When Christopher S. Harrison first joined DMX Inc. in 2005 as vice president of business affairs, he says the new-employee paperwork required by the company was a good omen. He says he signed a waiver that he would not complain about offensive lyrics in the music playing in the office. "I knew I had made the right decision," says Harrison, now general counsel of DMX, an Austin, TX-based music provider to retailers, restaurants, hotels and other businesses. "We have music, different kinds of music, playing in pretty much everybody's office all the time," says Harrison, a fan of hip-hop and classic rock.
Former Rutgers University star quarterback Ryan Hart got another shot at suing video game company Electronic Arts Inc., which allegedly earned billions by exploiting his persona and that of other college football stars. A federal judge in the District of New Jersey recently dismissed Hart's case but gave him 20 days to file an amended complaint to beef up one of his claims: that Electronic Art, based in Redwood City, CA, infringed on his right of publicity.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed a federal RICO claim that alleged the defendants took the basis for their TV program The Great American Road Trip from a TV show idea created by the plaintiffs.
This 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.
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.
In 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.
