Entertainer Not Liable for Injured Security Guard
July 29, 2010
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, reinstated a jury verdict that dismissed a complaint against an entertainer who shoved a security guard, injured as a result, during a performance at the Trump Taj Mahal Casino in Atlantic City.
<b><i>Commentary:</b></i> Comparing Collective Licensing Proposals For Internet Licensing of Copyrighted Content
July 29, 2010
Advances in digital distribution technologies and widespread use of the Internet have moved media distribution technology out of the control of rights holders and distributors, and directly into the hands of consumers or creative members of the general public. To address how U.S. copyright law should apply to new business models that take advantage of these technologies, some have proposed collective rights licensing at the Internet service provider (ISP) level.
Txt2Win and Mobile Promos
July 29, 2010
Sweepstakes and contests have become popular in mobile promotion. However, because sweepstakes and contests are highly regulated, a marketer using a mobile device must comply not only with mobile-messaging laws and regulations, but also with those governing sweepstakes and contests. Indeed, text messaging as a sweepstakes-entry method has brought much consumer litigation in recent years.
Bit Parts
June 30, 2010
Fred Astaire's Widow Is Denied TRO to Stop Tribute Awards<br>No Implied License or Work for Hire Is Found in Song's Spanish Translation<br>"Straight-Lining" Film Fees Allocation Breaches Implied Obligation
Cameo Clips
June 30, 2010
ACTOR EMPLOYMENT TIME/CONTRACT TERMINATION<br>TV-SHOW CREATION DISPUTE/DECLARATORY BID DENIED
NY Court Eases Discovery Burden for Music Streaming Site
June 30, 2010
Ever since the definitive appellate rulings in the Napster and Grokster cases, big entertainment companies have pretty much had their way with tech startups in copyright infringement battles ' for instance, the recent resounding win a group of record companies scored in New York federal district court against the file sharing service LimeWire, now perilously close to being shut down. But in June, there was news of a victory (albeit a small one) for the little guy.
NFL Players Attack League TV Contracts
June 30, 2010
Covington & Burling might still be smarting from its loss before the Supreme Court in American Needle Inc. v. National Football League, 08-661, in which the NFL was denied antitrust immunity, but the firm ' longtime outside counsel to the National Football League ' now has another big legal battle on its hands. A complaint filed by the NFL Players Association (NFLPA) is challenging the league's billion-dollar television contracts.
Backlash Gains Steam over Suits in D.C. Federal Court Against Film Sharers
June 30, 2010
Civil rights and consumer organizations are backing Time Warner Cable's federal court effort to block subpoenas for the names and addresses of thousands of individuals who allegedly downloaded movies illegally. The subpoenas are the result of a litigation campaign by US Copyright Group, a Washington, DC-based venture launched by the intellectual property law boutique, Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver.
Counsel Concerns
June 30, 2010
Ninth Circuit Upholds Sanctions Against Copyright Lawyer<br>Attorney Fees Awarded To Prevailing Defendants in Memorabilia Case<br>Manatt Petitions CA Supreme Court over Ruling Against Firm
New Ninth Circuit Rulings on Implied-Contract Claims Provide Guidance for Idea-Submission Cases
June 30, 2010
In 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided that state implied-in-fact contract claims weren't preempted by federal copyright law. <i>Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp.</i> The ruling resulted in a predictable increase in idea-submission suits over TV and film productions. But few judicial opinions since have cited <i>Grosso</i>. In June 2010, however, the Ninth Circuit issued two decisions ' with differing results ' that, by also drawing from precedents from decades before, illuminate how a court should consider the elements of an implied-contract case.
