Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Features
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Features
DVD Distribution/Product Labeling<br>Film-Payroll Services/Completion-Bond Reinsurers<br>Recording Agreements/Fiduciary Obligation<br>Songwriting/No Partnership Found
Features
Production of Agreements/Motion Picture and Screenplay Rights<br>Recording Agreements/Non-Exclusivity
Features
Recent rulings of interest.
Features
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California decided that the brief inclusion ' in a segment of the animated TV-series 'Family Guy' ' of a 'Charwoman'-like character from and a theme similar to the 'Carol Burnett Show' constituted a copyright fair use. <i>Burnett v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.</i>, CV 07-01723 DDP.
Features
It's possible to win the war but lose the final battle. Although former Philadelphia Phillies pitcher Tyler Green prevailed in his lawsuit against a man who used his name for a sports-handicapping Web site, he has now lost his appeal demanding that the man be ordered to reimburse Green's legal fees. And for Green's lawyer, John P. Elliott, the decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit came with a one-two punch. Not only was Elliott denied a fee award, but he also got a stern finger-wagging from an appellate judge who complained that a letter he wrote to the defendant was 'particularly combative' and employed a 'most unwise tactic.' <i>Green v. Fornario</i>, 06-2649.
Features
When a supervisor is identified in a lawsuit as the alleged harasser, the employer may still avoid liability, under certain circumstances, as long as the harassment did not result in a 'tangible employment action.' To this end, most, if not all, employers are intimately familiar with the U.S. Supreme Court's <i>Faragher</i> and <i>Ellerth</i> decisions issued in 1998. Yet during the past eight years since the decisions, employers have faced the brunt of scrutiny from courts evaluating the application of this affirmative defense.
Features
On May 29, the Supreme Court made it significantly easier for employers to defend against Title VII workplace discrimination claims that are based on long-ago decisions about salary and raises. By a 5-4 vote, the Court said that employees claiming they received disparate treatment based on gender or race must do so within 180 days of the original discriminatory action ' not within 180 days of their last paycheck. Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., No. 05-1074.
