Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Attorney Fees Ruling
Copyright Infringement. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York awarded attorney fees and costs to the defense in a suit that alleged the song 'Stand Up' by hip-hop artists Ludacris and Kanye West infringed the plaintiff's composition 'Straight Like That.' BMS Entertainment/Heat Music LLC v. Bridges, 04 Civ. 2584 (PKC). A jury found in favor of the defendants. In its attorney-fees ruling, the district court noted that the failure of plaintiffs' counsel to comply with court orders during the litigation 'was not a fleeting episode ' Moreover, the unwillingness of the plaintiff's expert to comply with requests from [plaintiffs' counsel Ernest] Savoy was, in substantial part, due to non-payment of the experts' fees, which may be fairly laid at the feet of the plaintiffs.'
In the Second Circuit, within which the Southern District resides, a 'presumptively reasonable fee' includes 'the reasonable hourly rate that a paying client would be willing to pay, taking all case specific variable[s] into account.' The Manhattan federal district court accepted that because 'Stand Up' was a major hit, it 'was, therefore, reasonable for the Bridges Defendants to hire experienced copyright counsel.'
The court then awarded attorney fees of $110,927 for work by Bridges' lawyers, Christine Lepera and Justin Kattan of the New York office of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal. Under Sec. 505 of the Copyright Act, which provides for attorney fees and costs for prevailing parties, the court awarded co-defendants Universal Music Group $165,978 for legal work by Andrew Bart of the New York office of Jenner & Block and his associates.
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.