Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Bit Parts
No Copyright Joint Work Found from Damon Dash's Co-Directing Stint
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a preliminary injunction preventing actor/music producer Damon Dash from promoting the film Dear Frank, which Dash claims he co-directed for a time under a verbal agreement and thus became co-author of the movie copyright. Webber v. Dash, 19 Civ. 610. Director Josh Webber and producer Muddy Water Pictures filed a complaint that included for a declaration that Muddy Waters solely owns the film copyright. Chief District Judge Colleen McMahon observed: “[O]n this record, Muddy's contributions to the Film far outweighed Dash's. Muddy financed the Film in its entirety, entered into work-for-hire agreements with all cast and crew (including the Film's screenwriter), and entered into all other third-party contracts that were necessary to the Film's creation.” Chief Judge McMahon added: “Muddy — having released Dash as a director of the Film over 'creative differences' — clearly exercised final decision-making authority and creative control over the Film.” But there was more from the court: “Most compelling on the issue of mutual intent [to be co-authors], however, is Dash's text message exchange with Webber, in which he concedes that he is holding up distribution of the Film because he now realizes its potential value.” The chief judge warned Dash: “The Court cannot and will not transform that bargaining chip into a copyright interest.”
*****
Out-of-State Law Firm Let Out of Prince Recordings Litigation in Minnesota
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota decided it lacked personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state law firm named as a defendant in a lawsuit by Prince's estate over alleged unauthorized distribution of some of the late artist's previously unreleased recordings. Paisley Park Enterprises Inc. v. Boxill, 17-cv-1212. Co-defendant George Ian Boxill, a recording engineer who worked with Prince, allegedly signed a confidentiality agreement that stated the Prince recordings Boxill worked on “shall remain Paisley's sole and exclusive property, shall not be used by [Boxill] in any way whatsoever, and shall be returned to Paisley immediately upon request.” After Prince died in 2016, the Boston-based law firm Brown & Rosen (B & R), also named as a defendant in the litigation, had provided an opinion letter to other defendants stating that the Prince recordings were Prince-Boxill joint works. Paisley Park claims that, despite its confidentiality agreement with Boxill, the music release defendants used the opinion letter to obtain sales opportunities from third parties. Granting B&R's motion to be dismissed from the case, District Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright noted: “Plaintiffs allege that (1) with knowledge that the nationwide distribution would include sales to Minnesota, B&R advised Boxill and [co-defendant Rogue Music Alliance] to distribute the Prince Recordings; (2) B&R engaged in license negotiations and discussed Boxill's authorship status with the Prince Estate on multiple occasions; and (3) B&R authored an opinion letter regarding a contract involving a Minnesota entity.” However, District Judge Wright also noted: “Although Plaintiffs allege that B&R encouraged Defendants to distribute the Prince Recordings, Plaintiffs concede that B&R did not directly sell the music. Merely encouraging another party to place an item in the stream of commerce does not establish personal jurisdiction over B&R.” The district judge concluded: “An out-of-state law firm provided advice to out-of-state [defense] clients. The advice happened to concern a Minnesota entity and several sales happened to be to Minnesota residents. But to subject B&R to this Court's personal jurisdiction under these circumstances would discourage the dissemination of legal advice and expand the reach of personal jurisdiction well beyond its current limits.”
*****
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.
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?