Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

Search

We found 2,596 results for "Entertainment Law & Finance"...

How Compulsory License For Internet Might Help Music Industry Woes
August 27, 2003
Sales of recorded music in the United States and throughout the world have declined for three consecutive years. Three of the five major record companies are now reportedly for sale. Lay-offs are decimating record industry professionals.
Courthouse Steps
August 27, 2003
Recently filed cases in entertainment law, straight from the steps of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
<b><i>Clause & Effect</b></i>How To Determine Duration Of Band Member Agreements
August 27, 2003
How the duration of an exclusive band member agreement is counted can be a pivotal point of dispute for a member who wishes to leave a group. This can be further complicated if the term of the band agreement is tied to a recording agreement.
Cameo Clips
August 27, 2003
Recent cases in entertainment law.
Contributory Copyright Infringement and Peer-to-Peer Networks
August 26, 2003
The second labor of Hercules was to kill the monstrous nine-headed Hydra. When Hercules struck off one of the Hydra's heads, two new ones grew forth in its place. The entertainment industry's fight against its modern menace, peer-to-peer file sharing networks, presents no lesser task. The record companies successfully shut down Napster (<i>see A&amp;M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.</i>, 114 F. Supp. 2d 896 (N.D. Cal. 2000), <i>aff'd in part, rev'd in part</i>, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001)) and Aimster (<i>see In re Aimster Copyright Litig.,</i> 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17054 (N.D. Ill. 2002)) only to witness the instant emergence of Gnutella, Grokster, Kazaa, Morpheus, and similar services (as well as the re-emergence of Aimster, now known as Madster). We know, of course, that Hercules completed his second labor after figuring out that he could prevent growth of the new heads by burning the wound. However, unlike the Hydra, peer-to-peer file sharing technologies evolve quickly and swiftly adapt to changed circumstances. Thus, Hollywood's plaintiffs are likened more to Sisyphus (who was condemned to an eternity of pushing the rock up the mountain only to have it fall down again) than to Hercules. The most recent example is the decision in <i>Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.</i>, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6994 (C.D. Cal. April 25, 2003).
Bit Parts
August 26, 2003
Recent developments in entertainment law.
Courthouse Steps
August 26, 2003
Recently filed cases in entertainment law, straight from the steps of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Cameo Clips
August 26, 2003
Recent cases in entertainment law.
<b><i>Decision of Note</b></i> No Credit Needed For Public Domain Materials
August 26, 2003
In a major narrowing of the Lanham Act, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that the law allows the copying of public domain material without giving credit to its source. The 8-0 ruling in <i>Dastar Corp. v. 20th Century Fox Film Corp. </i> removes Lanham Act liability from parties that repackage facts or information that originated elsewhere. It could sweep away lawsuits often filed against major studios and publishers by authors and others who claim they were given insufficient credit for their contributions.
Protecting Against Defamation Claims From Docudrama Productions
August 26, 2003
Producers are rushing to meet the public's demand for reality content. This content includes film and TV productions based on the lives of real people. But there are pitfalls in producing 'biopics' or 'docudramas.' By their very nature, concocted scenes and contrived dialogue inherent in these types of productions may give rise to liability. In fact, there have been a growing number of civil actions or claims made concerning the manner in which certain parties have been portrayed.

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • Understanding the Potential Pitfalls Arising From Participation in Standards Bodies
    Chances are that if your company is involved in research and development of new technology there is a standards setting organization exploring the potential standardization of such technology. While there are clear benefits to participation in standards organizations &mdash; keeping abreast of industry developments, targeting product development toward standard compliant products, steering research and intellectual property protection into potential areas of future standardization &mdash; such participation does not come without certain risks. Whether you are in-house counsel or outside counsel, you may be called upon to advise participants in standard-setting bodies about intellectual property issues or to participate yourself. You may also be asked to review patent policy of the standard-setting body that sets forth the disclosure and notification requirements with respect to patents for that organization. Here are some potential patent pitfalls that can catch the unwary off-guard.
    Read More ›