Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Exercising the Extraterritorial Limitation on U.S. Copyright Law
In 2017, State Street Global Advisors Trust Company (SSGA) commissioned the sculptor Kristin Visbal to create a statue to promote SSGA's global campaign for greater gender diversity in corporate leadership. The statue, which became known as "Fearless Girl," was unveiled on International Women's Day in 2017. "Fearless Girl" was initially placed at Bowling Green in lower Manhattan in New York City, across from the pre-existing "Charging Bull" statue created by the sculptor Arturo Di Modica. However, after Di Modica complained that the juxtaposition of "Fearless Girl" and "Charging Bull" distorted the message of his sculpture, the "Fearless Girl" statue was relocated to outside the New York Stock Exchange.
As a result of the extensive promotion and widespread coverage of "Fearless Girl," including the controversy over its initial placement, "Fearless Girl" became a media sensation that resulted in demand for replicas within the United States and abroad.
SSGA and Visbal entered into three agreements in 2017 concerning the promotion and use of the "Fearless Girl" artwork. Under the copyright license agreement, SSGA owned the exclusive rights to use the artwork "in connection with financial services and with gender diversity issues in corporate governance." The license agreement prohibited Visbal from selling, licensing or distributing copies of the "Fearless Girl" artwork for any corporate and/or commercial purpose (with very limited exceptions); third-party use in connection with gender diversity issues in corporate governance; and political use (with limited exceptions).
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.