Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Audit clauses are standard in almost every license agreement. They typically provide that the licensor has the right to review the licensee's records related to the sale of licensed products at least once a year. They also usually provide that if the auditor finds an underpayment of a certain scale (usually around 5%) then the licensee is responsible for the costs of the audit.
The audit clause is a necessary means for the licensor to protect its interests and to guard against unscrupulous licensees. But it is a mistake to think that the clause is there solely to prevent malfeasance. Licensors have discovered that audit clauses can be a source of additional revenue. An audit is literally a way to make licensees pay for their mistakes. And sometimes those mistakes can be costly.
Potential areas of liability are not simply a matter of miscalculating royalties. Licensing agreements often have detailed provisions about territorial restrictions, authorizations for suppliers, product approvals, sell-off rights and wind-down periods. A licensee that breaches those provisions could be liable for gross revenues received from the unauthorized sales, as well as interest accrued between the time of that sale and the audit. Coupled with the cost of the audit, the penalties for what seem like minor breaches can potentially eclipse the total profits the licensee earned.
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
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.
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.
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.
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.