Courthouse Steps
August 25, 2003
Recently filed cases in entertainment law, straight from the steps of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Clause & Effect
August 25, 2003
Parties who buy rights to produce films often sell those rights to third parties. Such assignments raise the issue of whether the third-party buyer must meet the contractual obligations that the original rights buyer owed the original rights seller.
Cameo Clips
August 25, 2003
Recent cases in entertainment law.
Obtaining Royalty Settlement-Talk Documents In Litigation Over Loss of Legal Client
August 25, 2003
In an industry of ever-changing loyalties, it's not unusual for attorneys to be concerned about keeping their entertainment clients. In some instances, lawyers may lose clients to competitors. If one lawyer sues another lawyer over such a loss, a key issue will likely be what correspondence the original lawyer can obtain in the lawsuit against the new lawyer.
BIT PARTS
August 24, 2003
Malpractice Suit to Continue. The New York Supreme Court, Sullivan County, has decided that a legal malpractice suit can proceed against the firm Proskauer Rose. Plunket v. Hart, 185202 (Jan. 24). The malpractice and breach-of-contract action was filed by Andrea Plunket, the administrator of the literary properties of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, after a Manhattan federal court ordered her to pay $135,521 in attorney fees and costs for bringing what the federal court concluded was an objectively unreasonable copyright and trademark infringement suit against the estate of Doyle's daughter. Proskauer Rose had unsuccessfully argued standing, forum and joinder of parties issues on behalf of Plunket in the federal case.
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.
