Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Press Release In Video Game Litigation Not Libelous
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled that a plaintiffs' counsel in a video game litigation didn't libel a defendant in a statement the attorney posted on his law firm's website. Dreamstone Entertainment Ltd. v. Maysalward Inc., 2:14-cv-02063.
Dreamstone entered into an agreement for Maysalward and its principal Nour Khrais to develop the mobile-device video game GHUL: 1001 Arabian Nights. But Dreamstone later sued, claiming Maysalward breached the contract and withheld financial information. The defendants filed counterclaims including a libel-per-se allegation against plaintiffs' Dallas-TX-based counsel Jack Siegel and his firm. Siegel had posted a press release about the suit and a link to the complaint on his firm's website. Khrais objected to the press release claim that he and Maysalward 'have maliciously absconded with my clients' valuable intellectual property and hard earned money.' The press release ended with: 'We will fight tooth and nail to ensure the game is restored on gaming platforms and Defendants pay every dime needed to rectify the damage done to my clients' reputations and the GHUL franchise.'
In determining whether a statement is defamatory on its face, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, within which the Central District of California resides, applies a 'totality of the circumstances' test. Applying this, District Judge Christina A. Snyder first noted in dismissing the libel counterclaim: '[T]he complained-of language is clearly attributed to co-counsel for plaintiffs and counterdefendants. Overall, the broad context of the statement suggests that the average reader would expect the press release to relate a predictably one-sided account of the circumstances giving rise to the litigation, and favors plaintiffs and counterdefendants.'
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?