LJN Newsletters

A federal law that targets online gambling by making it illegal to make or receive payoffs violates the First Amendment, a federal suit charges. A not-for-profit association of Internet gamers and gaming companies is asking a federal judge in Trenton, NJ to block enforcement of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act ('UIGEA') and to issue a temporary restraining order.

Judging by its unofficial jeans and t-shirt uniform, colorful logo and offices packed with games and pets, you could be fooled into thinking that the world's biggest Internet company still sees itself as an extension of a college common room. But under the seemingly casual exterior lies a very serious company indeed. And Google's legal team is no exception to the rule.

Licensing requirements and royalty rates for online uses of music are undergoing sweeping changes ' spurring litigation, appeals and even legislation in Congress. As a result, Webcasters are scrambling to re-evaluate and redirect their business models, as they may soon be forced to pay for huge increases in royalties to recording artists.

Film-Script Submissions/Implied-in-Fact Contracts
Record-Label Trademarks/Laches
Uruguay Round Agreements Act/First Amendment

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted partial sanctions against plaintiffs' counsel in a copyright-infringement suit.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi decided that a woman seen for three seconds at a religious meeting in the movie 'Borat' could proceed with her claim of misappropriation of likeness for commercial gain.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas found that middle episodes of 'The Andy Griffith Show' from the 1960s not properly renewed for copyright nevertheless were derivative works of earlier episodes and thus subject to copyright protection from unauthorized distribution.

Entertainment law firms in California commonly charge the talent they represent on a percentage basis, rather than an hourly one. The typical arrangement requires the client to pay 5% of gross income derived from contracts entered into during the course of the representation. Earlier this year, a Superior Court judge in Los Angeles addressed the enforceability of this fee structure in the context of an acrimonious dispute between two entertainment firms. The principal issue in the case, and the focus of this article, is whether clients who had departed for the new firm had a continuing obligation to pay that 5% fee to the old firm as a matter of contract law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the vacating of an arbitrator's ruling in a film-industry dispute, due to the arbitrator's 'evident partiality.'