Litigation

Features

One practical aspect of disclosure-only settlements that has received little attention is the practice of providing lengthy individual mailed notice of the disclosure-only settlement to class members, which results in additional (and largely unnecessary) costs that, depending on the number of beneficial owners requiring notice, can exceed tens of thousands of dollars.

Features

Rights in pre-Feb. 15, 1972, sound recordings ' which are protected by state law, rather than federal copyright law ' are hotly litigated in the digital music era. On April 17, for example, major record labels sued the music-streaming service Pandora in New York Supreme Court in Manhattan. The suit alleges common-law copyright infringement and unfair competition from Pandora's use of pre-1972 recordings.

Columns & Departments

Actor's Agreement Gave Merchandising Rights to Production Company<br>E-Book of English Translation of Novel Isn't Derivate Work

Columns & Departments

In-depth analysis of key rulings.

Features

The April issue of <i>Entertainment Law &amp; Finance</i> reported on a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit involving the Internet video <i> Innocence of Muslims.</i> That article discussed the court's "secret" takedown order and the court's view on copyright ownership of acting roles in movies. The article that follows provides further analysis of the copyright ownership issue in the case.

Features

After a bitterly contested four-day arbitration hearing in which attorney Bob represented the franchisor, the sole arbitrator awarded the claimant everything it had sought in this fight between franchisor and franchisee. It was a devastating loss for Bob and his client. However, there was good news as far as Bob was concerned. Why? The arbitrator did not explain the reasoning for her award.

Columns & Departments

Analysis of several key rulings.

Features

Until the Supreme Court's recent decision in <i>Lexmark International v. Static Control Components</i>, Inc., courts were divided regarding the proper test to determine whether a plaintiff has standing to bring a false advertising claim under 15 U.S.C. '1125(a). The Supreme Court resolved the circuit split by rejecting the previously applied standards, and created a new, uniform "zone of interests" test.