Quincy Jones was barred by the 3-year statute of limitations of Sec. 107(b) of the Copyright Act. Gleeson v. Jackson, 1-05-cv-88. Plaintiff George Gleeson claimed copyright infringement of songs and the 'moonwalk' dance that Jackson popularized. But the district court noted: '[I]t is undisputed that the plaintiff, George Gleeson, knew or should have known of Michael Jackson's performance of the songs 'Thriller,' 'We Are the World,' and 'Do You Remember,' as well as the dance move 'moonwalk,' for more than twenty years. ' The songs and the popular dance move performed by the infamous Jackson have been a matter of common knowledge since the mid-1980's. ' [In addition,] Gleeson has failed to present a showing that he ever owned a copyright to any of the above-entitled songs or to Jackson's famous dance move, the moonwalk.”
Loan Repayment/Forum Non Conveniens
The Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Five, ruled that California wasn't an inconvenient forum for a lawsuit against musician Peter Wolf alleging failure to repay a loan originally obtained in Austria to buy a house and a recording studio. Erste Bank v. Wolf, B180216. According to the court's unpublished opinion: '[T]his is a relatively simple accounting and collection matter. Moreover, no additional lawsuits will be brought in California as a result of the denial of defendant's motion to dismiss. Indeed, if this matter is tried in Austria, the Bank ultimately will be required to file a separate action in California to enforce a foreign judgment, since defendant's assets are located here. ' [T]he proof is primarily if not entirely documentary; most of the relevant documents have already been produced and translated, so it is irrelevant where the originals of the documents are kept; our courts are accustomed to accommodating people whose native language is not English.'
Music-Royalties Suits/Contempt Orders
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.