Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §507(b), states that a civil copyright action must be filed within three years of its accrual. How this applies to copyright infringement and to copyright ownership claims, including in the same case, isn’t always clear. But two recent federal appeals courts decisions, one from the Eleventh Circuit and one from the Second Circuit, have provided guidance on the differences in accrual for each of these copyright claims. Webster v. Dean’s Guitars, 19-10013 (11th Cir. 2020), presented a case of first impression to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In the 1980s, Buddy Webster (p/k/a Buddy Blaze) presented a Dean guitar he had rigged with a lightning storm visual to Darrell Abbott, who became a legendary guitarist for heavy metal group Pantera. In 2004, Abbott, who dubbed the guitar “The Dean from Hell” (DFH) agreed to endorse Dean guitars. When Abbott died later that year, Dean began reissuing copies of Abbott’s guitar featuring the lightning graphic — without Webster’s permission. Webster knew in December 2004 of the guitar reissue as well as Dean’s sale of subsequent editions of the guitar, but didn’t file suit until 2017 — not long after Webster federally registered the copyright in the lightning graphic. His complaint alleging copyright infringement, among other things, was litigated in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, where the district court dismissed the action as a time-barred copyright ownership claim.
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.