Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Truth-in-Music-Advertising Law Provides No Private Right of Action to Music Groups
It can be a game of whack-a-mole for parties who have legal rights in names of music groups that have carved out lasting legacies: unauthorized versions of the music group popping up to perform concerts. Unauthorized acts may also establish rogue websites, and sell merchandise and new recordings in the original group's name.
When lawsuits are filed to stop such activities, the claims often include trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition and cybersquatting. In addition, since 2004 more than half of U.S. states have enacted "Truth in Music Advertising" laws to prevent false, deceptive or misleading affiliations between a recording group and a performing group.
These statutes, which are aimed at unauthorized live performances, typically empower state attorneys general or other government officials to obtain injunctions barring prohibited concerts. The statutes also include monetary fines that vary by state, for example, from $2,500 per offense, which may be for each advertisement of an unauthorized concert, up to $50,000. Violators also can be required to turn over illicit performance income to the legal owner of a band name.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
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.