Bit Parts
August 26, 2003
Recent developments in entertainment law.
Clause & Effect
August 26, 2003
If a TV network makes a non-recourse loan to a production company to produce a TV series, could the production company nevertheless be required to pay back the loan? Assume that the agreement with the network provides for a license fee to the production company as well as a loan for production costs that exceed the license fee, and that the loan will be repaid only from the series' net profits. What happens if the series is never syndicated and thus earns no net profits?
Courthouse Steps
August 26, 2003
Recently filed cases in entertainment law, straight from the steps of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Raising a License Defense In a Copyright Infringement Action
August 26, 2003
The Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. Sec. 204) provides that '[a] transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent.' A copyright infringement defendant may argue that it made use of a plaintiff's work pursuant to a grant of rights or license from the plaintiff. Where a license is written, the consent defense is relatively straightforward, and frequently turns on whether or not the defendant acted in accordance with the terms and scope of the license at issue. Where no writing exists, however, a plaintiff can more readily challenge such consent and force the defendant to face the writing hurdle imposed by Sec. 204.
Cameo Clips
August 26, 2003
Recent cases in entertainment law.
Decision of Note
August 26, 2003
The Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate Division, has decided that to toll the statute of limitations of the California Talent Agencies Act, an 'action' must be filed with the state labor commissioner, rather than state court, within one year of the alleged Act violation. <i>Greenfield v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County</i>, B159313 (Feb. 27).
<b><i>Decision of Note</b></i> Statute of Frauds Bars Enforcement Of Executive Deals
August 25, 2003
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.
Interpreting Court's 'Grokster' Ruling In Light of 'Napster' Case Precedent
August 25, 2003
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.
Bit Parts
August 25, 2003
Recent developments in entertainment law.
