News Briefs
September 28, 2006
Highlights of the latest franchising news from around the country.
Bit Parts
September 28, 2006
Copyright Infringement/Expert Witnesses<br>Copyright Infringement/Substantial Similarity<br>Copyright Infringement/Summary Judgment<br>Intellectual Property Rights/Community Property<br>Royalty Suits/Motion to Dismiss<br>Video-Game Laws/Constitutionality<br>Upcoming Events
Court Watch
September 28, 2006
Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.
Courthouse Steps
September 28, 2006
Recently filed cases in entertainment law, straight from the steps of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Counsel Concerns
September 28, 2006
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania decided it has supplemental jurisdiction over a legal malpractice claim included in a suit over renewal rights to the 1970s hit 'Disco Inferno.' <i>Dimensional Music Publishing LLC v. Kersey.</i>
Role for Patents In Videogame Industry
September 28, 2006
For videogame developers, publishers and investors, the most important asset is the intellectual property rights they own or control in a game. All of the elements of a videogame ' the story, audiovisual elements, underlying computer code and even 'gameplay' elements (ie, that specify the way a user interacts with and experiences a game) ' are subject to one or more forms of intellectual property protection. Traditionally, intellectual property protection for videogames has been based upon either trade secret, copyright or trademark. Patents, however, are quickly becoming an important part of the videogame industry.
Cameo Clips
September 28, 2006
BANKRUPTCY PRIORITIES/PAYMENTS TO MUSICIANS<br>BANKRUPTCY/COPYRIGHT STATUTORY DAMAGES<br>COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP/DERIVATIVE WORKS<br>MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS/PUBLIC PERFORMANCE<br>
<b>Decision of Note: </b>Burden on Plaintiff for Contingent Fees
September 28, 2006
The Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Five, found that the trial court didn't err in refusing to shift the burden of proof to defendant NBC Studios in a suit for contingent compensation by the executive producers of the TV series 'The Profiler.' <i>Sanders/Moses Productions Inc. v. NBC Studios Inc.</i>
<b><i>Case Study</b></i> Infringement Suit over Rap Song Offers Useful Tips for Litigators
September 28, 2006
Copyright-infringement suits in which plaintiff accuses defendant of improperly taking from the plaintiff to create the defendant's work are common in the entertainment industry. But even with the frequency and long history of this type of litigation, infringement principles continue to develop as litigators face many substantive and procedural challenges. In the following interview, conducted by Entertainment Law & Finance Editor-in-Chief Stan Soocher, veteran entertainment-litigator Christine Lepera ' a partner in the New York office of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP ' discusses infringement litigation issues from her perspective as defense counsel in the copyright suit that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against rappers Ludacris and Kanye West and related companies. <i>BMS Entertainment/Heat Music LLC v. Bridges</i>.
Choice of Law: CA Court Strikes Down Florida Clause
September 28, 2006
<i>Burgo v. Lady of America Franchise Corp.</i>, CCH Bus. Franchise Guide '13,367 (C.D. Cal. May 4, 2006) addresses choice of law clauses that often come into effect in franchisor-franchisee disputes. Twenty-two franchises of this women's fitness franchise filed suit in a California federal court against the Florida-based franchisor ('LOA') and its Florida-based president ('Wittenberns') for violations of the California Franchise Investment Law ('CFIL') and the California Unfair Trade Practices Act, common law fraud, and violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Practices Act, and the Florida Franchise Misrep-resentation Act ('FFMA'). The franchise agreement contained a choice of law clause, which provided that the agreement and 'the relationship created thereby' would be 'construed and governed solely by internal Florida Law, without regard to any conflict of laws rules.' LOA moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, and Wittenberns moved to dismiss for lack of <i>in personam</i> jurisdiction.
