Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
The U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico decided that rulings by Puerto Rican courts that a late composer's songs weren't joint property with his widow prevented a federal court from deciding the issue.
The common use of content created by freelance talent has made the signing of work-for-hire agreements a common requirement of entertainment production companies. But just how specific must the contract language be to make the work-for-hire provision binding on the content creator?
Features
A securitization is a process whereby an individual or entity pools the right to future payments that it is owed, and sells this right as a security. The first individual to capitalize on the concept of securitization of intellectual property (IP) assets was musician David Bowie. He issued a bond offering backed by his copyright royalties in 25 of his albums comprising approximately 250 songs. Although industry experts expected a flood of music rights securitizations following the launch of the "Bowie Bonds" in 1997, this did not come to pass. However, securitization as a concept is not limited to just music copyright royalties. Any IP right with a proven revenue stream could be used as the underlying asset in a securitization. Therefore, there is a huge potential for extending the concept of IP securitizations to other areas of the entertainment industry.
Recently filed cases in entertainment law, straight from the steps of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
A look at the latest cases from around the states.
Features
Recent cases of importance to your practice.
The Supreme Court ended its last term holding that direct evidence of discrimination is not necessary in a Title VII mixed-motive case. <i>Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa</i>, 123 S. Ct. 2148 (2003) brings an end to an appellate court split regarding evidentiary burdens that began with the Court's plurality decision in <i>Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins</i>, 490 U.S. 228 (1989).
Features
A former employee may proceed with whistle-blowing and claims of wrongful discharge against an employer who fired her for refusing to sign a non-compete agreement. On April 16, 2003, the New Jersey Appellate Division (the Court) so ruled in <i>Maw v. Advanced Clinical Communications, Inc. (ACCI)</i>, 359 N.J. Super. 420 (App. Div. 2003).