Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Decision of Note: Texas Court Lacks Jurisdiction over 'Daily Show' Host
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas decided that it lacked personal jurisdiction over comedian Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show, in a suit filed over a segment in which a Texas resident appeared. Busch v. Viacom International Inc., 3:06-CV-0493-L. The Daily Show broadcast a parody of a dietary drink that TV evangelist Pat Robertson promoted. The Daily Show segment included a clip from Robertson's show The 700 Club in which plaintiff Phillip Busch, a user of the dietary drink, shook Robertson's hand. Busch filed claiming defamation and misappropriation of image in the Daily Show piece.
The district court first found no specific jurisdiction over Stewart, explaining that his show's segment 'was about Robertson, not Plaintiff. The six-second clip at issue is a replay of an episode of The 700 Club where Plaintiff voluntarily appeared on the set in Virginia Beach, Virginia. The piece contains no reference to Texas or any activities by Plaintiff in Texas. The piece was not directed at viewers of The Daily Show in Texas, but was broadcast nationwide ' Moreover, Stewart did not visit Texas, call Texas or conduct any interviews or research in Texas related to the piece, nor was he involved in selecting or editing the challenged clip ' At the time the challenged broadcast was aired, Stewart had never heard of Plaintiff and did not know he lived in Texas.'
As for general jurisdiction, which is based on continuous, systematic, and substantial contacts with the forum state, the district court noted that Stewart 'has never lived in Texas, has never owned any real property in Texas, has never maintained an office in Texas, has never had any employees or agents in Texas, has never had any professional licenses, bank accounts or telephone listings in Texas and has only visited Texas twice ' once to perform a show in Lubbock in the mid-1990s and once to perform a show in Austin in 1998 or 1999.'
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 Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
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?