Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Rapid Developments In Turtles' Pre-1972 Recordings Suits
A California federal judge rejected dueling, Hail-Mary motions by both sides in a key battle over copyrights to pre-1972 recordings. U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez in Los Angeles refused to reconsider his earlier ruling that Sirius XM Radio faces copyright liability for broadcasting pre-1972 songs without paying royalties. Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., 13-5693. But he also rebuffed a bid to sanction Sirius and its lawyers at O'Melveny & Myers for making allegedly frivolous arguments, finding that O'Melveny hadn't acted recklessly or tried to mislead the court.
“Sirius XM did try to fit its arguments within some general federal case law on reconsideration motions, and hoped that the court would be amenable to considering theories that Sirius XM's prior counsel did not assert at summary judgment,” Gutierrez ruled. “This motion is more fairly characterized as a long-shot than a piece of harassment.”
Founders of the rock band The Turtles, through their company Flo & Eddie Inc., sued Sirius in California, New York and Florida in 2013, claiming that they have the exclusive right to “publicly perform” their music. Federal copyright law doesn't cover performance rights to sound recordings made prior to 1972, but Flo & Eddie convinced District Judge Gutierrez last year that artists retain public performance rights under Calif. Code '980(a)(2) and California misappropriation common law.
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.
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?
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.