Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Fed Court Believes It Can't Consider Copyright Issue
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ordered defendant Artisan Pictures to show cause why a suit against it for payment of film-acquisition rights shouldn't be remanded to state court. The federal court noted it 'likely lacks' subject matter jurisdiction over the declaratory suit, even though the case involves whether copyright claims over licenses for film music were time barred. Sakkis v. Artisan Pictures Inc., CV 08-00049 MMM (JCx).
Cahoots Productions entered into an 'Acquisition of Rights Agreement' with Artisan purportedly for payment of a share of money from the movie 'Blue Hill Avenue.' Cahoots assigned its rights to Dino Sakkis, including authority for Artisan to pay Sakkis $77,720. Artisan executed a 'Distributor's Acceptance' to pay Sakkis directly but later held back on paying Sakkis by citing third parties' claims that licenses for music used in the movie weren't valid. Sakkis then filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court for a declaration that Artisan was obligated to pay him on the ground that the supposed copyright claims over the music licenses were barred by the three-year statute of limitations of the Copyright Act. Artisan removed the case to the federal district court based on the copyright claims.
The district court explained, however: 'Sakkis does not allege that he owns the copyrights in question. Nor does he assert that he has any 'real and reasonable apprehension' that he will be subject to liability for copyright infringement. In the absence of such a showing, he has no standing upon which to seek declaratory relief under the Copyright Act. To the extent that any copyright dispute is relevant to Sakkis' claims in this action, that dispute is between the Copyright Claimants and Artisan. The dispute affects Sakkis only because he believes that the Assignment is being breached because of the claims of the Copyright Claimants.'
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?