Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<i><b>Online Extra:</i></b>New Round in Producer's Fight Against WWE
According to a lawsuit filed in Connecticut's Bridgeport Superior Court, a well-known wrestler may have crossed the line with an alleged attack on a World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) video producer during a pay-per-view event. Andrew Green, of Simsbury, CN, says he was assaulted by 7-foot-tall, 440-pound Paul Wight Jr., who performs under the name “Big Show” and has appeared in several nonwrestling movies.
Green's claim also names Stamford, CT-based WWE, which placed the video of the alleged attack on its website, where it was reportedly viewed more than 100,000 times. “WWE encourages its wrestlers, including Wight, to act in a violent manner inside and outside the ring,” according to the lawsuit filed by Stamford attorney Edward Kanowitz. “WWE has routinely publicized the violent and erratic behavior of its wrestlers, including Wight, both on the WWE website and elsewhere.” Green v. Wight, FBT-CV-15-6047850-S.
The incident took place in Phoenix during a Jan. 27, 2013, event called the Royal Rumble. Wight had just finished a match and was supposed to be interviewed by Green. According to the complaint, Wight swore at Green and refused the interview. Moments later, according to the claim, Wight reportedly told Green to start filming. At that point, Wight allegedly grabbed Green by the throat, hit him in the face and backed him against an equipment trunk. “You son of a bitch ' are you having fun right now? ' Don't ever come up to me again,” Wight said, according to the complaint.
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.