Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Choice of Law Bars Rapper's Defamation Case
A Delaware federal judge dismissed a defamation suit by a rapper formerly affiliated with the hip-hop group Wu-Tang Clan who claimed media outlets falsely reported that he attempted a grisly act of self-mutilation and attempted suicide. Johnson v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., 1:2016cv00185 (D. Del. 2017).
Marques Andre Johnson, known by the stage name Andre Roxx, had sued a contingent of media companies in March 2016, nearly two years after outlets incorrectly reported that he severed his penis and jumped out of a window while attending a party in California. In fact, Johnson, who had been associated with Wu-Tang's Killa Beez outfit, was serving a 16-month prison sentence in a Pennsylvania prison at the time. It turned out that another Wu-Tang affiliated rapper named Andre Johnson — known as Christ Bearer — had committed the gruesome act.
In his legal complaint, Roxx said the story “spread like wildfire” across the Internet and broadcast news, and exposed him to attacks and threats from inmates: “As a result of Defendants' reckless, egregious, and defamatory statements, [Plaintiff] was forced to go into protective custody because other inmates began threatening, harassing and attacking him.” Since his July 2015 release from prison, Roxx said he has been harassed online and ostracized by friends and potential romantic partners who fear being harassed in public. Roxx, who lives in Philadelphia, also said that the mishap has completely derailed his music career and prevented him from making a living.
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.