Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In a split decision that closely examined what constitutes a person being considered a limited public figure for the purposes of defamation standards, the New York Appellate Division, First Department, ruled that acclaimed music producer Lukasz "Dr. Luke" Gottwald is neither a general nor a limited public figure for the purposes of his defamation suit against famed singer Kesha, who has claimed Gottwald drugged and sexually assaulted her. Gottwald v. Sebert, 12716-12716A.
Because Gottwald is not a limited public figure under New York state law — or a general public figure, either, according to further detailed analysis by the appellate panel's majority — he will not have to prove that Kesha acted with actual malice when she allegedly defamed him by claiming he assaulted and drugged her after a 2005 party and committed other abuses against her.
"A limited-purpose public figure … is an individual who has voluntarily injected himself or is drawn into a particular public controversy with a view toward influencing it," the Appellate Division majority wrote in the decision. The majority also noted: "Gottwald has appeared in articles in mainstream media for his contributions to pop music. … However, he has not injected himself into the debate about sexual assault or abuse of artists in the entertainment industry, which is the subject of the defamation."
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?