Global media services company Spotify is a music colossus. It is known especially for its platform that allows users to access songs from a virtually limitless catalog via its so-called “streaming” platform.
This story comes with a twist. Most high-profile news reports involving a celebrity and allegations of unlawful use typically feature the well-known individual as a victim.
An immediately notable point about protracted Walt Disney Company-linked litigation for individuals who note such things is that material developments occurred every other year for some time.
It is termed in a recent national media piece as “the first sign of a thaw between warring parties.”
20th Century Fox Television principals understandably expressed strong satisfaction with a Los Angeles County superior court ruling last week that reversed an earlier arbitration award of $128.5 million against the company.
Business giant Apple Inc. will reportedly need to fund a just-announced commercial venture of epic proportions with “potentially tens of billions of dollars.”
We stress on our entertainment law website at the long-tenured Law Offices of Barry K. Rothman in Los Angeles that, "Everyone's reputation has value."
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' view on American law relevant to written defamation (libel) is not widely shared on the nation's highest court. That didn't stop him from stating it in a recent case, though, in which he expressed strong opposition to a judicial standard set forth in a seminal 1964 SCOTUS decision.
A writer addressing dealmaking in the entertainment industry duly notes in a recent Forbes article the sheer complexity that transactions often entail.
The above-referenced “fine line” in today’s blog post headline comes courtesy of an in-depth online overview of defamation law. That article additionally refers to the “delicate balance” that is often apparent in cases pitting one person’s speech rights and another’s alleged injury owing to the exercise of those rights.