Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Copyright Preemption Defeats Wrestler's State Claims over ESPN Re-Telecasts
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed that former Universal Wrestling Federation wrestler Steve “Wild Thing” Ray's state law claims, over ESPN's re-telecast of his 1990s matches, were preempted by federal copyright law. Ray v. ESPN Inc., 14-2117.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri ruled that Ray's “complaints are based solely on ESPN airing video recordings depicting him in a 'work of authorship,' which is plainly encompassed by copyright law.” But on appeal, Ray argued his state law claims over use of his likeness were the “focal point of this case.”
The Eighth Circuit determined, however: “ESPN did not use Ray's likeness or name in an advertisement without his permission to promote its commercial products, and, as the district court correctly noted, Ray's 'likenesses could not be detached from the copyrighted performances that were contained in the films.' Consequently, Ray's attempts on appeal to recast his claims to evade copyright preemption are unavailing.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed that former Universal Wrestling Federation wrestler Steve “Wild Thing” Ray's state law claims, over ESPN's re-telecast of his 1990s matches, were preempted by federal copyright law. Ray v.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri ruled that Ray's “complaints are based solely on ESPN airing video recordings depicting him in a 'work of authorship,' which is plainly encompassed by copyright law.” But on appeal, Ray argued his state law claims over use of his likeness were the “focal point of this case.”
The Eighth Circuit determined, however: “ESPN did not use Ray's likeness or name in an advertisement without his permission to promote its commercial products, and, as the district court correctly noted, Ray's 'likenesses could not be detached from the copyrighted performances that were contained in the films.' Consequently, Ray's attempts on appeal to recast his claims to evade copyright preemption are unavailing.”
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
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.
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers
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
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.
CoStar Wins Injunction for Breach-of-Contract Damages In CRE Database Access Lawsuit
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.