Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Beats Headphones Royalty Dispute Saga Heads to Trial
Former hedge fund manager Steven Lamar, who helped launch Dr. Dre's Beats headphones a decade ago, won the right to go to trial against the rap artist and record producer after the California Court of Appeal revived his $100 million case over unpaid royalties.
Dr. Dre released the Beats line of headphones in 2008 with the launch of the Studio model. Apple Inc. bought Beats Electronics, the company behind the brand, for $3 billion in 2014. But lingering in the background has been litigation involving Steven Lamar that dates back to the origins of the best-selling headphones. California's Second District Court of Appeal recently revived Lamar's claims that Dr. Dre and record producer Jimmy Iovine, co-founders of Beats Electronics, owed him royalties on all 10 models of Beats headphones, not just the Studio. Jibe Audio LLC v. Beats Electronics LLC, B267633 (Sept. 19, 2016).
In 2006, Iovine and Dre sued Lamar and related companies, alleging breach of oral contract for manufacture, marketing, and distribution of the Beats headphones. The parties reached a global settlement in 2007. Lamar's current case originated when a design shop that was collecting royalties from Beats Electronics sought declaratory relief over the rights after Lamar began complaining he was owed payments. Lamar and his company, Jibe Audio, cross-sued Dr. Dre, Iovine, Beats Electronics and designer Robert Brunner, alleging the cross-defendants breached the 2007 settlement under which Lamar claims he was to receive 4% of every set of headphones sold. But Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Malcolm Mackey granted summary judgment after concluding that the written settlement agreement involved only the Studio.
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.
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.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
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.