Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Keeping Track of Celebrity Image Use
Protecting Paris Hilton's image can involve some complicated legal maneuvering. When the heiress failed to pay a bill, the personal belongings in her storage locker were sold and, in January, ended up on Paris Exposed.com. Her legal team at L.A.'s Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert quickly won a temporary restraining order against the site, which promised paying subscribers they could view Hilton's diary, racy photographs and even medical records. But the defendants scattered, and the site soon resurfaced on servers outside the United States.
For celebrities, image is everything. For the entertainment lawyers who represent their interests, that means confronting ever more complex efforts to profit from (or poison) a client's fame. Among the talent-side lawyers, there's a small club of firms doing the lion's share of the image work for the big stars. Insiders point to Lavely & Singer; Dreier Stein & Kahan; Kinsella Weitzman; and the well-known lawyer to the stars, Bertram Fields. Some cases are straightforward. In June, for example, lawyers at L.A.'s Lavely & Singer representing Britney Spears quickly forced a Florida radio station to remove billboards displaying the pop star's shaved head alongside that of the station's DJ under the words 'Total Nut Jobs.'
Image-related concerns pop up on the corporate side, too. Roger Goff, a transactional lawyer at L.A.'s Goff Law Corp., offers an example from his work for the director and producer of 'Splinter,' the Toby Wilkins horror movie now in production. Actress Jill Wagner wanted to ensure her positive image was protected because she also serves as 'The Mercury Chick' in ongoing Lincoln-Mercury commercials. That involved negotiations to ensure her lines in the film reflected her clean-cut image, Goff said.
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?