Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Bit Parts
Dispute Over Jay Livingston Songwriter Contracts Sent to Arbitration
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District if Tennessee sent to arbitration a dispute alleging, among other things, failure to properly pay song royalties to Tammy Livingston, granddaughter of the late American Songbook composer (e.g., "Que Sera Sera" and "Mona Lisa") Jay Livingston. Livingston v. Jay Livingston Music Inc. (JLM), 3:21-cv-00780. Jay had entered into "Popular Songwriters Agreements" (PSAs) with JLM. Claims in Tammy's lawsuit include for tortious interference, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. The PSAs state: "Any and all differences, disputes or controversies arising out of or in connection with this contract shall be submitted to arbitration …" As to Tammy's attack on the authenticity of the PSAs, Chief District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw Jr. ironically noted: "Tammy asserts rights that are the product of these very same" contracts. He added: "Tammy provides no evidence [of inauthenticity] beyond her self-serving statement: I am very familiar with my grandfather's genuine signature and his handwriting. I have reviewed many of the copies of documents submitted as exhibits to Defendants' Renewed Motion to Dismiss. Based on my person (sic) knowledge of my grandfather's signature and handwriting I do not believe many of the signatures on them which purport to be his are authentic." But "[t]hat Tammy does 'not believe' Jay's PSA signatures are authentic fails to raise a material dispute of fact," the chief judge found, concluding that the PSA arbitration clause "covers each of Tammy's claims," including other alleged inauthenticity factors.
*****
MeTV Viewers Aren't "Subscribers" Under Video Privacy Protection Act
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that Facebook users who viewed the classic TV shows service MeTV via their Facebook accounts didn't qualify as "subscribers" under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), 18 U.S.C. §2710. Gardener v. MeTV, 22 CV 5963. The class action plaintiffs claimed MeTV violated the VPPA because it "collects and shares users' personal[ly identifiable] information with [Facebook owner] Meta" such as the plaintiffs' names and email addresses, and "the full name of each video a user watched" as well as the plaintiffs' Facebook identification "without obtaining their consent through a standalone consent form." The VPPA defines "video tape service provider" as "any person, engaged in the business, … of rental, sale, or delivery of prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials," and a "consumer" as "any renter, purchaser, or subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider." But the statute doesn't define "subscriber." District Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins did side with the plaintiffs' argument "that to be a 'subscriber' under the Act, Plaintiffs need not pay for access to video content." However, granting MeTV's motion to dismiss, District Judge Jenkins found that the plaintiffs opening "account[s] separate and apart from viewing video content on MeTV's website" wasn't enough "to render them 'subscribers' under the Act", because these newsletter or website subscriptions were "of a kind that were unconnected to their ability to access video content." Thus, the district judge decided: "Plaintiffs here were subscribers to a website, 'not subscribers to audio visual materials,' as they 'were free to watch or not watch [MeTV's] videos without any type of obligation, no different than any of the other 9.9 million monthly visitors to the site.'"
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?