The Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. Sec. 204) provides that '[a] transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent.' A copyright infringement defendant may argue that it made use of a plaintiff's work pursuant to a grant of rights or license from the plaintiff. Where a license is written, the consent defense is relatively straightforward, and frequently turns on whether or not the defendant acted in accordance with the terms and scope of the license at issue. Where no writing exists, however, a plaintiff can more readily challenge such consent and force the defendant to face the writing hurdle imposed by Sec. 204.
- August 26, 2003Christine Lepera and Christopher T. Bavitz
Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.
August 26, 2003Susan H. Morton and David W. OppenheimThe Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate Division, has decided that to toll the statute of limitations of the California Talent Agencies Act, an 'action' must be filed with the state labor commissioner, rather than state court, within one year of the alleged Act violation. Greenfield v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, B159313 (Feb. 27).
August 26, 2003ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |The entertainment industry, based on building brand-name content and entities, has a long history of disputes over trademarks. Yet it may be unclear to a court how a defendant in a trademark infringement action intends to use a fair-use defense.
August 26, 2003Stan SoocherThe Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Nashville, has decided that the Statute of Frauds barred record executives from enforcing unsigned two- and three-year contracts for them to operate a proposed but canceled country music label. Shedd v. Gaylord Entertainment Co., M2002-00258-COA-R3-CV. The statute voided the contracts because they couldn't be performed within one year, the court noted.
August 25, 2003ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |The recent ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California upholding the distribution of decentralized peer-to-peer file-sharing software has made the entertainment industry's legal battle to eliminate the free exchange of content over the Internet seem even more insurmountable. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., 01-08541. While industry executives tout a silver lining in District Judge Stephen V. Wilson's finding that consumers commit direct copyright infringement by using such technology, this nevertheless is the first major ruling against the entertainment business on the file-sharing issue. The odds on the entertainment industry prevailing on appeal are tight because the district court relied primarily on distinguishing the Ninth Circuit's holding in A & M Records Inc. v. Napster Inc. But a close look at Grokster provides some useful ideas for the entertainment industry to consider in its fight.
August 25, 2003Stan SoocherOn March 21, a Manhattan federal jury ruled that the Island Def Jam Music Group (IDJ) committed breach of contract, copyright infringement and fraud over TVT Records plans to release an album by hip-hop producer Irv Gotti featuring Ja Rule and his group Cash Murda Click (CMC). (TVT alleged that IDJ wrongfully prevented Gotti from delivering a CMC album for a November 2002 release date.
August 25, 2003Stan SoocherRecently filed cases in entertainment law, straight from the steps of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
August 25, 2003ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |