Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
11th Circuit Rules for Stephen King In Suit Over Dark Tower Series
Vincent Cox of Ballard Spahr in Los Angeles and Scott Ponce of Holland & Knight in Miami prevailed recently in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, defending several powerful entities in a copyright infringement action. Cox and Ponce defended six clients, including horror novelist Stephen King, New York-based publisher Simon & Schuster and Marvel Entertainment LLC.
The lawyers said one of the main hurdles in the case was taking the time to compare characters portrayed in works of fiction. "Sometimes copyright cases involve works such as photographs or songs that can be quickly experienced and compared. That was not this case," Cox stated in an email. "Much time had elapsed between the underlying creative events and the filing of the suit. There was also an exceptional volume of literary and visual material alleged to infringe, and to be infringed." DuBay v. King, 19-11224.
The dispute centered on a fictional character that King created in the 1970s named Roland Deschain and the plaintiff's character, Restin Dane, created by a three-person team around the same time. Plaintiff Benjamin DuBay owns the copyright for a comic book series called The Rook, which featured Dane, and sold more than five million copies in a six-year period. DuBay sued King for copyright infringement in The Dark Tower novel series involving the use of protagonist Deschain.
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
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.