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
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
The Power of Your Inner Circle: Turning Friends and Social Contacts Into Business Allies
Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.
How Secure Is the AI System Your Law Firm Is Using?
In a profession where confidentiality is paramount, failing to address AI security concerns could have disastrous consequences. It is vital that law firms and those in related industries ask the right questions about AI security to protect their clients and their reputation.
Issues in Reverse Morals Clauses In Talent Influencer Contracts With Product Brands
The next company general counsel to slide a morality clause across the desk for a celebrity or web influencer to sign shouldn't be surprised if that talent also whips out a morals clause, one to cancel the contract if the company's brand acts immorally.
CoStar Wins Injunction for Breach-of-Contract Damages In CRE Database Access Lawsuit
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.