Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
It is rare that a hit network television series is cancelled, as recently occurred with the ABC series Roseanne. But when that happens, the immediate and long-term implications for the network, producers, talent and other entities related to the series can be significant. The network will lose advertising revenues and the promotional value of the series, and the production company, talent and others performing services in connection with the series may lose guaranteed, and in some cases contingent, compensation in connection with the series. The cancellation of Roseanne [following a controversial tweet by the lead actress about a former adviser to President Obama] and the ordering of the Roseanne-Barr-less offshoot series The Conners not only is interesting from a creative and cultural perspective, but also provides a lens to view aspects of various arrangements in the television series business.
By Stan Soocher
On March 7, 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court decided for the first time that a parody may be a copyright fair use. In the 25 years that followed, the High Court’s unanimous 9-0 ruling in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Inc., has been cited in more than 500 court decisions. But the Supreme Court’s pronouncement left questions and controversies in its wake.
By Ross Todd
The Ninth Circuit decided that a group of African-American-owned television networks can pursue racial discrimination claims against Charter Communications Inc., the nation’s third-largest cable provider.
By Robert J. Bernstein and Robert W. Clarida
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently issued a long-awaited ruling in Capitol Records LLC v. ReDigi Inc., affirming summary judgment in favor of Capitol Records and its record label co-plaintiffs in a case that raised issues of first impression concerning first sale and fair use in the age of digital music distribution.
By Lizzy McLellan
A Philadelphia lawyer is suing the founder of a fast-growing litigation boutique over a purported fee-sharing settlement, is arguing that the boutique backed out of the settlement so it could fund other cases against video game makers.