Lionsgate hit with a $5.8 million ‘Biggest Loser’

Arbitrator rules studio undercut profit potential of fitness guru Jillian Michaels’ recorded workouts with free YouTube postings

Fitness guru Jillian Michaels has found a legal workout that may make skinnier the wallets of Lionsgate Films Group while also putting more muscle behind performers’ options to protect their works from popping up for free on YouTube.

Entertainment law experts are watching closely Michaels’ recent favorable decision from an arbitrator, awarding her $5.8 million in her dispute with the studio over fitness videos tied to the hit TV weight-loss show Biggest Loser.

What led her to get so exercised about how Lionsgate treated her workouts, and how might this tighten up some commercial online video practices?

(more…)

Read More

Congress takes aim at nation’s copyright chief

Lawmakers advance measure to strip Librarian of Congress of power to appoint copyrights Register, giving authority, instead, to the president, with congressional assistance

Congress is sending a rebuke to the bureaucrats who run a system that’s critical to Entertainment Law: The House has passed and sent to the Senate a proposal to strip The Librarian of Congress of the power to appoint the Register of Copyrights, giving that authority, instead, to the president.

HR 1695, the Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act,  has passed the House Judiciary Committee in a 27-1 bipartisan vote, and it has advanced out of the House in a 378-48 vote. It now rests with the Senate Rules and Administration Committee.

Whether it goes beyond, it has become the legislative equivalent of baseball’s brush-back pitch, with lawmakers expressing some degree of displeasure with the nation’s copyright administrators—and creating a colloquy over how this potential change might affect innovators and creators.

How did this tussle blow up? (more…)

Read More

Champs’ publicity-rights claim slapped down

With federal copyright laws holding sway, online sales are acceptable of prized photos of basketball players, their games, appellate judges find

Patrick Maloney, a hot-shooting guard who helped catapult his 2001 team to Catholic University’s first-ever Division III national championship, has become a school legend for his elite decision-making on a basketball court.

But he, teammate Tim Judge, and other Cardinal players made bad calls in courts of law when they and their attorneys sought to contest a decision by their alma mater, the NCAA, and an online vendor, T3Media and its Paya.com website, to allow the public to download pictures of them and their games, especially their now 16-year-old upset victory over William Paterson at the Salem (Va.) Civic Center, a federal appeals court has decided.

On behalf of themselves and other college jocks, Maloney, Judge, and other CU Cardinals had asserted that state right-of-publicity laws gave them a say about the uses of the disputed shots, and, more importantly their likenesses and identities.

But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in Maloney v. T3 Media, Inc., cried foul, blowing the whistle under First Amendment-protecting anti-SLAPP statutes, and finding that the Federal Copyright Act pre-empted their state publicity rights claim. Here’s an instant replay of how these ballers lost this key round of their legal game. (more…)

Read More

Web services catch a break on older music

Justices decline case contesting net providers’ ‘safe harbor’ protections for pre-’72 music recordings, infringement claims

Where the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court decline to go can matter as much as where they do.

The lesson has played out anew with the high court’s recent refusal to take up a much-watched Entertainment Law dispute involving pre-1972 sound recordings and online service providers.

That has left the services, the music industry, and judges in courts across the country with some complex copyright issues hanging more than a little bit. For now, performers may have been dealt a setback,  while the providers look like they won a victory rooted in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s “safe harbors.”

This controlling case may have executives at the online video service Vimeo sighing in some relief after they were sued in 2009 by Capitol Records for copyright infringement.

A federal district judge hearing the case ruled the video site liable for infringement where pre-1972 recordings had been uploaded without license to Vimeo’s site.

But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned that judgment, finding the lower court’s exempting older recordings from the DMCA’s safe harbors would “defeat the very purpose Congress sought to achieve in passing [it].” The appeals court refused to reconsider the case in August, leading the record industry to appeal in December to the U.S. Supreme Court. But the high court declined to hear the case, leaving the Second Circuit judgement in place, especially since it was joined by another appellate circuit.

What’s this dispute about and why does it matter?

(more…)

Read More

YouTube’s service terms just can’t be ignored

Federal judge tosses suit over music video that was pulled down, then re-posted, and had its view count reset

Performers who leap on to YouTube may be visually savvy, marketing smart, and outstanding early adopters of cutting-edge social media platforms. But besides promoting themselves zealously in cyber space with online services, they also need to step up and master an old legal fundamental: It pays to read the fine print before consenting to any agreement in ink and paper or electrons, as a federal judge in San Francisco has reminded an unhappy plaintiff.

To be sure, the overwhelming majority of YouTube users likely would fail a quiz on the service provider’s terms of service (TOS) agreement before assenting to it. But if the too blithely check off a box on an online page and move ahead with understanding their legal situation, they then also can’t gripe to courts and seek relief when YouTube removes, relocates, and resets the view count of their posted music videos. That was the beef in Darnaa, LLC v. Google Inc.

Plaintiff Darnaa was a limited liability company, an independent music label promoting and producing the works of artist Darnaa. The LLC in March, 2014, uploaded to YouTube the artist’s music video Cowgirl as part of an advertising campaign to promote sales of the song recordings in online digital music stores. But, yippee-ki-yay, YouTube made that ditty mosey where Darnaa didn’t expect on the great cyber free range. Why didn’t the judge corral YouTube, the online video giant? (more…)

Read More

Animators to draw $170 million from studios

Disney, its subsidiaries join major studios in big settlement over visual talents’ claims of anti-competitive personnel practices

Animators, digital artists, and visual effects specialists for industry-leading companies like Walt Disney, Sony Pictures, 20th Century Fox, and Dream Works soon may be walking around with more money jangling in their pocket after the settlement of a sizable class action suit involving these movie-making talents.

That’s because Walt Disney Co.—including its subsidiaries Pixar, and Lucas Films— this month became the last major players to agree to a deal to resolve legal claims, with zero admission of wrongdoing, that they had a “no poach” agreement among themselves over hiring the animators and others, including sharing pay information on them. The workers had asserted these all were antitrust violations that reduced competition in the market  and kept down salaries. Disney and its subsidiaries agreed to settle the claims for $100 million.

DreamWorks Animation, Sony Pictures Animation and 20th Century Fox’s Blue Sky Studios had settled with the animators earlier for roughly $70 million, sending the combined tab for Hollywood to draw to a close this labor action to nearly $170 million. (more…)

Read More

Talent agency, casting workshops charged

LA City Attorney files raft of Krekorian Act cases

Delores White, an Inglewood mom, thought her daughter, “Mia B.,” had star potential. White started working with Network International Models and Talent, a Beverly Hills firm that she hoped would boost her child’s career. After signing a one-year contract with Patrick Arnold Simpson and Paul Atteukenian of the firm, White paid $700 them for pictures of her daughter to develop her “portfolio.” The two men then got the family to pay them upwards of $8,000, in advance, to allow the daughter to participate in a modeling conference in New York.

But mother White got suspicious of the mounting upfront fees and contacted authorities. They have confirmed her worst worries. Officials led by Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer (at lectern in photo right) have filed seven criminal charges against Simpson, 48, and Attekeunian, 51, accusing them of violating California’s Krekorian Act  by charging a client up-front fees and falsely representing Network International Models and Talent as a licensed talent agency. They were charged with petty theft, attempted grand theft, and criminal conspiracy. If convicted, each could face up to four years in jail and $33,500 in fines.

Authorities followed on the Network International case with charges in a separate Krekorian Act prosecution against 28 defendants, including 18 casting directors, associates or assistants who were guest “instructors” at five  casting workshops, which officials asserted were “pay to play” businesses barred under the act. 

These were the seventh and eighth sets of publicly announced prosecutions by the City Attorney’s Office under the act. It serves as a reminder that Los Angeles, while a star-making capital, also can be rife with dubious ways to develop talent. The existence of the Krekorian Act, and its recent updates, also serve witness to key ways that aspiring stars and their supporters can avoid scams—by watching out for anyone who wants to take money up front from them and being wary of promises that sound too good to be true, and, now that are carried by modern means like social media or the Internet. (more…)

Read More