Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Counsel Concerns
Consulting and Retainer Agreements/Suit for Payment. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted summary judgment in part for Nevada-based entertainment attorney John Mason on his claim of breach of legal-services agreements by a film-production company. Mason v. Artwork Pictures LLC, 3:03-cv-00188-LRH (VPC). Florida-based Artworks Pictures had hired Mason as consulting counsel for the production of the movie 'Bolivar the Liberator' and for 36 months as counsel on other legal issues. In 2003, Mason filed suit in Nevada federal court against Artworks and its president Edgard Meinhardt-Iturbe to collect $1,050,019 Mason claimed he was still owed under the agreements.
When Mason filed for a summary-judgment ruling that the defendants breached the counsel agreements, Meinhardt-Iturbe moved for additional time to respond. But the district court noted that 'approximately six months have passed since Defendant's last filing and Defendant has yet to file a formal opposition to Plaintiff's motion. Further, despite Defendant's protestations concerning his ability to receive documents, there is no evidence presented that service was improper or failed to occur in regard to any of the documents in this matter. Rather, Defendant merely contends that it takes a good while for him to receive the documents. The court, therefore, finds no grounds upon which a further extension would be warranted and turns to determining whether summary judgment is appropriate.'
The court then found: 'Plaintiff has provided competent and undisputed evidence showing that Plaintiff and Defendant entered into both the Consulting Agreement and the Retainer Agreement. Further, Plaintiff has presented evidence that those agreements were, and continue to be, valid and enforceable contracts. Next, Plaintiff has provided evidence, and the court concluded in [a] prior motion for summary judgment, that Plaintiff performed his obligations under the contracts. Third, Plaintiff had demonstrated he was not paid for his work, demonstrating a breach by Defendant.'
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?