Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Bit Parts

By Stan Soocher
April 02, 2015

“Blurred Lines” Post-Verdict Posturing

After a California federal jury decided that Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams' song “Blurred Lines” infringed on Marvin Gaye's 1970s hit song “Got To Give It Up,” “Blurred Lines” parties' litigator Howard King of L.A.'s Holmes, Paterno & Berliner vowed to appeal the $7.4 million copyright judgment. “We owe it to songwriters of the world, who are inspired by their predecessors, to make sure this verdict does not survive,” King said. But Gaye family trial lawyer Richard Busch of Nashville's King & Ballow claimed to our publication's sibling Litigation Daily, that there are no grounds for tossing out the verdict. Busch said. “If they could have proven that this was the copying of a genre or a feeling, they would have proven it during the two-week trial.”


Hey 19, New York Judge Says in Streaming Royalties Dispute

In another Busch-litigated case, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York asked for clarification of Busch client 19 Recordings' music-royalty underpayment claims over Sony's accountings for the streaming of recordings by such artists as Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood that 19 signed from the TV talent show American Idol. 19 Recordings Ltd. v. Sony Music Entertainment, 14-cv-1056. 19 argues that it is entitled to half of Sony's income for streaming-music licenses Sony enters into with third parties, rather than a much lower royalty rate for “distribution” or “sales.” District Judge Ronnie Abrams noted that, under Sony/19's agreement: “The lower rate also applies where the third-party agreements characterize the exploitation as both a broadcast (or transmission) and as a distribution (or sale).” District Judge Abrams ordered 19 to show “whether it is alleging that the [third-party] agreements describe the exploitation solely as broadcasts or transmissions, or as broadcasts and transmissions in addition to distributions or sales.”


Magistrate Changes Mind in Twitter Subpoena Controversy

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

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 Image

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 Image

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 Image

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? Image

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.