Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Lawyers Win Contingency Fee Fight Against Estate of Blues Icon's Son
The legacy of blues singer/songwriter/guitarist Robert Johnson has been shrouded in mysteries, from what caused his death in 1938 at age 27 when he was still largely unknown to the public to where he is buried. And there's the legend that Johnson sold his soul to the devil at a crossroad in the Mississippi Delta in return for extraordinary musical skills.
There have also been disputes over rights to the two existing photographs of Johnson as well as over who was his rightful heir. The latest Robert Johnson-related court decision involves a contingency fee agreement originally entered into by a law firm hired by Johnson's son, who died in 2015. The case offers an example of what rights counsel may gain from such an arrangement following the death of the signatory client. Estate of Johnson v. Kitchens Law Firm P.A., 2018-CA-00260-COA.
In 1991, Claud L. Johnson hired the Mississippi law firm Kitchens & Ellis to obtain a court determination that he was Robert Johnson's legal heir. The parties' contingency fee agreement, which didn't include a term length, stated in part that Claud assigned to the firm "causes of action or rights in the amount of forty percent (40%) of any and all sums of money or other benefits which [the firm] may recover or obtain for me by virtue of, or arising from, my biological relationship to the late Robert Johnson, as aforesaid, including, but not limited to, past, present, and future royalties, commissions, profits, and other benefits and/or revenues of every kind and character which have been derived, or may in the future be derived, from the sale, lease, rental or other marketing of sound or video recordings, sheet music, books, pictures, musical instruments, or devices, live or recorded performances and/or other productions and reproductions of the music and other works of Robert Johnson, including any and all use of the name Robert Johnson, whether such performances, products or productions, if any, were made by Robert Johnson or by others, or by Robert Johnson and others."
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 Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?