Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Bit Parts
Copyright Infringement/Expert Witnesses
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict that the TV show 'City of Angels' didn't infringe on the plaintiffs' three unpublished screenplays. Metcalf v. Bochco, 04-56097. Local Rule 16 of the Central District of California mandates that parties give the district court their witness lists 21 days before the final pretrial conference. The plaintiffs in this case had asked the court during that conference to allow them to designate an expert witness. In its unpublished opinion, the appeals court noted in part that the plaintiffs 'did not provide a good reason for why they could not have designated their expert earlier since they knew from the start of the case that substantial similarity, which they now assert the expert would have testified to, would be at issue.'
Copyright Infringement/Substantial Similarity
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a summary-judgment ruling that the HBO TV-mini series 'Six Feet Under' wasn't substantially similar to the plaintiffs' screenplay 'The Funk Parlor.' Funky Films Inc. v. Time Warner Entertainment Co. L.P., 04-55578. The appeals court explained: 'At a very high level of generality, both works share certain plot similarities: the family-run funeral home, the father's death, and the return of the 'prodigal son,' who assists his brother in maintaining the family business. ' [But t]he similarities recounted throughout appellants' brief rely heavily on scenes ' faire ' not concrete renderings specific to 'The Funk Parlor' ' and are, at best, coincidental.'
Copyright Infringement/Summary Judgment
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.