Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In the last three years, there have been a number of decisions issued by California courts on anti-SLAPP motions filed in response to lawsuits arising out of the publication and/or distribution of entertainment works. Indeed, since July 2009 alone there have been decisions in lawsuits regarding works in virtually every medium, including television, film, radio, magazines, books, video games and Internet sites. In each one of these cases, the court was tasked with deciding whether the statements or conduct at issue in the lawsuit arose out of activity protected by California's anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (anti-SLAPP statute). In light of the burgeoning number of states that have adopted anti-SLAPP statutes since Washington state enacted the first modern anti-SLAPP statute in 1989, it is important to review the recent developments in this area.
The basics of anti-SLAPP procedure are well-known to most entertainment and media practitioners at this point. In California, a defendant carries the initial burden to prove that its conduct is covered by the anti-SLAPP statute by showing that the plaintiff's claim arises from “any act of [defendant] in furtherance of [its] right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code '425.16(b)(1). If so, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on his or her claims. Id. In order to do so, “the plaintiff must show that the complaint is legally sufficient and must present a prima facie showing of facts that, if believed by the trier of fact, would support a judgment in the plaintiff's favor.” Hall v. Time Warner, Inc., 153 Cal. App. 4th 1337, 1346 (2007) (emphasis added). If the plaintiff meets this burden, “the moving defendant can defeat the plaintiff's evidentiary showing only if the defendant's evidence establishes as a matter of law that the plaintiff cannot prevail.” Id.
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
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.
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
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.
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.
A common question that commercial landlords and tenants face is which of them is responsible for a repair to the subject premises. These disputes often center on whether the repair is "structural" or "nonstructural."