Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
This is Part Two of a two-part interview, coordinated by <i>Entertainment Law & Finance</i> Editor-in-Chief Stan Soocher, with Santa Monica-CA-based entertainment Henry Root. In Part One, Root, who has extensive experience handling legal issues for music-driven television productions, discussed considerations in clearing rights in, and determining fees for, songs and sound recordings used in a production, as well as how option rights for the music are negotiated. Root also began, and continues here, a discussion of the issues to be negotiated for a record label to waive its exclusive right to the services of an artist who will appear in a TV music production. Root also discusses copyrights in artist TV performances, reciprocal rights with record labels, holdbacks on exploitation, and warranties and representations.
Features
A Look at a recent Donnelly Act claim.
Features
In last month's issue, we looked at a hypothetical case in which Lynne and her soon-to-be ex-husband David have drafted a child custody agreement giving Lynne primary legal and physical custody of their daughter, Jane. Neither had raised the issue of what would happen if the primary custodial parent wanted to relocate. Under the governing law of their state, unless the settlement agreement specifically states otherwise, the primary custodial parent is presumed to be able to move to another state for a promotion or unique job opportunity. Lynne informed her attorney that she had accepted a unique job opportunity that would require her to move to another state shortly after the settlement agreement's signing. Our dilemma was: What could, or should, the attorney do to protect Jane's interests? This month, we conclude the discussion.
Features
A federal appeals court is weighing whether to review a controversial tax decision in which a unanimous three-judge panel struck down as unconstitutional the federal income tax on nonphysical, compensatory damages awards. (<i>See</i> 'Court Tosses Federal Tax Statute Covering Emotional Damages,' <i>Medical Malpractice Law & Strategy</i>, Nov. 2006). Claiming the case is one of 'exceptional importance' to the execution of the nation's tax laws, the Bush administration recently asked the full U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to rehear <i>Murphy v. U.S.</i>, No. 05-5139. In October, the court, on its own motion, ordered lawyers for Marrita Murphy to respond to the government's rehearing petition, a signal that the court is interested, according to some circuit watchers.
Features
The latest information from the pharmaceutical world.
Features
During the late summer and early autumn of 2006, the medical community began to express second thoughts about the safety of drug-coated cardiac stents, which have in recent years been given credit for reducing the frequency of complications arising from the use of a previous generation of stents. The publicity generated by the news media interested me in my professional role representing health care providers, and for personal reasons as well.
Features
Like New Jersey, New York generally does not consider fault when distributing marital assets. (<i>See</i> Strober L: Marital Misconduct and Alimony. <i>The Matrimonial Strategist</i>, November 2006.) However, there are circumstances under which both states will factor in fault.
Features
Recent cases in e-commerce law and in the e-commerce industry.
Features
When Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act ('CAFA') in 2005, committee reports showed that several legislators believed the Act would shift from defendant to plaintiff the burden of proof with respect to the existence of federal removal jurisdiction. CAFA's legislative history contains statements from several members of Congress indicating that a plaintiff opposing removal under the Act would have the burden of establishing the absence of federal jurisdiction. For a short period following CAFA's passage, certain federal district courts found this legislative history controlling and held that CAFA shifted the burden of proof.
Features
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
