Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
“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.”
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.”
A federal magistrate for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has withdrawn her earlier ruling (reported in the February 2015 issue of Entertainment Law & Finance, p.1) that non-party Twitter must disclose the names of account users who allegedly defamed an audio equipment manufacturer. Instead, Magistrate Laurel Beeler has now ruled in part that a single derogatory comment accusing Music Group Macao's CEO of tax evasion wasn't enough to override the Doe defendants' First Amendment right to anonymous speech. Music Group Macao Commercial Offshore Ltd. v. John Does I-IX, 14-mc-80328.
“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.”
In another Busch-litigated case, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
A federal magistrate for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has withdrawn her earlier ruling (reported in the February 2015 issue of Entertainment Law & Finance, p.1) that non-party Twitter must disclose the names of account users who allegedly defamed an audio equipment manufacturer. Instead, Magistrate
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
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.
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
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.
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.