Entertainment and Sports Law

The question has been frequently debated in the legal community: What is the difference between an attorney providing business consulting services or acting as legal counsel? The California Court of Appeal recently issued an opinion on the concern in the context of the entertainment industry. Though issued "unpublished," the decision offers insight and guidance on the business consultant/legal counsel dichotomy debate.

This article focuses on a recent federal court decision, to explain how the well-developed law provides plaintiffs asserting a wide range of claims with the ability to proceed while protecting ISPs and, correspondingly, how it ultimately means that defendants who otherwise could remain anonymous may have to defend themselves in court.

A new antitrust complaint over ticketing fees has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Live Nation Entertainment Inc. and Ticketmaster. The plaintiffs in the newly filed suit are challenging Ticketmaster's new arbitration agreement by claiming its protocols for mass arbitrations, laid out in the rules and procedures posted to its website, require "a novel and one-sided process that is tailored to disadvantage consumers."

Notable court filings in entertainment law.

A look at moves among attorneys, law firms, companies and other players in entertainment law.

Latest Decision in Band Name Dispute Among Original "Rascals" Members Second Circuit Upholds District Court's Interpretation of "Broadcasting" in Insurance Policy's Media Exclusion Clause

State "anti-SLAPP" statutes offer a fertile avenue for motions to strike allegations in lawsuits filed over expressive content. These laws are aimed at allowing a defendant to file a motion to strike a "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation," such as those based on public comments and content issued by a defendant. The most-recent significant anti-SLAPP court decision involving the entertainment industry was issued in December 2021 by the California Court of Appeal.

This article seeks to explain the scope of §365(n), then touches upon steps that intellectual property licensees can take to minimize the loss of the use of their licenses, such as those involving copyrights in entertainment content, in the event a licensor files for bankruptcy.