Nearly 50 years ago, the United States Supreme Court established that public figures must prove actual malice in order to recover damages for libel. What the high court couldn’t foresee was the invention of Twitter and how celebrities like Courtney Love would use social media.
The tweet in question came by Love in June of 2010. It read:
“I was fucking devestated [sic] when Rhonda J. Holmes esq. of san diego was bought off @FairNewsSpears perhaps you can get a quote.”
In 2008, amidst a financial meltdown in the world’s markets and a good deal of public discussion on how banks had precipitated the crisis through shaky mortgage deals, Love became convinced that a fraud had been perpetuated by the moneymen on the estate of Kurt Cobain, the late Nirvana frontman and Love’s widow.
Love then met with an Holmes about a potential lawsuit, but the lawsuit was never filed. This this the issue that prompted the tweet by Love.
On Friday, Judge Johnson gets to weigh in. A trial has been scheduled for Jan. 13. A jury could be tasked with figuring out the best way to read Love’s tweet, or if defamation has been already established by the judge, what damages are incurred on a statement that is tweeted and then re-tweeted. The judge also has to figure out how much of Love’s other conduct and tweets — some of which have compelled more litigation — are going to be heard by a jury. Unfortunately, about the only thing that seems certain is that Love won’t get to live-tweet the proceedings.
Frank Darabont has slapped AMC with a bombshell lawsuit alleging that the cable channel breached his contract and deprived him of tens of millions of dollars in profits from the hit series by making a sweetheart deal licensing the show to itself.
Kanye West is known for making comments that rub people the wrong way. In a recent interview, Kanye West stated that his job is similar to the job of a police officer. Police Chief’s response goes viral shortly after.
If you write songs, and your songs are sold, downloaded, streamed or used in many other ways, they’re generating songwriter royalties for you. Awesome, right?
Nowadays, the types of songwriter royalties earned fall into two buckets: Physical/Analog Songwriter Royalties (generated from old school music industry), and Digital Songwriter Royalties (generated from the modern digital music industry). With all of the different ways your compositions can be used in both industry models, there’s a good chance your songs are generating money you’re not even aware of, which means you’re missing out on collecting your money, and that ain’t cool. So, to make sure that stops now, we’ve outlined 13 ways that your songs make you money.
This comes from an interesting article on how to make money in the music business.
From its origins as a form of anti-establishment political protest to its’ present day incarnation as a multi million pound industry, street art has not only radically transformed the way we view our public pavements and walls but has also inadvertently turned the illegality of an art form into a controversial topic subject to widespread debate. One indeed worthy of the Houses of Parliament, where on Friday 13 December a momentous event in the art world is scheduled to take place.
The House of Commons will open its’ doors to Smile Britannia, the first charity ‘Street Art’ auction ever to take place in the UK’s home of politics. With an incredibly impressive catalogue of art, donated by an eclectic roster of artists, this auction will go down in history as the first event to see this contemporary art form being so evidently accepted by the establishment it has fought so tirelessly against.
Previously described as vandalism, criminal activity and the ‘wanton destruction of private property’, lately and with increased frequency, there has been a noticeable softening of the judicial system towards street art. Just last week a Mancunian street artist was unexpectedly excused from a significant prison term for vandalism, despite causing thousands of pounds worth of damage, because the judge residing over the case believed the offender had unquestionable talent and indeed ‘could be the next Banksy’.