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
Top 5 Strategies for Managing the End-of-Year Collections Frenzy
End of year collections are crucial for law firms because they allow them to maximize their revenue for the year, impacting profitability, partner distributions and bonus calculations by ensuring outstanding invoices are paid before the year closes, which is especially important for meeting financial targets and managing cash flow throughout the firm.
The Self-Service Buyer Is On the Rise
Law firms and companies in the professional services space must recognize that clients are conducting extensive online research before making contact. Prospective buyers are no longer waiting for meetings with partners or business development professionals to understand the firm's offerings. Instead, they are seeking out information on their own, and they want to do it quickly and efficiently.
Should Large Law Firms Penalize RTO Rebels or Explore Alternatives?
Through a balanced approach that combines incentives with accountability, firms can navigate the complexities of returning to the office while maintaining productivity and morale.
Sink or Swim: The Evolving State of Law Firm Administrative Support
The paradigm of legal administrative support within law firms has undergone a remarkable transformation over the last decade. But this begs the question: are the changes to administrative support successful, and do law firms feel they are sufficiently prepared to meet future business needs?
Tax Treatment of Judgments and Settlements
Counsel should include in its analysis of a case the taxability of the anticipated and sought after damages as the tax effect could be substantial.