Features
Court Watch
Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.
Clarification
Clarifying a reference in the <i>Golan v. Holder</i> article in the November 2011 issue.
Upcoming Event
Nashville Bar Association Annual Entertainment Law in Review, Nashville, Dec. 13.
Features
Bit Parts
Insurance Policy Doesn't Cover Artists Suit Against Record Company<br>No Oral Agreement for TV Producer and Distributor to Share Revenue<br>Non-Payment of Foreign Record Royalties Not Enough for Rescission of Entire Contract
Features
Cameo Clips
ARTIST ROYALTIES/DIGITAL DOWNLOADS<br>TAXPAYER LIABILITY/CONTENT PURCHASES
Features
Third Circuit Again Strikes Down FCC Fleeting Image Fine
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit again threw out a $550,000 fine against CBS Corp. for televising Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show.
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright LawsThis article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.Read More ›
- Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.Read More ›
- Players On the MoveA look at moves among attorneys, law firms, companies and other players in entertainment law.Read More ›
- The Stranger to the Deed RuleIn 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.Read More ›