COURTHOUSE STEPS
August 24, 2003
CASE CAPTION: John Densmore, individually and on behalf of California general partnerships comprised of John Densmore, the Estate of James Morrison, the Estate of Pam Courson, Raymond Manzarek and Robert Krieger v. Raymond Manzarek, Robert Krieger, Ian Astbury and Stewart Copeland, L.A. Superior Court # BC289730.
CLAUSE AND EFFECT
August 24, 2003
For-cause termination clauses, often used by corporations ' including entertainment and media companies ' in employment contracts with corporate executives, typically give an executive a period of time to cure after he or she receives notice from the employer of an alleged contract breach. At-will contracts may simply provide for advance notice before an employee can be discharged. In California, the measure of damages for termination without notice in employment-at-will contracts is income the discharged executive lost during the length of the notice period (eg, 30 days). However, the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate Division, recently held in an unpublished opinion addressing a lack of notice required under a for-cause termination clause that the measure of damages should be based on the length of the notice period only if the executive was discharged for grounds specified in the for-cause clause. Hoffman v. Harmony Pictures Inc., B152774 (Dec. 4).
Implications of 'Eldred' Ruling
August 24, 2003
The recent US Supreme Court decision upholding the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) ' which added 20 years to existing and future copyright terms ' has been hailed as an important victory for major studios and other entertainment copyright holders. Eldred v. Ashcroft, 123 S.Ct. 769 (Jan. 15). This is especially so given both the Court's clear deference to what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, acknowledged was the 'unbroken congressional practice' of extending US copyright terms and the entertainment industry's strong lobbying presence in Washington, DC. But other critical copyright issues facing the entertainment industry may be impacted but not resolved by the Eldred ruling.
CAMEO CLIPS
August 24, 2003
Federal copyright law didn't preempt state law claims brought over a settlement agreement for use of a song, the US District Court for the Eastern District of California has decided. (Johnson v. Tuff-n-Rumble Management Inc.,) 02-1734 (Dec. 13). The district court had previously found that the plaintiffs in part transferred part ownership of the song 'It Ain't My Fault' to Tuff-n-Rumble, which then entered into a settlement agreement with No Limit Records to allow the latter to license the song to third parties. The plaintiffs later filed suit in the Civil District Court for the Parish of New Orleans seeking damages and to nullify the settlement agreement.
Decision of Note
August 24, 2003
The US District Court for the Southern District of New York has decided that the negative impact of the Napster free file-sharing software on the ability to sell sound recordings over the Internet didn't give rise to a frustration of purpose defense in a suit over failure to pay the full license fee for the right to sell Who recordings online. Profile Publishing v. Musicmaker.com Inc., 01-2886 (Jan. 24).
How to Handle Frivolous Lawsuits Alleging Song Copyright Infringement
August 24, 2003
No group of creative contributors to the entertainment business is more susceptible to frivolous lawsuits than songwriters. They are easy targets because of the burdens attendant to defending against claims of copyright infringement; and they are inviting targets because of the perception (not always justified) that there are 'deep pockets' associated with a successful song and by being a successful songwriter.
Five Keys to Assessing Economic Damages
August 24, 2003
The proper assessment of economic damages, once liability is determined, is one of the most crucial elements of the legal process. In fact, even before a case ever enters the courtroom, an accurate estimate of economic loss may pave the way for a settlement, saving both sides time and expense.
Employee Drug Testing: Third Parties' Duty of Care
August 24, 2003
In April, Pennsylvania became the latest state to hold that a company hired by an employer to administer employee drug tests owes a duty of reasonable care to the employees subjected to those tests.
