Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
If you didn't jump on the “selfie” band-wagon, you can count yourself sane; and now with the rush to ban “selfie-sticks” by major public places around the nation (including Disney, Boston's Museum of Fine Arts, New York's Museum of Modern Art, Cooper-Hewitt Design Museum, and California's Getty Center,to name a few), certain law firms might start to consider how to prepare to handle law suits arising from the trend.
But just because the narcissists of the world are driving the rest of us crazy with their self-infatuation does not mean that glamorizing your law firm using modern technology should repel you. If there was ever a time in history that a law firm should “go Hollywood,” this is it. Jumping on the promotional tech bandwagon may mean the difference in your law firm rising to the top of your industry to beat out the competition, or fading into non-existence. If this concept seems too progressive for your conservative clientele, consider that even the most conservative American enjoys going to the movies. Hollywood is America, and there is no separating the two. Modern technology has given us all the opportunity to easily become “entertainers.” Even if your law firm commonly shies away from the more entertainment-inspired versions of normally repetitive activities, glaming up your brand online with marketing technology and adding “zing” might just be the most beneficial thing you've done for your business since taking it online. (Remember when you swore you would never have a website?)
There have been some big changes in marketing that many traditional businesses have not so eagerly embraced. However, business predictions claim that if businesses don't pick up on modernizing their branding with the most current technologies, they will fade into the forgotten world of dinosaur legacy companies. These days, “boring” is death to a brand's image and will sink it into the abyss of endless information. In other words, the marketing and advertising of all brands must move into the pseudo-entertainment space, and soon. Some call it the “Disney-effect,” and with it came a pull for brands to emphasize what they do through more grandiose expressions. Marketing today requires that brands reach higher and not only seek to offer impressive solutions to potential clients but engage and entertain them as well.
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
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.
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.
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.