Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
This article is Part Two of a two-part series. Part One appeared in the April issue of Entertainment Law & Finance. Part Two starts with a continuation of the author's discussion of First Amendment defenses to right of publicity claims.
However, there are some difficulties with the “predominant purpose” test. First, assuming the work does make an expressive comment about the plaintiff, does it permit use of a private person's persona, such as girls caught flashing in the Girls Gone Wild videos? And what if the “expressive comment” is the image itself, such as a picture book of celebrities? How is the finder of fact supposed to distinguish a “predominant purpose” of making an expressive comment from that of making a buck, when the two go hand in hand?
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
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.