Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Cameo Clips
Maryland Federal Court Issues Ruling in Dispute over Boxer Roberto Duran's Life Story
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland decided that an agreement governed by Maryland law granting boxer Roberto Duran's rights of publicity to his manager could be enforceable, even though Maryland has not recognized such rights. JW & JJ Entertainment v. Sandler, 8:13-cv-01609. Duran entered into a management contract with Mark Sandler in 1995. The agreement in part gave Sandler “the exclusive right worldwide to use the name 'Roberto Duran' or any form thereof and any image or likeness of Duran in any form” and further stated that the boxer “expressly gives to Sandler the rights to Duran's life story.” Sandler later terminated the contract and in 1997 obtained a default judgment for breach of contract against Duran. In 2007, Duran granted “exclusive life story rights” to Compadre LLC, which latter transferred those rights to JW & JJ Entertainment. JW & JJ filed a declaratory suit regarding its rights after Sandler threatened to sue if JW & JJ continued production on a movie about Duran.
District Judge Alexander Williams Jr. wrote that whether “the Agreement validly gives Sandler Duran's movie rights does not require the Court to determine that the right to publicity, or a related right, exists at Maryland common law. ' [P]rivate parties have the right to enter into contracts that create benefits or burdens ' and allocate them among the parties thereto as they see fit.” But Judge Williams denied Sandler's motion to dismiss JW & JJ's claim that the story rights grant in the Duran-Sandler agreement wasn't exclusive. “[T]he Court is ruling on a Motion to Dismiss, and the Parties have yet to submit any such evidence. Therefore, construing Plaintiffs' Complaint in the most favorable light, Plaintiffs deserve the benefit of discovery regarding whether Duran gave Sandler exclusive rights to his life story,” the district judge noted.
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.