Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Supreme Court of Connecticut upheld a legal malpractice judgment against a law firm that represented the plaintiff client in a suit over a sports publishing company he had co-founded.
As Hollywood filmmakers increasingly shift production abroad, they're creating myriad opportunities for U.S. entertainment lawyers. While the so-called "runaway" productions are bleeding thousands of U.S. industry jobs, the migration is a boon for entertainment-law practices that thrive on international legal complexities.
Features
Buy It, Burn It, Return It" is the policy recently adopted by a record chain in New Jersey. A radio ad for another retail store states: "You find it, you buy it, you burn it. What, I mean, not really burn it. You know. Put it in your iPod or MP3. And then sell it back. That's right: we'll buy your CDs back." The retailer can then sell the recording as used, over and over again, buying it back for less than the selling price and profiting perhaps even more than by selling it only one time. <br>The problem with these "new" record-retail tactics is that they clearly violate the rights of sound-recording and musical-composition copyright owners to control the rental distribution of their works.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld cancellation of the distribution by Artemis Records of a cover recording of "The Ketchup Song (Heh Hah)" for which 24/7 Records failed to obtain a compulsory license for the musical composition. But the appeals court allowed 24/7 to proceed with claims of wrongful termination of 24/7's overall distribution contract with Artemis and that Artemis' distributor Sony Music, which distributed an earlier internationally successful recording of "The Ketchup Song," had tortiously interfered with the 24/7-Artemis agreement.
Acquiring the rights to use music in a play with music can best be described as a journey with Alice through Wonderland. It usually isn't an easy chore.
Recently filed cases in entertainment law, straight from the steps of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Generally, Internet ticket providers are in the business of buying and selling tickets to such events above the face value of the ticket. Some people have equated such Internet ticket providers with ticket scalpers, and claim that they are acting unlawfully. In particular, some state anti-scalping laws have been applied to Internet ticketing transactions, resulting in criminal and civil sanctions. But the application of proper Internet notices and appropriate Web site access limitations may render such state anti-scalping laws moot.
Features
e-commerce contracts don't always follow the rules of traditional drafting. Although e-commerce has existed for several years, few attorneys or firms have large bodies of forms from which to draw for drafting e-commerce contracts. Even a leading online contract-forms site, www.onecle.com, which extracts forms from SEC filings, doesn't have a category for e-commerce contracts. (Searching that site by company, however, quickly identifies several e-commerce companies' actual contracts.) <br>The absence of "standard" e-commerce forms should not be surprising to anyone involved in the development of online business over the last decade. The hallmark of e-commerce has been innovation, as entrepreneurs try, and then discard, new business models at a furious pace in their quest for dominance of a new landscape. As a result, many e-commerce contracts are sui generis ' they don't follow a model. Each deal has unique aspects, which must be considered separately and covered by one or more agreements. If the drafter wants to protect his or her interests adequately, then the form of a traditional agreement should not dictate the content of an e-commerce contract.
The centrality of computer technology to all outsourcing transactions means that legal and compliance i's and t's must be dotted and crossed when it comes to software. <br>A recent case illustrates the difficulties that can arise in an outsourcing environment when the lines of responsibility for compliance with third-party software-licensing requirements are not clearly drawn between the customer and the outsourcing firm.
