Certain producers won a small battle in the dispute surrounding the upcoming Godzilla feature film being produced by Legendary Pictures.
Legendary moved to compel arbitration, citing a clause in an unexecuted draft of an agreement. The CA Appeals court refused to compel arbitration based on the fact that the draft agreement had not been executed, despite containing a binding arbitration clause.
If I had to guess, the producers will be offered a healthy sum of money to put this one behind them. The lesson to be learned, make sure you get signed documents.
2013 will forever be remembered as a year when Hollywood earned two meaningful judgements in the efforts to protect the industry against piracy. Now, in 2014, Hollywood’s to cop, Steve Frabizio faces more challenges, and bigger enemies.
Jay-Z is has been battling a law suit for six-years for alledgedly sampling an Egyptian’s song.
At the heart of the law suit, the nephew of late Egyptian composer Baligh Hamdi, argues that Jay Z mutilated the original song, violated “moral rights,” and despite the existence of a settlement agreement that appeared to give “Big Pimpin” producers a valid license, infringed a copyright.
Jay Z and the other defendants hoped to wrap up this case altogether, but then there is the issue of allegedly infringing activity happening after 2006, when the EMI-Sout El Phan agreement expired and “Big Pimpin” defendants arguably no longer could point to a settlement agreement as freeing their liability for among other things, Jay Z’s exploitation of the song in concerts, in films, and on television.
For more on this topic, check out The Hollywood Reporter, Esq. page, HERE.
Ever wonder why most production companies do not permit the submission of unsolicited treatments, scripts, outlines, etc.?
In a recent case that was filed in the Central District of California, the judge dismissed the plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim of substantial similarity related to a veterinarian themed sitcom.
DuckHole, Inc. v. NBC Universal Media LLC et al. centered on the claim that a treatment for a sitcom entitled PETS was substantially similar to the NBC show, Animal Practice, which, at this time, is cancelled.
To summarize the court’s opinion, “a show about an animal hospital is itself too generic to be protectable, and the elements that DuckHole alleged to appear in Animal Hospital were scenes a faire flowing naturally from the generic idea of a show about an animal hospital. In their expressions – even in the expression of the Halloween costume contest and pet eating chocolate story fragments – the works were ‘wholly different,’ containing ‘no similarity, much less substantial similarity.’”
For a more detailed read, you can check out fellow legal bloggers over at CDAS, HERE.