Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
CHARACTER-NAME SUITS/ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE
The Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division 3, denied a defense motion to strike under the state's anti-SLAPP statute a lawsuit alleging defamation and invasion of privacy over the release of a DVD edition of the movie 'Reality Bites.' Dyer v. Childress, B187804. California Civil Code Sec. 425.16 is intended to protect against 'a strategic lawsuit against public participation,' that is, one that interferes with discussion of issues of public concern. Screenplay writer Helen Childress had gone to film school with an individual named Troy Dyer and included a character with that name portrayed as 'rebellious slacker.' The real Troy Dyer, now a financial consultant, sued after release of the Tenth Anniversary DVD edition of the movie. The defendants argued that use of Dyer's name amounted to 'conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of ' free speech in connection with ' an issue of public interest,' here issues that had confronted Generation X in the 1990s.
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
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.