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.
The 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.
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.
On 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.
Recently filed cases in entertainment law, straight from the steps of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Parties who buy rights to produce films often sell those rights to third parties. Such assignments raise the issue of whether the third-party buyer must meet the contractual obligations that the original rights buyer owed the original rights seller.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has reinstated a lawsuit alleging that a youth-baseball coach may have been defamed by the movie 'Hardball.'
In an industry of ever-changing loyalties, it's not unusual for attorneys to be concerned about keeping their entertainment clients. In some instances, lawyers may lose clients to competitors. If one lawyer sues another lawyer over such a loss, a key issue will likely be what correspondence the original lawyer can obtain in the lawsuit against the new lawyer.
