Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ordered the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) to pay top college football and basketball players the full cost of their education, plus up to $5,000 a year in broadcast and video game licensing in finding in favor of the athletes in their class action antitrust suit. O'Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 09-3329.
The class was led by former UCLA basketball star Edward O'Bannon Jr. and included professional legends Oscar Robertson and Bill Russell. They challenged rules that prevent student-athletes from receiving a share of the revenue that the NCAA and its member schools earn from the sale of their names, images and likenesses. The NCAA settled a similar claim ' that player likenesses were broadcast without their consent ' for $20 million just before trial. Video-game maker Electronic Arts Inc. previously settled its portion of both cases for $40 million.
In the latest stage of the dispute, Northern District Judge Claudia Wilken, who presided over a bench trial in June, ruled “that the NCAA has the power ' and exercises that power ' to fix prices and restrain competition in the college education market that plaintiffs have identified.”
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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?