<b><i>Clause & Effect</b></i>Issues in Drafting Work-for-Hire Agreements
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
Securitization May Work Beyond Music Royalty Income Stream
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.
Courthouse Steps
Recently filed cases in entertainment law, straight from the steps of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Recent Developments from Around the States
A look at the latest cases from around the states.
Features
National Litigation Hotline
Recent cases of importance to your practice.
Direct Evidence Not Needed in Mixed-Motive Cases
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
Employee Won't Sign a Non-Compete: Grounds for Dismissal?
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).
Features
Developments of Note
Recent developments in e-commerce.
Managing E-commerce Partnerships
Q: What do you risk getting when you mix commerce with the Internet?<br>A: A host of possible legal issues.<BR>Proper planning, however, will reduce the legal risk associated with e-commerce pacts and make for a less bumpy ride should the partners decide down the road that they want to go their separate ways.
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year LaterThe DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.Read More ›
- The Business of Legal Spend: How Finance Professionals Can Drive Smarter Outside Counsel ManagementLegal spend has become a core business issue that now shapes financial planning, operational decision making and risk management. What once lived primarily in the legal department has become a shared responsibility across client legal, finance, and operations teams and their outside counsel.Read More ›
- Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar InvestigationsThis article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.Read More ›
- The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance ProgramsThe parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.Read More ›
- When Efficiency Meets the Duty to Verify: Reflections on The Verification-Value ParadoxThe Verification-Value Paradox states that increases in efficiency from AI use “will be met by a correspondingly greater imperative to manually verify” the outputs. The result is that the net value of AI in many legal contexts may be negligible once verification is honestly accounted for. For low-stakes tasks, verification costs are light. For core legal work, verification costs are heavy. That’s the tension.Read More ›
