Features
Johnny Cash Museum Case Includes Attorney Conflict of Interest Issue
How does "eye of the beholder" apply to law clients for determining whether an attorney is representing more than one party to a negotiation? And how would attorney/client privilege work in such a situation? These issues have been raised in litigation involving sponsorship agreements for the Johnny Cash Museum in Nashville.
Features
Recent Court Rulings on 'Embedding' Foreshadow Split In Circuits
When and how can someone else's visual content be displayed on a website without the website operator running afoul of copyright law? When and how can someone else display the website operator's visual content? A recent ruling on a popular practice at the center of these issues for entertainment and media companies may upend the current paradigm.
Features
Consultants Lose Bid for Percentage of Record Label
A successful Atlanta-based hip-hop and R&B label beat back the efforts of a Los Angeles consulting firm to lay claim to hundreds of thousands of dollars and a large chunk of the company itself, when a jury declared that the record company owed the consultants less than $3,500.
Columns & Departments
Players on the Move
A look at moves among attorneys, law firms, companies and other players in entertainment law.
Features
Right of Publicity Case Roundup
Several recent court rulings aptly demonstrate how the right of publicity continues to be a vital cutting-edge area of celebrity law.
Features
Legal Issues In Reopening Broadway
With the reopening of Broadway now in full swing, this is an ideal opportunity to address new legal developments.
Features
U.S. Supreme Court Considers Copyright Registration of Multiple Works
The 'Unicolors' case highlights the value of copyright registration, not only for creators who rely on the exclusivity of their content for making a living, but also for anyone with copyright eligible works in their IP portfolio.
Features
Litigation Over Skater Girl Film Transferred to CA
When Atlanta filmmaker-turned-plaintiff Raymond Pirtle Jr. filed a copyright infringement suit against CA-based Netflix in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, he pitted him against seasoned attorneys, representing a corporate giant in a case that has both sides claiming early incremental victories.
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar InvestigationsThis article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.Read More ›
- The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year LaterThe DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.Read More ›
- Surveys in Patent Infringement Litigation: The Next FrontierMost experienced intellectual property attorneys understand the significant role surveys play in trademark infringement and other Lanham Act cases, but relatively few are likely to have considered the use of such research in patent infringement matters. That could soon change in light of the recent admission of a survey into evidence in <i>Applera Corporation, et al. v. MJ Research, Inc., et al.</i>, No. 3:98cv1201 (D. Conn. Aug. 26, 2005). The survey evidence, which showed that 96% of the defendant's customers used its products to perform a patented process, was admitted as evidence in support of a claim of inducement to infringe. The court admitted the survey into evidence over various objections by the defendant, who had argued that the inducement claim could not be proven without the survey.Read More ›
- The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance ProgramsThe parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.Read More ›
- In the SpotlightOn May 9, 2003, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts announced that Bayer Corporation, the pharmaceutical manufacturer, had been sentenced and ordered to pay a criminal fine of $5,590,800 stemming from its earlier plea of guilty to violating the Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act by failing to list with the FDA its drug product, Cipro, that was privately labeled for an HMO. Such listing is required under the federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act. The Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act, Pub. L. 100-293, enacted on April 22, 1988, as modified on August 26, 1992 by the Prescription Drug Amendments (PDA) Pub. L. 102-353, 106 Stat. 941, amended sections 301, 303, 503, and 801 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. '' 331, 333, 353, 381, to establish requirements for distributing prescription drug samples.Read More ›
