Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Fight Stream Distributor Can Pursue Claim Against TN Grill
In a matter of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sided with a third-party sporting events distributor by finding the distributor has standing to sue a Kingsport, TN, bar under the U.S. Copyright Act for livestreaming a 2017 boxing match between Floyd Mayweather and Conor McGregor without the proper licensing. Joe Hand Promotions Inc. v. Griffith, 21-6088 (6th Cir. 2022).
There's no dispute that CJ's Bar & Grill used a $99 personal Showtime license, rather than pay thousands of dollars for a commercial license, to stream the much-anticipated match between the famous boxer Mayweather and McGregor, a popular mixed martial arts fighter, on Aug. 26, 2017. CJ's owner and staff advertised the event and had a $6 coverage charge. Streaming the fight from a personal device, bar staff allegedly used an HDMI cable to stream the match to the bar's televisions, according to the Sixth Circuit's opinion. However, the parties dispute whether a post-fight copyright agreement between the fight's producer Showtime and the plaintiff in the present matter, Joe Hand Promotions (JHP), gave JHP the right to sue later for copyright infringement.
Prior to the fight, the appeals court said, Showtime and Mayweather Productions entered into an agreement that granted Mayweather "exclusively, the right to exhibit and distribute, and authorize the exhibition and distribution of, the [Fight] in the Territory live via the Internet." Mayweather then contracted with smaller distributors, including JHP, to issue commercial licenses and collect fees. JHP then promoted the event and sold commercial licenses to bars and restaurants for amounts ranging from $3,700 to $15,700, depending on occupancy limits.
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?