Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Highlights of the latest franchising news from around the country.
Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.
Features
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia decided that a company based in Madrid, Spain, was subject to personal jurisdiction in the District of Columbia by maintaining a Web site that enabled DC residents to download unlicensed sound recordings. The ruling provides a liberal view for finding both specific and general jurisdiction over Internet defendants.
Depending on the circumstances and the law, parties on either side of an entertainment suit may ask a court for an award of attorney fees. Following are recent court rulings that deal with this and related concerns.
Recently filed cases in entertainment law, straight from the steps of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
The entertainment industry seems especially subject to discrimination cases ' whether based on age, sex, race ' and sexual harrassment/hostile work environment suits. <i>EL&F</i> will compile and report on them periodically.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania lifted a temporary injunction that barred distribution of a new album by The O'Jays ' whose hits in the 1970s included "Love Train" and "Backstabbers" ' after finding that the group most likely had no power under its contract to stop its label from issuing a collection of previously unreleased songs.
Features
The first line of defense in most copyright infringement actions revolves around the question of "access" ' namely, whether the defendant had a reasonable possibility of viewing or hearing the plaintiff's work such that the defendant could have copied it illegally. Absent some direct proof that the defendant actually copied the plaintiff's work ' evidence that typically is not present ' a plaintiff will attempt to prove such copying indirectly by establishing that a defendant had access to the plaintiff's work and that the defendant's work is "substantially similar" to the plaintiff's. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has made it more difficult for plaintiffs to prove access. <BR>Specifically, in the Second Circuit's view, a company's "bare corporate receipt" of a plaintiff's work is insufficient proof of access.