Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
There are always high-profile criminal cases in the news. O.J. Simpson, Casey Anthony, George Zimmerman and Jodi Arias have all captured the attention of the national media and the public. As these cases develop, we often learn that the accused has received offers from publishers, television networks and movie studios to tell his or her story for a large sum of money. Can these individuals keep the money, potentially profiting from the alleged crime? “Son of Sam” laws may lead one to believe the answer is “no.” But, in fact, it depends.
Between July 1976 and August 1977, David Berkowitz terrorized New York City, killing six people and injuring others. Berkowitz called himself the “Son of Sam,” explaining that the black Labrador retriever owned by his neighbor, Sam Carr, told him to commit the killings. Once captured, Berkowitz received numerous offers to have his story published. In an effort to thwart criminals' attempts to profit from their crimes, New York State passed the first “Son of Sam” law (N.Y.Exec. Law '632-a), authorizing the state crime board to seize any money earned from entertainment deals to compensate the victims.
But in 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the New York code in Simon & Schuster v. Crime Victims Board, 502 U.S. 105, concluding that the content-based statute was a free-speech violation because it was “significantly over inclusive.” Moreover, the broad definition of “person convicted of a crime” would include anyone who admitted to committing a crime, regardless of whether there was an accusation or conviction. As a result, New York amended its law. Interestingly, the law named after him was never applied to David Berkowitz, who was deemed incompetent to stand trial. Berkowitz voluntarily paid his book royalties to the crime board.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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.
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.
As consumers continue to shift purchasing and consumption habits in the aftermath of the pandemic, manufacturers are increasingly reliant on third-party logistics and warehousing to ensure their products timely reach the market.
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.
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.