Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Clause & Effect
Production Agreements/Motion Picture and Screenplay Rights. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that, under a 1939 agreement between RKO Radio Pictures and actor/director/screenwriter Orson Welles, the studio owned the copyright to the motion picture 'Citizen Kane' despite a subsequent agreement terminating the parties' relationship. But the appeals court remanded the case for a determination of whether the studio or Welles owned the right for home-video release of the movie years later, and whether Welles had a profit-participation right in the movie. Welles v. Turner Entertainment Co., 05-55742.
The production agreement stated in part:'[RKO] shall own the negative and positive prints of each of the Pictures and all rights of every kind and nature in and to each Picture, and all parts thereof and all material, tangible and intangible, used therein, as soon as such rights come into existence.' But the parties signed an exit agreement in 1944 ending their business relationship. The Ninth Circuit explained that the exit contract ' which contained no choice-of-law provision, so California law applied ' 'did not retroactively rescind RKO's copyright in the Citizen Kane motion picture unless RKO's copyright remained executory at the time of the Exit Agreement ' Under the parties' agreements, RKO had always owned the motion picture copyright, and it had no executory right in the motion picture to release at the time the parties signed the Exit Agreement.'
This meant that Turner Entertain-ment, RKO's successor-in-interest, had the right to exploit the 'Citizen Kane' movie itself on home video. But an original-story clause in the 1939 RKO/Welles agreement stated: 'In case of any original story written by [Mercury] or any of its employees and used as the basis of either Picture, however, [RKO] shall acquire the motion picture and television rights in such story for such Picture only.'
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?