Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Bit Parts
Parker Poem Compilation Infringed.
A Manhattan federal court has held that the book publisher Penguin Putnam infringed on the plaintiff's compilation of 'Not Much Fun: The Lost Poems of Dorothy Parker.' Silverstein v. Penguin Putnam Inc., 01-309. Stuart Silverstein had presented his collection to Penguin Putnam but rejected the publisher's financial offer. The district court first found that Silverstein's 'selection, arrangement and coordination [of the compilation] reflect a substantial amount of creativity and judgment meeting the minimum requirement for originality' under copyright law. The court also noted that Penguin Putnam's subsequent release 'Dorothy Parker: Complete Poems' included cutting and pasting and the duplication of errors from Silverstein's work. The court then ruled that Penguin Putnam's failure to attribute Silverstein in 'Complete Poems' amounted to reverse passing off in violation of the federal Lanham Act.
'PJs' Suit Dismissed
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, has dismissed a suit against Eddie Murphy, Ron Howard, Brian Grazer and several additional entertainment defendants, brought by an individual who claimed to be the inspiration for the 'foamation' character 'Sanchez' in the FOX Network cartoon series 'The PJs.' Collier v. Murphy, 02 C 2121. The district court ruled, among other things, that the Illinois Right of Publicity Act 'clearly and unambiguously' exempted artistic works, such as TV shows, from its reach.
Film-Set Injury Suit Continues
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.