Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Texas Can Deny Film Grant over Movie's Content
In a ruling certain to disappoint those who want to film B-grade action movies in Texas on the cheap, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided that the producers of Machete Kills don't have a First Amendment right to an incentive grant from the Texas Film Commission. Machete Productions v. Page, 15-50120.
Machete Kills is the sequel to Machete, an over-the-top action movie by Texas filmmaker Robert Rodriguez about the exploits of a renegade ex-Mexican Federal assassin portrayed by actor Danny Trejo. Machete Productions, the film company that produced Machete Kills, sought a grant under the state's Moving Image Industry Incentive Program from the Texas Film Commission, whose aim is to lure filmmakers to the Lone Star State to boost both jobs and tourism.
In 2009, producers of the original Machete film had tried to get a grant from the commission, but were denied after a political controversy broke out over their application. The commission denied the grant due to the film's “inappropriate content” that allegedly portrays “Texas or Texans in a negative fashion.” (In Machete, the protagonist is offered $150,000 to kill a corrupt Texas state senator, among other plot points.)
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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
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
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
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?
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.