Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York decided that a breach-of-contract suit by the Allman Brothers Band (ABB) alleging royalty underpayments from Jan. 1, 2000 through Dec. 31, 2003, was barred by the limitations provision of the band's recording agreement. Allman v. UMG Recordings, 06 Civ. 8327.
The district court first examined a provision in the recording agreement that stated that all royalty statements were binding on the band 'unless specific objection, in writing, stating the basis thereof, is given to UMG within two (2) years from the date rendered.' The court found this to be 'an enforceable incontestability provision' that barred the ABB's claims to all but one of the six semi-annual statements challenged.
The district court then considered the recording agreement's limitations clause, which barred any royalty lawsuit 'unless [Plaintiffs] commence the suit within three (3) years from the date such statement of accounting for royalties or such payment was rendered.' The court decided 'the Limitation Provision's three-year limitation period is reasonable and ' that Plaintiffs have not asserted that they entered into the Limitation Provision as a result of fraud, duress, or misrepresentation.'
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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?