The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York vacated sanctions issued against an attorney representing the estate of Tarzan illustrator Burne Hogarth, which had sued over rights in Hogarth's works following the release of The Walt Disney Co.'s animated "Tarzan" movie.
Recently filed cases in entertainment law, straight from the steps of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Recent developments in entertainment law.
This month:
Agent Commissions/Arbitration Awards
Documentaries/Defamation
Downloading/Default Judgment
DVD Distribution/Preliminary Injunctions
Tax Liability/Royalty Statements
Agency Agreements/Commissions
Recording Contracts/Copyright Renewals
In its opinion, the Supreme Court clearly focused the test for copyright infringement liability on the subjective question of the purpose of the software's distribution ' an approach that better comports with basic notions of fairness than that of the courts below. But read together, the plurality opinion and two concurring opinions raise a new set of disquieting questions.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that there was no substantial similarity between the hook in the plaintiff's song and the hook in the defendant's song that would support an inference of copying
Even amateur podcasters know that there are legal concerns with podcasting music. As the law stands now, a podcaster must secure permission for every copyrighted sound-recording master. This would be extremely time-consuming and expensive ' even for NPR, let alone individual podcasters. On the other hand, acquiring the rights to use the songs embodied in podcasts may not be as big a problem because the statutory compulsory license applicable to the mechanical reproduction of musical compositions probably applies to podcasts. In addition, blanket public-performance licenses are already offered by ASCAP, BMI and SESAC.
The following points are from the task force's report. Numbering was kept from the report for reference purposes. Canadian spellings were also retained.…
The recent decision in 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com is an important case in the murky law relating to keywords. Many companies use keywords in some form to generate revenue, from search engines selling keywords to trigger banner ads or the pop-up business described in the WhenU decision.
The case is particularly important for companies such as Google not only because keyword sales represent a substantial portion of their revenue, but also because obtaining legal precedent supporting this kind of business has been inconsistent.
