Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
DJ Dropped from Dispute Over Use of Beastie Boys Music
After the Beastie Boys sued over the unlicensed use of several of the rap group's tracks in a remix on the soundtrack to a promotional video, defendant energy-drink maker Monster Energy Co. tried to shift the blame onto an unsuspecting disc jockey. That tactic didn't sit well with Southern District Judge Paul Engelmayer, who dismissed the DJ from the litigation. Beastie Boys v. Monster Energy Co., 12 Civ. 6065.
In a 24-page ruling, District Judge Engelmayer threw out a third-party complaint Monster brought against Zach Sciacca (a.k.a. Z-Trip), a DJ known for mixing songs into mash-ups. Monster alleged that the only reason it engaged in unauthorized use of the Beastie Boys' music was that Sciacca fraudulently represented that he had authority to grant a license to the songs. Judge Engelmayer called that claim “risible,” in siding with DJ Z-Trip's lawyer Stewart Levy at Eisenberg Tanchum & Levy and the Beasties' lawyers at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.
In 2012, Monster sponsored a snowboarding competition in Canada that included an after-party featuring Z-Trip. Monster made a video about its snowboarding festival and posted the video on YouTube. The soundtrack to the video was “Mega-Mix,” a remix of various Beastie Boys songs created by Z-Trip. The Beasties had approved of Z-Trip's use of their songs. The band never signed off on Monster using the music in its video, however, and the company never sought the permission.
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?