Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Content-Licensing Payment Dispute Involves Whether Fiduciary Relationship Was Created
A fiduciary relationship occurs when one party places trust and confidence in another party to in good faith carry out the obligations owed to the first party. New York case law holds that fiduciary relationships typically don't arise from "conventional business relationships," such as in royalty payor-payee settings.
A recent New York federal court decision in a dispute between a broker that sublicenses program content and a broadcaster that sublicensed content from the broker considered the interaction of contract language and extra-contractual elements of the parties' relationship to determine whether a fiduciary relationship existed. VideoElephant Ltd. v. Blake Broadcasting LLC, 21-CV-0503 (S.D.N.Y. 2024).
From a historical perspective, consider first that when the Beatles sued their longtime U.S. record label for underpayment of royalties, the New York Appellate Division found a fiduciary relationship existed because: "The business dealings between Capitol Records and the Beatles date back to 1962, when the still unacclaimed Beatles entrusted their musical talents to defendant Capitol Records. It is alleged that this relationship proved so profitable to defendant that at one point the Beatles constituted 25 to 30 [percent] of its business. Even after the Beatles attained their remarkable degree of popularity and success, they still continued to rely on Capitol Records for the manufacture and distributing of their recordings. It can be said that from such a long enduring relationship was born a special relationship of trust and confidence, one which existed independent of the contractual duties …" Apple Records Inc. v. Capitol Records Inc., 137 A.D.2d 50 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dept. 1988). Also see Apple Corps Ltd. v. Capitol Records Inc., 13 Misc.3d 1211[A] (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County 2006)).
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.