Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Fall 2020 Data Privacy Updates
If it feels like California has gotten a lot of attention for their data privacy laws lately, you certainly aren't wrong. Despite the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) going into effect in January of this year, the regulations weren't yet finalized until after full enforcement of the law began in July. In August, the California Attorney General's office made a surprise announcement that the regulations were final and in fully in effect. Then, a little over two months later, the people of California again voted on a significant privacy law, this time referred to as the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA).
In this quarter's Data Privacy Update, we'll take a look at a few states that are pursuing privacy laws of their own or adding to their existing regulations. Two of those laws come from large states that cover a lot of business — one of which could have an impact on a similar scale to the CCPA.
The Proposed New York Privacy Act (NYPA): How It's Different From the CCPA
The New York Privacy Act (NYPA) would provide consumers with greater control over their personal information, while at the same time being much more onerous for businesses to comply with. The bill was expected to receive a November vote, but was set aside due to COVID-19. However, the pandemic has brought privacy issues back into the spotlight, with emerging fears that there is a lag between the protection of individuals' private data and the use of technology.
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.