Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling that the defendants' use of supermodel Janice Dickinson's personal appearance in the reality TV series Shahs of Sunset, to promote the show, didn't violate Dickinson's rights under the federal Lanham Act. Dickinson v. Ryan Seacrest Enterprises Inc., 19-55415. Dickinson, who claimed she hadn't signed a participant release, alleged: "Defendants have and continue to falsely represent that the Series is a documentary program rather than a scripted or fictional series, when in fact the Series is largely or entirely scripted. The group did so to market, advertise, and promote the Series by improperly trading off the goodwill, celebrity, and fame of Plaintiff, without paying any fee." Dickinson charged the defendants "agreed and conspired to script an episode of the Series … to include a false controversy in which they would make it appear that Plaintiff intentionally stole or bullied her way into wearing an outfit that had supposedly been previously selected for Golnesa Gharachedaghi (Gharachedaghi), a lead character on the Series." The U.S. District Court for the District of California found "the use of Plaintiff's name and likeness are artistically relevant to the Episode." In its affirmance, the Ninth Circuit noted in part: "Dickinson did not allege that the Shahs episode or the promotional materials for that episode contained an explicit representation that Dickinson was an endorser or sponsor of the series. Rather, Dickinson alleged only that she made an appearance on the show. … Thus, Dickinson failed to allege that Appellees' use of the mark is explicitly misleading as to source or sponsorship.
*****
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the fifth lawsuit songwriter Jesse Graham has filed alleging Taylor Swift's hit song "Shake It Off" infringed on Graham's composition "Haters Gone Hate." Graham v. Swift, CV-20-7000. Central District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald granted the Swift defendants' motion to dismiss Graham's latest suit without leave to amend. The first four lawsuits also were dismissed. (Graham's fourth complaint is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.) In a straight-forward ruling, District Judge Fitzgerald noted: "The Court determines that this action — which is premised on the same alleged infringing conduct as alleged in Graham I—IV — is barred by the doctrine of res judicata," adding "Here, Plaintiff does not dispute that Graham I-V assert the same claim, namely that lyrics in the song Shake It Off allegedly infringe upon his copyright in the song Haters gone Hate." For res judicata purposes, the district judge further found that "privity exists because Plaintiff has named all Defendants in his previous lawsuits." But the court declined to grant the Swift defendants' motion to designate Graham as a "vexatious litigant" and to "impose a pre-filing order on Plaintiff requiring him to obtain court approval before attempting to revive his defunct copyright infringement claim or filing any new actions against Defendants arising under the Copyright Act." Instead, District Judge Fitzgerald said, "less restrictive options, such as monetary sanctions, may adequately protect judicial and litigant resources." The court gave Graham 30 days to explain "why sanctions should not be imposed, despite Plaintiff's repeated litigation misconduct."
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 [email protected] or 877-256-2473
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.
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 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?