Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
'To Kill a Mockingbird''s State Adaptation Rights Results In Ambiguity Battle
If more than one derivative-use agreement is entered into for the exploitation of rights in the underlying work, a key goal of contract drafters and negotiators is to specify and distinguish the rights being granted to each of the different parties in their agreements. A major consideration, of course, is to avoid disputes from an overlap of rights granted. A current dispute over contract language in grants to different parties for theatrical adaptations of the classic 1960 novel To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee is an apt example of what can happen if contract language isn't specific enough, in this case resulting in an arbitrator inserting the term "non-first-class rights" into an award decision and leading Lee's estate to claim the arbitrator's use of the term was ambiguous.
In a 1969 agreement, Lee gave the Illinois-based Dramatic Publishing the "complete right throughout the world … [t]o lease the amateur acting rights in and to" her novel, while reserving "all rights not expressly granted to [Dramatic], including but not limited to the professional acting … rights." But in 2011, Lee informed Dramatic she was terminating the license grant under 17 U.S.C. §304(c), the rights recapture provision of the U.S. Copyright Act for pre-1978 works.
Meanwhile, in 2015 Lee granted Scott Rudin's production company, Rudinplay, an option for the stage rights to To Kill a Mockingbird for $100,000, "subject to the rights granted under the [Dramatic Publishing agreement], as limited by [Lee's] termination." (17 U.S.C. §304(c)(6)(A) allows "a derivative work prepared under authority of the grant [of a license] before its termination [to] continue to be utilized under the terms of the grant after its termination.")
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?