Errors-and-omissions insurance (also known as 'E&O' or producers liability insurance) is an inevitable part of every film and TV producer's life. It is required for the sale and distribution of virtually all film productions and television shows in North America ' and the requirement is becoming global. The goal of the article is to allow production counsel to spot the issues and to develop a sense of what is risky or not in the course of bringing a film or television production to fruition.

A recent Ninth Circuit decision vacating a conviction because the trial judge failed to recuse himself, and a pending recusal application by convicted executive Jamie Olis, remind us that sometimes defendants try to improve their judicial lot through recusal, though with little hope for success.

Everything contained in this issue, in an easy-to-read format.

Features

In its June 3, 2008, decision in <i>Pultz v. Economakis</i>, the New York State Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that there is no limit on the number of rent-stabilized units an owner can attempt to recover for owner occupancy. The ruling was a major victory for rent stabilized landlords, and a sharp rebuke to tenant advocates who claimed that multiple recovery for owner occupancy violated the letter and spirit of the Rent Stabilization Law. Indeed, the case continues a recent trend of favorable Court of Appeals decisions for landlords.

Features

CDA Immunity Not Applicable To Allegedly Misleading Auction Safety Statements<br>Copying Web Site Page for Consumer Gripe Site Is Deemed Fair Use<br>Famous Trademark Parody on Goods Without Consumer Confusion No Infringement

Features

e-Commerce, like traditional commerce, relies on contracts. But unlike traditional commerce, e-commerce typically relies utterly on agreements drafted and presented by one party on a 'take-it-or-leave-it' basis. The validity of such contracts arises from the recipient's 'adherence' to the terms given. These so-called adhesion contracts are enforceable, except to the extent that a court finds a term unconscionable.

The typical e-commerce 'Terms and Conditions,' the electronic equivalent of the fine-print contract that governs use of a sales Web site, creates such an unfriendly shopping environment that it makes the legendary 'No soup for you!' restaurant of the television situation comedy Seinfeld seem like the Welcome Wagon. Although I have often written about how the law affecting e-commerce firms ordinarily follows traditional law, the common e-commerce contract stands in stark contrast. Consider the following clauses from actual online agreements obtained in April and May ' and whether you have ever seen anything comparable in any real-world store, much less these Web stores' real-world affiliates.

Who's doing what; who's moving where.