Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In a nearly half-century-long legal dispute over the rights to John Steinbeck's works, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court's $5 million compensatory damages award against the author's daughter-in-law but vacated punitive damages against the heir. Kaffaga v. Estate of Steinbeck, 18-55336. The Ninth Circuit told Steinbeck's family to stop making the same arguments in court over the enforceability of a 1983 agreement that designated family members' controlling rights to Steinbeck's books, which have been contested ever since his 1968 death.
"This has to end," wrote Ninth Circuit Judge Richard Tallman on behalf of a circuit court panel that included Judges Sandra S. Ikuta and N. Randy Smith. "We cannot say it any clearer."
The Ninth Circuit's decision in the long-winded litigation fittingly began with a prologue and was divided into chapters that started with quotes from Steinbeck and other authors such as Charles Dickens, who was invoked to characterize how the case has drudged along.
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 customercare@alm.com or 877-256-2473
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.
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.
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.
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?