Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Bit Parts
Justin Timberlake Appeals After His Anti-SLAPP Motion Fails to Stick In Documentary Deal Litigation
What's the line between being involved in protected First Amendment speech when creating a documentary film as contrasted to involvement in business negotiations for the production? According to court documents, in 2012 documentary filmmaker John Urbano and music star Justin Timberlake entered into a joint-venture agreement for Urbano "to shoot and edit" a documentary about the making of Timberlake's album The 20/20 Experience. Urbano, who says he agreed to accept lower-than-usual directing and editing fees in exchange for a higher subsequent payment, "presented" a final cut to Timberlake in 2014. But in 2022 a lawyer for the artist informed Urbano that Timberlake now wanted a documentary of his "entire career." After registering the copyright in the 20/20 Experience documentary footage, Urbano sued Timberlake in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint includes allegations of breach of the joint-venture agreement, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and a declaration of ownership of the documentary's copyright. Timberlake responded with an anti-SLAPP motion, under Calif. Code Civ. Proc. §425.16, to strike Urbano's lawsuit on the ground that Timberlake had been engaged in free speech activity connected to the documentary. District Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha noted: "Urbano claims Timberlake failed to honor the terms of their joint venture and implied contract, including by failing to contribute his 'knowledge and skills in the entertainment industry [to] market and negotiat[e] backend deals[.]' … Timberlake argues he contributed to the production of the Documentary by 'assembling a production team, financing and budgeting the film, … retaining Urbano as a director and editor, opening up his recording sessions to filming, shepherding … production, [and] acting as the featured performer[.]" But District Judge Aenlle-Rocha determined in denying Timberlake's anti-SLAPP motion: "Even accepting as true that any of these discrete acts are sufficient to constitute an act in furtherance of speech, none are the 'wrong complained of' in the [first amended complaint]. … The wrong complained of here is an alleged failure to negotiate a backend deal for Urbano to be compensated, not conduct in furtherance of speech in the public interest." Urbano v. Timberlake, 2:22-cv-04512. Timberlake filed his notice of appeal on Feb. 5. The opening brief in the appeal was due by March 18. Urbano's answering brief is due by April 17.
*****
Texas Federal Magistrate Finds California Unfair Competition Claim Should Be Ejected from Litigation Between Talent Agencies and That Dispute Should First Be Heard by California Labor Commissioner
A U.S. Magistrate in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, has recommended that an unfair competition claim by California-based A3 Artists Agency against the Austin-based company Night Media — which the plaintiff alleges is operating as an unlicensed talent agency — should be dismissed. Magistrate Dustin M. Howell also recommended A3's tortious-interference-with-contracts claim initially be heard by the California Labor Commissioner under the California Talent Agencies Act (TAA), Calif. Labor §1700 et seq. A3 Artists Agency LLC v. Night Media Inc., 1:23-cv-00715. The basis of the case is A3's allegation that Night Media lured a talent agent and an artist away from A3. In its filed objections to the magistrate's report, A3 argues: "While A3 concedes that the Complaint does not explicitly allege that the complained of conduct occurred, at least in part, in California, the Court is empowered to make reasonable inferences using experience and common sense." A3 further argues: "The TAA violations discussed in the Complaint are the predicate acts upon which the UCL [i.e., unfair competition claims under §17200 of the California Business and Professions Code] are based. … A3 does not assert a claim under the TAA itself; A3 asserts claims under the UCL because Night has committed the unlawful practice under the TAA. … This is not an employment dispute between an artist and an agent. It is a dispute between a licensed agency and a competitor who gains an unlawful advantage by avoiding the mandated requirements of licensure. … Here, Plaintiff is not seeking to invoke the TAA as a primary cause of action … Accordingly, there is no TAA violation requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies" by the California Labor Commissioner.
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.