Entertainment Litigation Blog

ROCKER JACKSON BROWNE SURVIVES REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE'S ANTI-SLAPP MOTION

Jackson Browne's 1977 iconic song "Running on Empty" is the focal point of a federal court lawsuit which highlights the tension between the First Amendment's strong protection for political speech and the rights of an artist to control his work. Browne sued the Republican National Committee (RNC), Senator John McCain and the Ohio Republican Party (ORP) because the ORP used "Running on Empty" in a web ad during the 2008 presidential campaign without Browne's permission. Browne, a well known activist who favors liberal causes and candidates, sued.

Continue reading "ENTERTAINMENT LITIGATION: FEDERAL COURT HANDS REPUBLICANS ANOTHER LOSS" »

SUPREME COURT MAY CONSIDER WHETHER FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULING PERMITTING REMOTE DIGITAL VIDEO RECORDERS VIOLATES THE COPYRIGHT ACT

The manner in which we view television programs has changed. The advent of digital video recorders like Tivo means that viewers are regularly "copying" content. While copying for personal use has been upheld by the courts, new technologies allowing cable companies to provide digital video recorders from a remote, central location have given rise to a number of cases across the country.

In August 2008, the Second Circuit considered the issue of whether such a "remote digital recorder" violated content providers' copyrights. That court reversed a ruling in the Southern District of New York and held that these remote DVRs did not infringe upon the providers' rights. However, just last month, the United States Supreme Court requested the government to weigh in on the issue -- requesting that the Solicitor General submit a brief to express the government's view of the law.

Should content providers really be complaining about a DVR system which appears to be more secure against piracy? Stay tuned to see if your cable's DVR will be upheld to be legal.

Continue reading "ENTERTAINMENT LITIGATION: COPYRIGHT AND THE NEW REMOTE DIGITAL VIDEO RECORDERS" »

JUDGE DISMISSES MOST OF CLEMENS' CASE AGAINST FORMER TRAINER

In my prior post about protecting celebrities and their reputation, I commented on the defamation lawsuit that Roger Clemens brought against his former trainer, Brian McNamee. Clemens sued McNamee over McNamee's statements to investigators led by former Senator George Mitchell, as revealed in the infamous "Mitchell Report" concerning drug use in Major League Baseball, as well as statements McNamee made to Clemens' friend and Yankee teammate Andy Pettitte. As I previously wrote, a defamation lawsuit is a legitimate aggressive course of action to pursue -- but one which requires complete assurance that the factual and legal grounds of the case is solid, not just an expensive PR gambit.

On February 12, a federal judge in Houston dismissed the majority of Clemens' case against McNamee. Given the many embarrassing facts about Clemens' character and reputation that have been revealed, and now the order which effectively guts Clemens' case, the Clemens lawsuit is another example of that aggressive strategy gone awry.

Continue reading "ENTERTAINMENT LITIGATION: UPDATE ON ROGER CLEMENS' DEFAMATION LAWSUIT" »

JURY REJECTS PHOTOGRAPHER'S CLAIM THAT REEVES RAN HIM OVER WITH HIS PORSCHE

A Los Angeles Superior Court jury cleared actor Keanu Reeves of any wrongdoing in an entertainment litigation filed by a photographer who claimed that Reeves ran him over with his Porsche. The photog, Alison Silva, claimed over $700,000 in damages and allegedly broke his wrist when Reeves tried to drive away as Silva tried to take his picture. Jurors deliberated for less than an hour before rejecting Silva's claim earlier this week.

The Reeves case is interesting -- not because a jury found in Reeves' favor -- but because entertainment litigations filed against celebrities of Reeves' stature rarely go to trial.

Continue reading "ENTERTAINMENT LITIGATION: KEANU REEVES WINS TRIAL AGAINST PAPARAZZI" »

TELEVISION JUDGE LOSES BID TO HAVE CASE AGAINST MANAGER DECIDED BY THE CALIFORNIA LABOR COMMISSIONER

Alex Ferrer, a former Florida judge now known as Fox's "Judge Alex" on television, entered into a contract with Arnold Preston, a lawyer who provides "services" to people in the entertainment industry. The dispute between centered on the nature of those "services" -- with Preston claiming that he was Ferrer's personal manager and Ferrer claiming that Preston acted illegally as an unlicensed talent agent.

Pursuant to an arbitration clause in their contract, in 2005, Preston demanded arbitration on his claim that Ferrer failed to pay for his services. Ferrer countered with a petition to the California Labor Commissioner, claiming that the contract was void under the Talent Agencies Act because Preston acted illegally as an unlicensed talent agent.

And so began three years of litigation before the Labor Commissioner and the courts, culminating in the US Supreme Court's decision yesterday.

Continue reading "ENTERTAINMENT LITIGATION: "JUDGE ALEX" LOSES SUPREME COURT APPEAL" »

STUDIO'S HOME VIDEO ARM ORDERED TO PAY OVER $6 MILLION TO CREDITORS OF PRODUCTION COMPANY

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled that Buena Vista Home Entertainment (BVHE) breached its US video distribution agreement for the motion picture The Patriot when it deducted millions of dollars in alleged distribution costs. The judge also held BVHE liable for improperly terminating the video distribution of the picture, ruling that BVHE's failure to distribute the picture violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

After years of complicated litigation, BVHE was ordered to pay over $6 million.

Continue reading "ENTERTAINMENT LITIGATION: DISNEY LOSES TRIAL REGARDING PROFITS FROM "THE PATRIOT"" »

Producers Alan Ladd Jr. and Jay Kanter obtained a $3.2 million verdict against Warner Bros. Ladd and Kanter, under the Ladd Co., produced 12 films for Warner Bros., including Blade Runner, Chariots of Fire and the Police Academy movies. The case involves the practice of studios packaging or bundling films together when licensing or distributing those movies to other outlets. Ladd and Kanter claimed the Warner Bros. shortchanged them when it packaged those movies with less desirable films for distribution and assigned a license fee which did not reflect their films' actual worth. In a closely watched trial, the jury sided with Ladd and Kanter. Warner Bros. is expected to file post-trial motions to reduce the verdict and, if unsuccessful, to appeal.

Nestle USA won its appeal of a $15.6 million jury verdict against it in favor of a former model who posed for the label of its Taster's Choice coffee. The model asserted statutory and common law appropriation claims for the wrongful use of his image and violations of his right of publicity. A jury found Nestle liable for $333,000 in damages and over $15.3 million of Nestle's profits which the jury attributed to the use of the model's immage. The California Court of Appeal reversed.

The Court of Appeal's decision recites a few important principles. First, the opinion held that the single publication rule applied to these misappropriation claims. The impact of that holding is that the allegedly wrongful publication of an image gives rise only to one cause of action. Second, the court's opinion held that, for statute of limitations purposes, the discovery rule did not apply to those who had "a meaningful ability to discover the violation." The court directed the trial court to determine whether the model had such an ability to discover the alleged violations of his rights and to limit any claims to two years from the date the violations should be discovered.

Click here to view the court's opinion

EXHIBITOR RELATIONS CASE SHOWS EMPLOYERS IN CALIFORNIA THE DIFFICULTY IN PREVENTING EMPLOYEES FROM COMPETING AGAINST THEM

Companies are only as good as their employees. Facing that reality, companies doing business in California have the additional problem of having key employees leave to form a competing business.

California law is clear: "Every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind is to that extent void." What this means is that California has become a "right to work" state. No matter how hard companies try, their attempts to prevent departing employees from competing with their former employers – i.e. "engaging in a lawful profession" – is viewed by the courts with skepticism. Something more will be required for a court to intervene.

Continue reading "ENTERTAINMENT LITIGATION: LOSING KEY EXECUTIVES TO COMPETITORS" »

STUDIO PREVAILS IN ACTOR'S CLAIM FOR A PIECE OF CHARLIE'S ANGELS

Actors and writers of old, successful television series who seek profits from major studios when the studio exploits the series in other media -- such as motion pictures – are not finding much success. Consider the recent lawsuit brought by Robert Wagner and the estate of his late wife, Natalie Wood. The Wagners' lawsuit sought profits from movies based on their contractual rights in the television series, Charlie's Angels. A unanimous three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeal recently rejected the Wagners' claim that their television series contract entitled them to profits from the movies. Here is some background.

Continue reading "ENTERTAINMENT LITIGATION: ROBERT WAGNER LOSES BID FOR MOVIE PROFITS" »