Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Search


Decision of Note: <B>CA's USPA Covers Computer-Altered Likeness</B>
April 01, 2004
The Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, decided that claims over the use of computer-altered likenesses of the plaintiffs in children's television programming were covered by the Uniform Single Publication Act (USPA), Calif. Civ. Code Sec. 3425.1 <i>et seq.</i> Thus, the claims were barred by California's relevant two-year statute of limitations. <i>Long v. The Walt Disney Co.</i>, B164750.
Real Property Law
April 01, 2004
The latest real property law rulings you need to know.
Eminent Domain Law
April 01, 2004
The latest rulings eminent domain law.
Landlord & Tenant
April 01, 2004
The latest rulings of importance to your practice.
Index
April 01, 2004
Everything you need to find what's inside this issue.
Cooperatives & Condominiums
April 01, 2004
Recent cases of importance to your practice.
Restrictive Covenants Meet the Telecommunications Act of 1996
April 01, 2004
Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to encourage development of telecommunications technologies, and in particular, to facilitate growth of the wireless telephone industry. The statute's provisions on pre-emption of state and local regulation have been frequently litigated. Last month, however, the Court of Appeals, in <i>Chambers v. Old Stone Hill Road Associates (see infra<i>, p. 7) faced an issue of first impression: Can neighboring landowners invoke private restrictive covenants to prevent construction of a cellular telephone tower? The court upheld the restrictive covenants, recognizing that the federal statute was designed to reduce state and local regulation of cell phone facilities, not to alter rights created by private agreement.
Development
April 01, 2004
Recent cases of importance to your practice.
IP Litigation Quarterly, March 2004
April 01, 2004
WARN Act Reaches Equity Owners
April 01, 2004
The Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York has allowed a class of 6,500 plaintiffs to pursue their complaint against several investment companies for violations of the Workers Adjustment and Notification, or WARN, Act. In doing so, the court in In re Vogt, 2004 WL 187153, adopted and applied not the traditional piercing-the-corporate-veil test but instead the more narrowly focused and easier to establish "DOL test," based on the Department of Labor's WARN regulations. <br>This case should be of concern to all employers, not just equity investors. The nation's economy now seems to be hovering between recession and recovery.

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
    This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
    Read More ›
  • "Holy Fair Use, Batman": Copyright, Fair Use and the Dark Knight
    The copyright for the original versions of Winnie the Pooh and Mickey Mouse have expired. Now, members of the public can create — and are busy creating — their own works based on these beloved characters. Suppose, though, we want to tell stories using Batman for which the copyright does not expire until 2035. We'll review five hypothetical works inspired by the original Batman comic and analyze them under fair use.
    Read More ›
  • Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
    Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
    Read More ›