Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Story Behind AFM & SAG-AFTRA Royalty Fund Distribution Litigation
Eric Zukoski — a Dallas, TX, intellectual property attorney with Quilling, Selander, Lownds, Winslett & Moser — has worked a side job as a session musician all his adult life. Performing gigs around Dallas as a double bass player, Zukoski spent much of his time associating with other session musicians. It was that connection that led him to launch a class action in New York state that resulted in a $44.65 million payout of royalties to over 60,000 class members, funds that had not been distributed in some cases going back a decade. Blondell v. Bouton, 1:17-cv-00372 (E.D.N.Y.).
The case revealed a gross lack of initiative on the part of the trustees and directors of AFM & SAG-AFTRA Intellectual Property Rights Distribution Fund, according to court documents. Zukoski's journey into the unclaimed royalties dispute began as a conversation with fellow musician Paul Harrington about his role on the recording "Timber" by Ke$ha and Pitbull. Harrington's performance on harmonica is the distinctive intro to the track. Harrington commented to Zukoski on how he was always hearing the recording everywhere he went, but all he got paid for it was the recording session fee. Zukoski has some familiarity with copyright law and told Harrington he was entitled to royalties.
"No, there is no royalty. I signed a work-for-hire release," Harrington told him. But Zukoski explained the royalty is guaranteed by statute and such releases don't apply. He looked into Harrington's situation and was eventually able to get him paid. When the check came through, he suggested Harrington take his wife to dinner. Harrington responded that he might just buy the restaurant, the sum was that large.
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?