Recent developments in entertainment law.

A right to net-profits participation from entertainment products has often been criticized as meaning little, given the many disputes that have arisen over non-payment. Even producers of highly successful products may argue that their ventures netted little or no net profits. Thus, revenue participants who obtain the right to a percentage of gross or adjusted-gross profits are usually considered in a better position than net-profits participants. Still, a right to gross profits has its pitfalls. A key issue is what revenues belong in the gross-profit pool.

Features

Recently filed cases in entertainment law, straight from the steps of the Los Angeles Superior Court.

Features

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, ruled that the creator of a proposed stage or TV talent show entitled "American…

Features

Recent developments in Internet law and in the Internet industry.

The CAN-SPAM Act went into effect Jan. 1, and has important implications for anyone engaged in the sending of unsolicited e-mails, which are commonly known as spam. Contrary to public opinion, the act does not make spam unlawful; it attempts to regulate it.

A recording session is generally a team effort, with artist, engineer and producer working together to create sound recording masters. However, unless set forth in written agreements, just who owns the rights in the works may not be clear. For example, what if an engineer with creative input claims to be a joint author? Even less clear may be who owns the rights if a visitor to a recording session becomes a contributor to a track. Such situations may raise claims of joint authorship and/or copyright infringement, among other things. (A joint copyright owner can't sue a co-owner for infringement, but a court may recognize a joint authorship claim as a distinct alternative from an infringement claim in the same case.) Defendants in these actions may claim an implied license, that the visitor's contribution wasn't original enough to be copyrightable or that the contribution was a work-for-hire under that the defendants own. These arguments were recently tested in a case involving a recording session for the popular hip-hop artist Jay-Z.

Features

Most attorneys rely heavily on e-mail as a primary form of communication with their clients. The accessibility, speed, flexibility and low cost of e-mail have made it a nearly indispensable tool in the business community. However, these same qualities that make e-mail so valuable have enabled unscrupulous marketers to blanket e-mail users with unsolicited e-mails, such as for mortgage refinancing, prescription drugs, obscene invitations and requests for help from fictitious Third World government officials. Spam is the nemesis of nearly every e-mail user, and as spam exceeds the point of accounting for one of every two e-mails transmitted, many feel that without remedial steps, this medium may be in jeopardy. It would seem then that technological enhancements to e-mail communications, such as spam filters, would be a natural and accepted outgrowth of this permissible communications method. However, attorneys are subject to ethical considerations not present in many other industries. Therefore, the specific manner in which a spam filter operates must be examined in order to gauge whether it is appropriate for a law firm environment.