Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Band-Name Fights May Trigger Lengthy Battles
The recent high-profile litigation over rights to 'Supernova' was the latest example of the common hot-button issue of who may ex-ploit a band's name. The 'Super-nova' dispute was settled with the original pop-punk group of that name agreeing that the marquee band from the CBS-TV talent-series will be able to perform as 'Rock Star Supernova.' In 2004, South Carolina became the first state to enact a 'Truth in Musical Advertising' statute to regulate the use of music-group names, at least in live performances. Since then, at the urging of the Vocal Group Hall of Fame, several other states ' including Connecticut, Illinois, Pennsylvania and North Dakota ' have enacted similar laws. The goal of these statutes generally is to prevent the 'false, deceptive or misleading affiliation, connection or association' between a recording group and a performing group. But issues of contractual or service-mark rights may need to be resolved before a 'Truth in Musical Advertising Statue' may be enforced.
Sorting out contractual claims to band names can be a messy and sometimes lengthy. The nearly four-decade fight over the name 'Moby Grape,' a 1960s San Francisco rock group, is a case in point. The band formed in 1966 but released its last studio album with some original members in 1971. It wasn't until July 2006 that the California Court of Appeal ruled that the band, rather than the group's original manager, Matthew Katz, owned the Moby Grape name. Lewis v. Katz, A111654.
The five members of the music group had signed management and other contracts with Katz in 1966, after band members Skip Spence and Bob Mosley thought up the name 'Moby Grape.' Later that year, the parties executed an addendum that stated in part: 'It is understood and agreed that the name 'MOBY GRAPE' is the property of Matthew Katz. The undersigned [band member] has no ownership right, title, or interest in and to the name 'MOBY GRAPE' and he is entitled to utilize the same, only pursuant to the license and consent of Matthew Katz[,] which may be revoked and cancelled at any time.'
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.
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.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?