Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Supreme Court of Indiana accepted a certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit involving the interpretation of the state’s right-of-publicity statute, Indiana Code §32-36-1, in fantasy sports settings. Daniels v. FanDuel Inc., 18S-CQ-00134.
The question is: “Whether online fantasy-sports operators that condition entry on payment, and distribute cash prizes, need the consent of players whose names, pictures, and statistics are used in the contests, in advertising the contests, or both.”
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana decided that the newsworthiness and public interest exceptions to Indiana’s right-of-publicity statute applied to online fantasy sports companies that use college athletes’ names and likenesses. Daniels v. FanDuel Inc., 1:16-cv-01230 (S.D.Ind. 2017).
The Eleventh Circuit noted: “Plaintiffs maintain in this court that the district judge misunderstood the scope of these exemptions — indeed, erred even in asking what the exemptions mean. According to plaintiffs, [defendants] FanDuel and DraftKings are illegal gambling enterprises to which none of the statutory exemptions applies. Defendants reply that their operations are lawful and that at all events none of the language in the right-of-publicity statute makes anything turn on a question extrinsic to the right-of-publicity law itself.”
By Jacqueline Klosek
The entertainment industry is intensely focused on data collection and analytics as it seeks to maximize the exploitation of digital content. Just as those of us in the privacy field had begun to have a slight breather as much of the heavy lifting on the GDPR was finally behind us, lawmakers in California have passed the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA).
By Scott Graham
With an assist from Toucan Sam and Tony Bennett, owners of pre-1972 sound recordings no longer have to worry about losing their common law…
By Charles Toutant
A dealer in Internet domain names is accused in a cybersquatting suit of an illegal attempt to seize on the posthumous popularity of Prince.
By Robert J. Bernstein and Robert W. Clarida
Over the summer, a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of a new trial motion and an order denying rehearing en banc in Williams v. Gaye. We now consider whether the final affirmance of the jury verdict in favor of Marvin Gaye’s heirs is likely to wreak havoc on musical creativity as some, including the dissent, have argued. For us, the short answer is no.