Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Bit Parts
Louisiana Court Lacks Personal Jurisdiction Over Jeopardy! Production Company in State's Effort to Collect Taxes
The Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court ruling of lack of personal jurisdiction over the company behind the Jeopardy! game-show's production and merchandising rights, in the state's Department of Revenue (LDR) petition to get corporate and franchise taxes from the California-based entertainment company. Robinson v. Jeopardy Productions, 2019 CA 1095. The court of appeal explained: "Jeopardy's licensing and distribution agreements gave CBS [Television Distribution Group] and IGT [International Gaming Tech] the sole authority to decide in which states to license and/or distribute the 'Jeopardy!' game show, trademark/logo, and merchandise with unrelated third parties. The evidence was uncontroverted that Jeopardy [Productions] merely owns the intellectual property of the 'Jeopardy!' game show and trademark. Jeopardy has no control over where and with whom the licensees, CBS and IGT, choose to market and negotiate distribution of the game show and merchandise. Jeopardy made no intentional or direct contact with Louisiana. Furthermore, each licensing agreement specifically states that Jeopardy is not in a partnership, joint venture, or agency with CBS or IGT."
*****
Ticket Seller Not Responsible for Paying Refunds to Ticket Buyers "Out of Its Own Pocket" After Promoter Cancels Events Due to COVID-19
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina denied judgment on the pleadings to a live events promoter in a lawsuit brought by a ticket seller following the promoter's cancellation of multiple events as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Etix Inc. v. After Dark Entertainment Inc., 5:20-cv-214. Web-based ticket seller Etix and concert promoter After Dark Entertainment had entered into an exclusive agreement under which Etix agreed to pay After Dark a signing bonus and was allowed to retain a portion of ticket-sales income before sending the balance of the sales revenues to After Dark. Following cancellation of more than a dozen events, Etix sued for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, seeking funds from After Dark to cover refunds to ticket buyers and for return of the signing bonus. Dark counterclaimed for breach of the ticketing-services contract, alleging Etix was required to refund ticket buyers, from monies Etix had, for 30 days after being informed of cancellation of an event. But Chief District Judge Terrence W. Boyle noted: "The refund provision in the [Etix/After Dark ticket services] agreement uses the language 'make refunds,' which stand in stark contrast to the numerous times where the agreement requires that one party 'pay' or provide a 'payment' to the other. For example, the agreement provides that plaintiff 'will pay' defendant a signing bonus and advance, that defendant will 'pa[y] back' plaintiff's advance through royalty charges per ticket, and that plaintiff will send defendant a 'payment' equal to the money it received for the ticket less the fees and taxes plaintiff is entitled to retain. … This Court finds that the parties did not intend for plaintiff to pay for any refunds out of its own pocket."
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?