"AEG Live is helping brands tune up for its compilation of summer music festivals. The producers of the New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Festival, the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival, and Stagecoach Country Music Festival have decided to bundle those and nine more of its giant music events to allow marketers to buy across festivals."
How will these festivals retain their geo-cultural uniqueness?
[Beth Snyder Bulik, "Concert Producer Gives Brands Chance to Reach More Bands AEG Live Bundles Together Major Music Festivals So Marketers Can Save Money, Target Fans", 1/29/09 AdAge.com]
January 30, 2009
January 29, 2009
Sean Combs Sued Over Glass Design of Cologne Bottle
Patti v. Combs, No. 3:09-cv-30017-MAP (D. Mass. filed Jan. 28, 2009).
Plaintiff claims infringement of his registered copyrights for glass sculptures by defendants' exploitation of bottle used for Sean Jean brand cologne.
Trade dress infringement and unfair competition also alleged.
Plaintiff claims infringement of his registered copyrights for glass sculptures by defendants' exploitation of bottle used for Sean Jean brand cologne.
Trade dress infringement and unfair competition also alleged.
Labels:
Copyright,
Infringement,
Sculpture,
Sean John,
Trade Dress,
Unfair Competition
January 28, 2009
Mtn. for Judgment and New Trial Denied
Malmsteen v. Berdon LLP, No. 05 Civ. 00958, 1/28/09 N.Y.L.J. Decision of Interest (S.D.N.Y. decided Jan. 20, 2009).
Plaintiff Yngwie Malmsteen ("plaintiff") asserted claims against defendants Berdon, LLP ("Berdon"), Michael Mitnick, James Lewis and James Lewis Entertainment ("JLE") for, inter alia, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff is a professional musician who employed defendant Lewis as his personal manager and defendant Mitnick as his business manager in the 1990s and until early 2000. Plaintiff claimed that Lewis embezzled millions of dollars from him between approximately 1995 and 2000 and that defendants Mitnick and Berdon (collectively, "defendants") enabled Lewis to do so. Plaintiff alleged that defendants acted with fraudulent intent or, alternately, in violation of their contractual and fiduciary duties.
A trial was held in mid-2008. At the close of plaintiff's case, defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) on all of plaintiff's claims. The Court granted the motion with respect to the fraud claim but allowed the breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims to go forward. At the end of the trial, the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff on both of his claims. The special verdict form completed by the jury indicated that plaintiff was entitled to zero dollars on his breach of contract claim, $450,000 in damages on his breach of fiduciary duty claim, and zero dollars in punitive damages on the breach of fiduciary duty claim.
Defendants filed the instant motion seeking (i) judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(b) (ii) a new trial pursuant to Rule 59(a), or (iii) denial of the motion for a new trial conditional on plaintiff's acceptance of a remittur on damages.
After outlining the standards for Rules 50 and 59, and remittur, the Court held:
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denied defendant's motions for judgment as a matter of law, for a new trial, and for remittur.
Plaintiff Yngwie Malmsteen ("plaintiff") asserted claims against defendants Berdon, LLP ("Berdon"), Michael Mitnick, James Lewis and James Lewis Entertainment ("JLE") for, inter alia, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff is a professional musician who employed defendant Lewis as his personal manager and defendant Mitnick as his business manager in the 1990s and until early 2000. Plaintiff claimed that Lewis embezzled millions of dollars from him between approximately 1995 and 2000 and that defendants Mitnick and Berdon (collectively, "defendants") enabled Lewis to do so. Plaintiff alleged that defendants acted with fraudulent intent or, alternately, in violation of their contractual and fiduciary duties.
A trial was held in mid-2008. At the close of plaintiff's case, defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) on all of plaintiff's claims. The Court granted the motion with respect to the fraud claim but allowed the breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims to go forward. At the end of the trial, the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff on both of his claims. The special verdict form completed by the jury indicated that plaintiff was entitled to zero dollars on his breach of contract claim, $450,000 in damages on his breach of fiduciary duty claim, and zero dollars in punitive damages on the breach of fiduciary duty claim.
Defendants filed the instant motion seeking (i) judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(b) (ii) a new trial pursuant to Rule 59(a), or (iii) denial of the motion for a new trial conditional on plaintiff's acceptance of a remittur on damages.
After outlining the standards for Rules 50 and 59, and remittur, the Court held:
- A reasonable jury Could Have Concluded That Lewis Embezzled Money From Plaintiff
- Plaintiff's Breach of Contract Claim is Not Time-Barred
- A Reasonable Jury Could Have Concluded That Defendants Breached Their Contract With Plaintiff
- The Jury's Failure to Award Damages for Plaintiff's Breach of Contract Claim Did Not Require Vacatur of the Jury's Finding on Liability
- A Reasonable Jury Could Have Concluded That Defendants Breached Their Fiduciary Duty to Plaintiff
- The Jury's Damages Award Was Not Excessive
- Plaintiff's Summation Did Not Warrant a New Trial
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denied defendant's motions for judgment as a matter of law, for a new trial, and for remittur.
January 27, 2009
Broadband Fee for Unlimited Downloads
Instead of fighting file-sharing, the local government of the Isle of Man announced a proposal this month that the 80,000 people who live on there would be able to download unlimited amounts of music — perhaps even from notorious peer-to-peer pirate sites. To make this possible, broadband subscribers would pay a nominal fee of as little as £1, or $1.38, a month to their Internet service providers.
[New York Times]
[New York Times]
January 23, 2009
Legal Fees in Death Row Bankruptcy
In the Death Row bankruptcy, bankruptcy attorneys write in their $6.8 million fee request:
The representation of the Trustee in this case has been particularly complex due to the individuals involved in the company’s operations and intentionally illicit, ‘gangster-style’ business operations of the debtor.
[WSJ Blog.]
The representation of the Trustee in this case has been particularly complex due to the individuals involved in the company’s operations and intentionally illicit, ‘gangster-style’ business operations of the debtor.
[WSJ Blog.]
American Censorship
The Parents Television Council is warning parents and radio stations not to broadcast Britney Spears' "If U Seek Amy" because the organization believes it "would violate the broadcast indecency law" if aired between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. [Billboard.]
Growing up listening to Howard Stern, OTCS can't help but wonder: if Britney Spears violates indecency laws, is it time to reexamine the scope (and purpose) of broadcast indeceny laws?
Growing up listening to Howard Stern, OTCS can't help but wonder: if Britney Spears violates indecency laws, is it time to reexamine the scope (and purpose) of broadcast indeceny laws?
Labels:
Britney Spears,
Censorship,
FCC,
FM Radio,
Howard Stern
January 20, 2009
Music Videos Authorized by Artist - Where does the Label Come In?
Recently, OTCS was forwarded a link for Black Cab Sessions. For fans of indie music, this site is a must. In sum, it's "unplugged" - but in the back of a taxi driving around London. (Favorites include Bon Iver, and Jens Lemkin.)
The site got OTCS thinking. Generally, an artist's recording agreement provides that the label owns all rights in recorded live performances and music videos. But, where an artist agrees to be recorded for online distribution, where does the label come in? Is it a "bootleg" if the artist agrees to be recorded without the label's consent? Do labels even care, and if yes, how can they capitalize on it? What sort of protection can a indie video producer/web-site receive from the artist? Where does the publisher come in?
OTCS doesn't have the answers, nor does it have any idea about the specifics of Black Cab. But, these issues might arise in the future.
The site got OTCS thinking. Generally, an artist's recording agreement provides that the label owns all rights in recorded live performances and music videos. But, where an artist agrees to be recorded for online distribution, where does the label come in? Is it a "bootleg" if the artist agrees to be recorded without the label's consent? Do labels even care, and if yes, how can they capitalize on it? What sort of protection can a indie video producer/web-site receive from the artist? Where does the publisher come in?
OTCS doesn't have the answers, nor does it have any idea about the specifics of Black Cab. But, these issues might arise in the future.
Labels:
Black Cab Sessions,
Consent,
Labels,
Licensing,
On-Line Video
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)