Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On Oct. 6 of this year, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) gave a very important judgment about EU data protection law in the so-called Schrems case, where it ruled as follows:
All U.S. businesses transferring personal data from the EU need to take note of this judgment and consider what to do as a result.
Background
Following the Edward Snowden U.S. surveillance revelations in 2013, an Austrian citizen and privacy activist, Maximillian Schrems, brought a legal challenge before the Irish High Court challenging his rejected complaint before the Irish data protection regulator. He had claimed before the Irish regulator that the U.S. does not offer protection against surveillance by its intelligence authorities of data transferred to the U.S. from the EU. In this case, Schrems' data was being transferred from Facebook's Irish subsidiary to the U.S.
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 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.
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 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?
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.