Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Oral Appellate Arguments in 'Blurred Lines' Copyright Case
Lawyers for Marvin Gaye's heirs and recording artists Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke were singing past each other in court in October. Milan Smith, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, repeatedly complimented opposing counsel Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan partner Kathleen Sullivan and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer partner Lisa Blatt on the forcefulness of their arguments in a copyright infringement case that has lit up the music industry. See, http://lat.ms/2gvIplN.
But it wasn't clear which side was making the most headway with the appellate court. All three judges put the lawyers on the spot over various aspects of the $5 million jury verdict arising from the song “Blurred Lines.”
Sullivan framed the verdict in Williams v. Gaye, 15-56880, as conflating ordinary artistic inspiration with copyright infringement. Jurors should not have been instructed that Thicke and Williams might have subconsciously infringed Gaye's song “Got to Give It Up” — especially after hearing evidence that the two discussed the song before recording “Blurred Lines,” Sullivan argued. “This case was turned into what it shouldn't have been — a case about inspiration,” Sullivan told the court.
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.