Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
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.
Features
Like most government agencies, however, the EEOC faces significant obstacles. Its budget is rigorously scrutinized each year. Staffing is down and the backlog of individual discrimination charges is up. Concerned members of Congress have petitioned key House appropriators for funding increases to boost the organization's frontline staffing. In light of all of this, newly appointed EEOC chair Naomi Earp has her work cut out for her. As Earp succinctly stated, '[o]ur challenge in 2007 is to make the most effective and efficient use of agency resources.' In other words, the EEOC must get more bang for its buck to remain effective. Enter the agency's new Systemic Discrimination Initiative. This two-part article discusses how EEOC plans to implement the Initiative.
Features
Each year, the federal government spends several hundred billion dollars to obtain goods and services from corporations and other nongovernmental entities. Under the critical eye of the nation's taxpayers, the federal government has amplified its own scrutiny of the ethics and integrity of its procurement officers and those companies with which it contracts. Via new national legislation and investigative initiatives, the attention of Capitol Hill and federal law enforcement offices across the nation is keenly focused on the prevention, detection and punishment of procurement fraud. It is a brand new day ' and a potentially dark one for the unwary governmental contractor.
Features
The San Francisco businessman who flies to Maui to meet his married girlfriend for a romantic week in paradise; the Memphis nurse who travels to the coast for a night of gambling and drinking with her married Biloxi boyfriend; the Indianapolis lawyer who drives to Chicago to meet a married paralegal for fun and frolic on the Miracle Mile; and the married Texas oil man who meets his also-married paramour in her hometown of Santa Fe for a couple of days of shopping and dining ' these undercover lovers could find themselves as defendants in alienation of affection lawsuits filed by aggrieved spouses in states where that arcane tort still exists. Hawaii, Mississippi, Illinois and New Mexico are four of only seven states that still maintain a cause of action for alienation of affection. The other three states are North Carolina, South Dakota and Utah.