Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] 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.”
Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.
By Stan Soocher
Can the settlement of a lawsuit by one profit participant in a TV production be used to increase the contingent compensation provisions of other profit participants in the show?
In-House Counsel Perspective on Negotiating Social Media Influencer Contracts
By Chris O’Malley
With the FTC amping up its scrutiny in the social media influencer space, in-house counsel has an opportunity to mitigate risk and help their companies get more bang for their influencer marketing buck.
Pursuing AI Programmers and Third Parties over Alleged Rights Violations Caused by AI Software
By Jonathan Bick
Because AIs are capable of causing harm but cannot be a legal entity, they are not held accountable by court action. Several current and future possibilities exist to resolve AI difficulties. Current options involve identifying indirect liability. Future options include but are not limited to changing the law to make an AI a legal person and/or changing the law to make AI programing an ultra-hazardous activity.
By Entertainment Law & Finance Staff
Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.