The LJN Quarterly Update highlights some of the articles from the nine LJN Newsletters titles over the quarter. Articles include in-depth analysis and insights from lawyers and other practice area experts.
To the public, a band typically is defined as its performing members, not a business entity that may control the music group. But when it comes to royalty rights, are the performers or the business entity entitled to "featured artist" statutory royalties from digital transmissions of the band's sound recordings?
Major record labels including Capitol Records and Sony Music Entertainment sued two music-focused generative artificial intelligence companies, accusing them of "willful copyright infringement on an almost unimaginable scale."
A "Spotify model" of licensing, regulation and royalties could be the answer to the recent slew of lawsuits and future litigation relating to generative artificial intelligence defined by rampant misappropriation of name, image and likeness of individuals, including high-profile celebrities.
Music Publishers' Nashville Lawsuit Over Alleged Use of Lyrics in AI Generative Program Is Sent to California Federal Court
New York Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of Fashion Model's Publicity Right Claim Over Ralph Lauren Documentary
New York Federal Court Applies Written Contracts Clause to Determine Intent in Implied TV-Distribution License Dispute
Highlights some of the in-depth analysis and insights from lawyers and other practice area experts from the nine LJN Newsletters titles over the first quarter of 2024.
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has decided that the termination by Mary Bono of grants made by her late husband Sonny Bono under the copyright-assignment termination provision of the Copyright Act didn't affect royalty rights under a 1978 marital settlement agreement between Sonny and ex-wife Cher.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
Many U.S. financial institutions that have participated in equipment leasing transactions (particularly in the large-ticket and municipal markets) in the last 20 years will be keenly aware that as the structures grew ever more complicated, Congress and the federal regulatory agencies grew intensely interested. Whether the institution had a major role in the transaction or simply provided a service, some degree of scrutiny could be expected, often in conjunction with a tax audit of its client. The risks to financial institutions from participating in complex structured finance transactions of all types became a source for concern for banking and securities regulators. The principal federal regulators responded in 2004 with a proposal that financial institutions investigate, and bear responsibility for evaluating, the legal, tax, and accounting basis of their clients' complex structured finance transactions. The goal: to limit the institutions' own credit, legal, and reputational risk from such participation.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
When a company declares bankruptcy, avoidance actions under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code can assist in securing extra cash for the debtor's dwindling estate. When a debtor-in-possession does not pursue these claims, creditors' committees often seek the bankruptcy court's authorization to pursue them on behalf of the estate. Once granted such authorization through a “standing order,” a creditors' committee is said to “stand in the debtor's shoes” because it has permission to litigate certain claims belonging to the debtor that arose before bankruptcy. However, for parties whose cases advance to discovery, such a standing order may cause issues by leaving undecided the allocation of attorney-client privilege and work product protection between the debtor and committee.
