Transcript
[0:00] Entertainment law update episode 141 for January of 2020.
[0:07] Music.
[0:13] 2022. Hello, everybody and welcome to Entertainment Law update from Los Angeles, California. I'm Gordon Firemark.
And from the Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex I'm Tamara Bennett for this 141st episode.
Coming up on our.
[0:31] 13 year anniversary. Oh my gosh. Yes, I think so. You know, this has been a long and wonderful relationship.
And for anybody who doesn't know Gordon and I did meet on Twitter so when Twitter was a new thing when Twitter was a new thing so
Happy 2022 I hope the first few weeks have been wonderful for you and your family as you settle back in to whatever the routine is for January it's it's the new routine the kids are going to school they're not
In the house all the time and I am overjoyed. I mean, I love my kids but I'm so glad that they're spending a few hours somewhere else. Each day.
Yep yep brought did return back to college he was like maybe I'll just drop out for the last semester I'm like mmm I don't think so.
Hey, that's where parents still have the power of the purse strings, right? Yeah, that's right.
Well, good luck to Brock and and to my kids and all that. This is our podcast about entertainment law where each month we pull together a round up of legal and business news stories and share our opinions and commentary and analysis and this month is no different.
[1:48] It being January of a new year while adult January is always a new year isn't it?
Anyway, it is also January 1 is as every year, the public domain day
And this year marks the transition of some significant titles and characters into the public domain we need the poo and ticker and piglet are among the popular characters that moved into public domain as well as Bambi and.
[2:15] All of the sound recordings made prior to 1923. Because of the music modernization act. Which
Previously given some protection to those pre 72 recordings now that is going away I guess that's the.
Sense of things. Yeah. I have to say, I mean, I'm excited about that.
Federal copyright law anything recorded prior to.
January, February 1972. And so what did it mean? We really kinda had an,
A little bit of a unknown or risk assessment that had to be made. If you wanted to use one of these old, old, old sound recordings.
Could you? You know, because there was still state law copyright potentially protecting it or just.
Lawsuit or series of lawsuits involving what the turtles and and Flo and Eddie and and all that trying to figure all that out and then the music modernization that comes in and.
Clarifies a lot of that for us. Yeah, yeah. So, I think it's great. I actually, this, this morning, listened to the fisc university singer, singing, swing low, sweet chariot from the the
Library of congress.
[3:42] Online library was kinda it was kinda cool. I mean, you know, now anybody who wants to put that recording in many others into their productions can do that,
400 thousand or so newly public domain recordings I should say along with some some other notable titles the.
A son of the shake which was Rudolph Valentino's last film before he died Buster Keaton's movie Battling Buster and Ernest Hemingway the sun also rises.
So, some pretty big names and you know, host of other silent films in Broadway songs and jazz standards and more and.
And you know, it's always sort of fun to look over the list in the beginning of the year. So.
[4:23] Yeah and we've we've got a link where you can for Duke University provides a great resource that's available all the time but updated annually
And within that, like I said, for the sound recordings, you could actually link out to the recording on the library of congress website where they have documented and are holding these. You know, within the library. So,
You know, there you go. Good. Yeah, that'll all be in the show notes over at entertainment law update.com slash 141 for this episode.
Links I should say will be there. And yeah go check it out. Well, there's an emerging split of authority. Relating to how courts make originality determinations when there's you know original and.
[5:10] Reused or non-original material included in,
In a work. There are two relatively recent infringement suits. One is Alfred versus Disney in the ninth circuit. The other is dubai versus king in the 11th circuit. And there illustration of different appellate court approaches to questions.
[5:29] About how we make these determinations. Let's start with the Disney one. This is Alfred versus Disney. It's the pirate to the Caribbean case. Copperhead infringement suit started by writers aly alpha the second and
Ask
Ezekiel Martinez I guess it is a junior they claim that Disney stole their original spec screenplay to create the pirates of the Caribbean franchise and they claim that their work,
Creatively extended beyond the general pirate tropes things like.
[5:59] Pirates never having been depicted as having a sense of humor until
The Captain Jack Sparrow character showed up they think the captain Jack was a rip off of their comedic conception of David Jones in their screen play also titled Pirates of the Caribbean which they apparently it's submitted to do to Disney back in 2000 Disney past and then allegedly kept on
Capture the screenplay for a couple of years and.
The rest is sort of history there. Well, in May of 2019, the district court judge Marshall granted Disney's motion to dismiss finding that the similar elements between the the plaintiffs 2000 screenplay and the 2003 Disney film pirates of Caribbean.
Purse of the black pearl. We're largely unprotectable generic pirate fair.
And then the ninth circuit back in July of 2020 reversed and found that the 2000 screenplay shared sufficient similarities with the
Disney film to survive the motion of dismissed. They found that it was premature for the trial court judge to definitively determine that the similar elements were unprotectable,
As the district court did and found that additional evidence and expert testimony would help so the ninth circuit reverses and remains the district courts dismissal.
[7:14] In a denial of some rejuvenate and then in in I'm sorry the general judgement was December of 2021.
Where Disney had made the motion in response to an amended complaint in that motion Disney argue that the writers expert was unfamiliar with the pirate genre and the legal analysis used to evaluate substantial similarity.
The judge rejected this saying they're they're argument goes to the weight of planters expert report and that the court can't weigh that evidence on some reason so following the
The night circuits rule basically. So Disney now does need to continue the litigation. I have going on a number of years and I think 4 or 5 years now. Over the originality of the
Captain Jack Sparrow character and other components of the parts of the Caribbean case. So so did you know that you could
You know, there's a need for pirate genre experts.
Because this expert was unfamiliar with the pirate genre. So, apparently, so. So, what do we have to do?
What the Gilbert and Salvano Pirates of Penzance? The Disneyland where I've never done Disneyland but Disney World, Pirates of the Caribbean, Ride.
[8:34] Were those guys not funny maybe they original ones weren't funny I I think I've gone through the original I think there was a lot of humor built in there too I kinda remember the little peggy pirate
Yeah. Rolling the barrel. And the the.
The women chasing the pirates around in one place. The other yeah there's a lot of that kind. And they did update the the ride after the movie. The original movie came out. Yes. To sort of be in context,
There and have some of the same character. So, anyway,
The fun stuff. Yeah, I've seen the before and the after. It's just been, it's been a long time since I saw the before but yet, I still remember this. I still remember it being funny. Right, you are?
Yeah. Well, the other the other case in this is the darker tower case.
Dubai versus king Stephen King the 11 circuit in that case by contrast did exactly what the ninth circuit said the court couldn't do and that's way evidence in emotion for some regiment.
In this case in 2017 the errors of William Dubay sued Stephen King and others for copperhead infringement claiming that the lead character in
Kings the dark tower was substantially similar to the lead character in dubai's comic book called The Rock.
The district court granted summer judgment finding that any similarities between the characters were unprotectable general ideas and sends off fair elements and that the protectable original character elements and dispute were not substantially similar.
[10:03] So it goes up on a peel and in this case the 11th circuit said now the king's character was not substantially similar and.
Reinforce the notion that it only original elements in the worker copyrightable and you know general ideas and sends off there are just two general to merit cover eye protection.
So that court separated the protectible elements from the unprotectable and found that the depiction of the characters in both works was different no reasonable jury could have found,
That the works were substantially similar and the news here is that back in December the Supreme Court.
[10:41] Refused search on the,
On the dark tower case so we do have this sort of now split on whether it's a judge question or jury question.
[10:52] And I just noticed something that I've read through this numerous times on the facts and the summary.
And it just hit me that the lead character in the dark tower is Roland.
DeShane initials RD delete character in the comic book The Rook rest in Dane initials
RD. Yeah. What are the odds? I I you know.
I don't know that those kind of things are always interesting to me. Did you shoot that going to a discussion of cooperating fringement probably not but I think it's really interesting. Well, you know, what it goes into is an a discussion of whether or not King might have had access to.
The rock comic series and was it somewhere in his mind it doesn't necessarily mean that what he used.
Was original components that are protectable but it certainly I I'd say that.
[11:51] If it went to a journey the jury would look at that you know interesting question it sort of goes to once that George Harrison case over,
My sweet lord? Yeah. You know, he what was it 30 or 30 years pre previously he had.
Been hearing the song on the radio that that he allegedly wants that he apparently did in French based on that ruling.
[12:12] Yeah, in access also just to point out on the priors of the Caribbean. It was clear. Disney had access. We that was,
I went I think a nine issue as in this one we we're not really talking about access or not didn't didn't come up
Summary. So, so that's something to watch and choose your forum carefully, I guess. If you have these kinds of cases. Yeah.
[12:34] So did you hear kind of the hub about Eric Clapton's record label going after infringers and bootlegs being sold on eBay in Germany.
Yeah, I mean the facts are just terrible.
So AA widow living in Germany in a small town outside of Colone actually inherited it said that's a bootleg of Eric Clapton live USA from her late husband it was a CD
Which allegedly was purchased from a department store in 1987. Okay, just for trivial purposes only a bootleg.
Is a recording that is made an unauthorized recording made of a live performance.
[13:25] A counterfeit is a duplication of an existing recording so,
Yeah. These are things you learn when you when you intern with the RI double H. So that's the difference. So did they use the term bootleg correct in this article? I have no idea. But anyway she you should put the the.
[13:46] The CD app on eBay to sell it for 11 bucks. She gets a take down notice an affidavit from someone representing Eric Clapton's record label.
And I I guess there's been a big push in Europe and in Germany to try and crack down on these reselling a bootleg and counterfeit CDs.
[14:10] It went in front of the court and she lost. Yeah. And she was ordered to pay
$4000 and said she tried to sell it again it'd be equal to $282000 the the good news is I guess is that the big bad rock star going after the little little poor little widow is the big drama that the media has made
Of this case but there's a little more to it. Yeah, there is and so Eric Clapton's management and announced it did not intend to collect the money. From suing
Send a letter to the Clapton fan club. You know, it's not the intention to target and individuals. I mean, they're trying to go after. They're still a huge market,
A big bad counter fitter. So, I guess what was interesting was.
[15:03] In response to the season to sis letter the woman responded feel free to follow law seat so,
Hey dad you know I don't know none of it how would that have played out in the US I think we all found that out.
A decade ago that it doesn't play out in the US any better than in place out in in Europe but you know it would have been a DMCA take down an eBay would have taken it down and I probably would have been the end of it.
[15:31] That's true. It would now. Now, we have that ability to do that.
Versus going after the infringers like the RAA did and then the playoffs at them after they did the
The take down and said no no no that's not right and sort of dared them to sue and so they did it,
And I think it it under DMCA yeah I guess you could.
[15:55] Do a what do you want a holiday my counter notice and and then again invite the plane the the complaining party to Suya so,
Yeah and I don't know does the EU have a.
[16:12] Counter part to the DMCA. To share with us. At,
Entertainment law update@Gmail.com is the email address and we welcome your your feedback and input on that. Yeah, can they still, do we still have a voice wedge it or not? Update.
Dot com as well. Yeah. Awesome. Awesome.
I forgot about it cuz nobody ever used. Yeah, so Collin actually leave us a message to play voice in our show. Yeah. That's exactly right. Especially if you have a cool British accent. So, well, speaking about widows and orphans on children. Oh my goodness. Poor poor Spencer Elden.
Had his case dismissed last month and anyway this is Spencer Elden of course is the naked baby who was featured on the cover of Nirvana's never mind album who had brought suit against Nirvana and the label and others,
Involved in creating the artwork for that album,
Seeking damages he was looking for $150000 from each of the defendants saving that the photo was used without his consent and amounted to child pornography so Nirvana,
Ask for dismissal,
And you know claim Loki spent 30 years profiting from his celebrity and self anointed in Nirvana baby character and he's reenacted the photo and all those kinds of things using it.
[17:32] You know, to pick up women, all that and the court sort of said, well,
Oh no they they made an motion to dismiss back in late December and the court I'm sorry in December and a court granted that motion not based on the merits of the case but because Alden and his lawyers just.
Didn't meet the the deadline December 30 was when they were supposed to file their opposition so default on the motion.
Motion granted how it goes but it was made with leave to a man and now on January 13.
That was the deadline Belden's lawyers did file an amended complaint and the case will continue so.
[18:15] Yeah it's this is gonna be the case we talk about all years.
There's no no doubt about it. We will. It will go down in history with many others that we have continued talk about. So, but interesting trademark case that came up and a little potify versus Spotify or Spotify.
Versus Potify,
This was in the trademark trial and appeal board. Their decision came out on January 11. The first president presidential,
I have a hard time saying that word. Decision from the TGAB. So what does it mean? We can cite this now. In front of the TTAB and and office actions. As we need to respond to things with the trademark office but
Spotify is this internet platform a software company that create has an internet platform potify that allows.
Legal marijuana dispensaries to market and sell their products. So, Spotify wasn't happy.
[19:16] No and I mean Spotify has been using their brand in the US since 2011 Podify launched in 2017 so
Junior user senior user what's interesting is Spotify a post the spotify trademark application focused on two things delusion,
Blurring tarnishment being the first part the second part being likelihood of confusion and the TTAB jumped on the analysis of the delusion claim first they actually never reached the likelihood of consumer
Confusion analysis.
But one, they looked at the factors, one letter difference. It and that spotify is a famous mark. I mean, it is kind of hard to have a famous mark but they've they've met that at least according to the TTAB.
[20:10] Spot there's no questions Spotify is as famous as Mark's come the Spotify goods and services are widely used in recognized by a large percentage of the US population or that a poser spotify mark is highly distinctive
This was the case prior to applicant.
Spotify's claim data first use so it was famous even before Spotify got got started I also think it's important to point out that Potify was using their mark on software services,
While they were for different type of software than what Spotify uses that's.
[20:46] You know same and related class of good class of services and also on clothing well that's a natural expansion,
Spotify probably is on clothing as well even though that's not their core brand. That's it. Spotify lost. They're not gonna their trademark application was refused. It's not gonna register.
We don't have a likelihood of consumer confusion.
But we do have a delusion tarnishment blurring decision on a famous mark which I always think is good for us to have. And I you know and I think it's interesting. I'm not sure all the trademark professionals out there agree with the decision. So but
Hey Facebook yeah I mean I can imagine a conversation with a client over you know they come in they say we wanna register this thing spotify and.
After I finish sort of shaking my head and disbelief. I think I would, you know, I would say, I don't even need to do a search. I know who's gonna.
Have a problem with this. I am, you know, yeah, they're different enough. Maybe we could get it to go through, you know, that.
And then, the client call is, yeah, let's give it a shot, right? Now.
[21:55] This is a TTAB decision so they obviously when they received an opposition they they.
Why not this was an opposition in the TTAB so yeah I so I made it through examination made it through examination and again probably everybody was punting and saying well okay we know you're they're gonna oppose it so.
Yeah I could see you know they come both ways I probably wouldn't have tried to register it if it wasn't well and so.
There could be other issues with this but I'm thinking for a no or for portable toilet. Oh yeah, good point.
Johnny on the spot that's another. Well, so so but I mean, you know, maybe that's
Generic or descriptive if it's a you know a portable toilet but at you know I they could've.
[22:49] It might have been the product that was part of the issue. Oh, sure. Yeah, the the tarnishment association with that,
Kind of product for sure. Because no mute, no musicians, nobody in the record business would,
Right what would find that they would all find pot connected with music business to be tarnishment
But maybe that's also the reason that there's a concern and maybe that would have gone to the confusion. People in the music industry are naturally gonna think, well, I get my pot from the same place. I get my music.
In in one of the they also raised the Potify folks raised Shopify,
As an as an example. So, I mean there are other uses of.
Five, enabled porta parties and call it.
Spotify. Okay. So, a side note. The best porta party I've ever used was in Australia.
In up on the coat up on the the Gold Coast in Douglas Port Douglas.
[24:00] Or one it was large enough to have a bedroom and it was huge. It was huge.
It did. I have like WiFi. It had music piped into the thing. I mean, so, so Gordon, you may be behind already. Oh, yes. Well, story of my life, right? I just have to ask, is this the moment when we jump the shark? Cuz we're talking about
Water parties at such a problem. Alright, let's go back over. Let's let's move.
[24:29] Well, this one is an interesting one because my good friend Ken Froendlick is actually the lawyer who represents a group of,
Musicologists who have stepped forward to support Katy Perry.
In her litigation with Marcus Gray Grey is a christian rapper who sued
Perry in 2019 for copper and fringement alleging that her hit song dark horse was copied from his song Joyful Noise the musical phrase allegedly copied
Was a repeating C note and B note on evenly spaced notes in a sparse setting
Played honestly inside that's called an astonado apparently the jury found in favor of gray and he and his team rewarded $2.8000000 but the judge overturned that decision noting that Gray's legal arguments failed as a matter of law,
Because of the night circuits stairway to heaven case which is something we've talked about quite a lot on this show.
Now Perry argued that the steroid had a case effectively prohibited copyright protection from being afforded to common musical phrases the building blocks and the ninth circuit opinion in that case found that allowing such protection would curtail creativity and music.
[25:40] So despite the case logins can gray took his appeal to the of the trial courts decision up to the ninth circuit in late 2020,
You argue that the trial court erroneously interfered with the juries ruling and incorrectly held that a pitch sequence even when that short was still entitled to protection.
Incorrectly held. Yeah. Anyway, he
He further argued that the pitch sequence was a melody and the melodies even short ones like this one could be extremely distinctive in this sufficient for copyright protection.
So January 11 was the oral arguments and he argued that the jury heard the evidence literally and were bad present for expert presentations so their verdict shouldn't have been ignored.
Not one of the judges on the panel responded that the case lost clearly states the judges are authorized and in fact required to examine the extremes of evidence themselves.
Implying that they're in just as good a position to make the assessment as the jury another judge noted that it took him several listens of the two songs before he could find the alleged similarities.
So long in fact to find them that he began to wonder how exactly does that even become something protectable
So the case laws on Paris side the panels skepticism seems indicated decision favoring her and as I said shout out to Ken Froylick and his group of music colleges who filed on Amika's brief in the
Enables court and.
[27:04] Yeah a lot of lot of support from musical just from around the world saying hey if this if this motion or is granite of this appeal is granted then.
You know it's gonna harm music and the development of things dramatically because it would set a terrible president.
[27:21] Yeah and it's interesting so the brief was actually filed unless I'm looking at the wrong brief but I I think it's the right one it was found actually a year ago so January of 2020 in in the district court,
So I think it played a big role in the in the lower courts decision I I think it's.
[27:44] If you're into this kind of stuff, read the, read the brief. You know, to kinda see how the sausage is made.
I I think it's fascinating in 15 different music colleges from around the world. I mean it's kinda the cream of the crop that.
[28:01] Participated in incident submitting the submitting and drafting and having Ken,
Yeah. In a represent them. So,
I know when we talked about this the the last couple of times we kept saying this is not the end of the story there's no way 2.8000000 yep.
So we'll keep we'll keep watching,
Right? Well, you and I are scheduled tomorrow actually that we're recording this on Wednesday, the 19th of January tomorrow, the 20th. We are presenting a
CLE to Texas women in law about podcasting and podcast law and this case that we're gonna talk about now is just such a case it's we don't see a lot of case law
Popping up in in the podcast space but this one is interesting. The.
The fat leonard is a show. Basically, the disrecord has upheld subpoenas for the materials, the the raw materials of the podcast. Leonard Glen Francis is known as Fat Leonard. He.
[29:09] Was a contractor who serviced visiting navy ships across ports in Southeast Asia he's part of a scandal that involve bribery between,
Navy and defense department officials and,
Glen defense marine Asia the company that support contractor he supplied service members with meals posh hotel stays prostitutes,
In exchange for proprietary information about ship movements and contracts the trial for the officers is set
For February and a Star Witness and and Francis is a star witness in the scandal so he decided and agreed to do this tell all podcast with Tom Wright a former
Wall Street Journal reporter and the podcast was was called Fat Leonard and it
Released nine episodes. So, an attorney for one of the enable officers subpoenaed the journalist materials including all the raw recordings and the district court judge Janice Samartino ordered the producers to comply and to turn over
All the unaired interview
Recordings of that podcast so instead of complying with the subpoena within a week as required project brazen the the podcast company behind the show released all 20 hours of the raw footage online for anybody to hear
Not right who's also the owner of Project Brazen the the podcaster himself believes that turning over the materials sets a bad president for media freedom
In the US but.
[30:36] The rights of the naval officers on trial for criminal bribery charges and so on also weigh in and the judges reason for upholding the subpoena request is it the naval officer's fifth and sixth amendment rights to do process,
And confrontation are paramount and overshadow supersede the podcast producers first amendment rights to protect sources and unpublished materials. So,
This is a situation where the first amendment running up against the fifth and sixth amendments and when these kinds of things happen the first amendment right is considered qualified,
Meaning that there are circumstances where judge can conclude that it's outweighed by other interests but I have to ask and that you know as an advocate for podcasters and journalists.
To me i think that this outcome is is a different one than would have been seen if the material one question was raw footage for documentary film.
[31:24] Or for a traditional news report.
And I think that's a wrong decision in my view. You know, the the company decided to release the material, just make it available for everybody.
You know, so great. I guess they bigger fish to fry. Or they feel they're such a small fish. They don't wanna get fried. And so they didn't fight it any further, but.
I find this a little troubling. I think that the the podcasting community needs to pull together and and.
[31:57] You know, start invoking reporter shield laws and those kinds of things for podcasts as well. And I wonder, you know, just that the.
[32:08] Good as a good lawyer every once in a while. I have to say slippery, slope. Yeah. You know, the slippery slope not just related to.
What I would say is journalism via the platform of podcasting is now can this,
If there were to be a final decision is there some presidential.
[32:30] Nature to this that it could not just be applied to a podcast but it could be applied to the documentary filmmaker. Yeah. Or the reporter who is doing a series of written articles.
You know, for for print publication in in the newspaper or for the you know, the Atlantic or whatever it might be. Yeah.
For a magazine. I have to wonder how would NPR have handled this if if this was one of their podcasts or one of their news shows.
I think they probably would've put up a pretty good fight and and I think the judge might have you know.
Ruled in their favor, hey? You know, unless you know there's some some probative evidence in those recordings. You you don't just get to go on a fishing expedition, just looking for what's in there.
[33:16] That's me again my take on things and we may continue I I
Feel like we talked a little bit about this several years ago early on. Again, I think more of it on the defamation side. Related to what was protected. And I think in that case it was a blog.
[33:36] I do it. Yeah. Well, that residential question is, I mean, here we have fifth and sixth amendment rights in conflict. So, this is people who's, you know, they're on,
Criminal trial they face incarceration and and those kinds of things maybe even trees in charge I guess but.
[33:53] You know, in a civil suit for defamation. I mean, this that's the slippery slope is could this,
Be cited as a reason for a definition plan if to get access to the unaired recordings of a defendant.
[34:09] In order to make the case for you know that there were fall statements made even if the podcaster withheld that and didn't publish it,
Yeah. I don't know. I mean, there's first amendment issues and one of the cases that I think we're gonna talk about tomorrow. Sorry, I'm throwing this this out at you just so maybe we hit it here. Is you know, what's going on with Joe Rogan
In Spotify and first Amendment. Right, well, not a not strictly speaking case law at the moment but
Yeah, Rogan is you know, he's in the crosshairs of one thing or another all the time and I think that's partly his brand to be really honest.
[34:46] But currently right now he he's on the receiving end of some consternation I guess you could say from the scientific community because he had a.
[34:57] A doctor I guess it is on the show who was talking about pandemic and antivex kinds of stuff and.
Presented to misinformation on the show and so a group of scientists sent him actually sent Spotify a letter asking that that episode be taken down because it's full of misinformation and as far as I know Spotify has not responded.
[35:22] You know what? I don't know. I what I found interesting just in looking at kind of the history Joe Rogan's history was Spotify because he went over there as an exclusive deal.
Earlier, I guess in 2021, maybe 2020. Even then some of his episodes didn't go.
And and there was a bruh ha ha where a bunch of Spotify employees were may have been responsible for that but also,
They were calling for even higher levels of I'll use the word censorship by spotify and I think Spotify initially sort of gave into some of that pressure but then,
Sort of change that tune and probably in response to viewer
Comments, listener comments, and, and rogans, army of listeners, you know, giant group of people. So, yeah, and I think that raises all kinds of first amendment issues.
Whether we agree or disagree, well, is it, we know,
I don't think anybody's taking that power to all of the various.
[36:30] News outlets, television outlets, cable channels, who maybe.
[36:36] We make quite qualified as misinformation but there it's still out there. So, you know, yeah.
I don't know. I may not agree with them with Rogan but do I agree that,
It should be taken down. Do people have a first amendment right to say stuff that.
[36:55] Is misinformation. Well, and Spotify is a private company so there's not a necessarily a first amendment implication to their decision making on whether to allow material to be.
On their service or not?
I think it's more of a contractual thing with Joe Rogan probably but were they ordered by a government or or the court to,
Turn over material you know that that kind of stuff could be good implicate first amendment problematic.
In problematic ways. And just to be really clear. Although I'm advocating the first amendment side of this situation with the fat Leonard story.
You know that these officers do have a right to a fair trial and to have access to the evidence but I think there were better ways to get access to what's in those recordings.
[37:44] You know ask the anorgatories. Ask the questions. What's in the recordings? What else to be saying you know? And then subpoena the specific moments. You know, I think that's a more
Tailored narrow you know but again it's it feels like a fishing expedition by the defense here looking yeah I guess it look for any sculptor anything they can find and
I see both sides of it but journalists I shouldn't I don't think should be subjected to these kind orders.
[38:12] Okay. Well, interesting stuff. That's just a little bit of a taste of what we're gonna talk about tomorrow as well as lots of other things related to all the other areas of law that podcast,
Quote law enters into,
You'll be a morphist thing called podcast law. Yeah, yeah. We've got a list of my long. So, what the United States copyright office has a new general council?
On January 5 the register of copyrights sharel has announced the appointment of Suzanne Wilson Susie Wilson as general council and associate register of copyrights for the US Copright Office,
Effective January 31 so,
Another week or two away but Wilson will have responsibility for the portfolio of regulatory litigation and policy matters that the office handles and.
We congratulate and welcome her to join joining the the the team over there at the copyright office. Yeah, I can't wait to,
I have not I've never met her before so hopefully 1 day I will get to get to meet her and we just appreciate all the work that the.
[39:19] You know the legal team does that the carpet office the trademark office.
You know for making things better for us and for content creators and owners
And then moving it all into the current and future centuries.
Well, it looks like this episode is little shorter than most tonight. I kinda like that it's short. A little shorter than I hoped but I think we we're gonna try to keep the episodes under an hour.
Going forward. So, we've been going long a lot and so at the end, that actually wraps it up for this episode. We've we've.
[39:57] Hit all of our content that we wanted to cover. So, let's take a moment and say thank you to you our loyal listeners for spending your time with us and we do welcome that feedback as we mentioned there's a,
Voice widget on the website at entertainment law update.com or you can send us Email entertainment law update at Gmail
Dot com the Twitter handle is at in law update.
And Tamara how can folks get hold of you? Yeah, they can find me online most social media at Tamara Bennett
Tea Bennett Law.com or create Protect.com. We'll get you to both of those. We'll get you to my website. Thank you Gordon for another fantastic episode and I can't wait to to see you tomorrow for our Zoom CLE presentation
Should be a lot of fun. It should be a lot of fun. Well, I am Gordon Firemark from Los Angeles. My website is Firemark.com. Email address G firemark@Firemark.com. On most social media, I am G firemark but in a couple places you have to search for me by my whole name.
Gordon Firemark and.
[41:00] Yeah and let's say thanks to our team of contributors too managing editor John Janiceek and Malhar Oza and John Rappold.
Charles Thorn Mark Lindaman Brenna Arbuckle carnivalson and the newest addition to the team welcome David Tobis.
Who is Canadian law student up there? I forgot which school he's at at the moment but so he's gonna bring the Canadian perspective to us a little bit more and as well as of course his
Learning more about the American point of view of things but when we have those Canadian laws use we'll know who to turn to with us. That's right. Welcome aboard.
And we are always sort of keeping an eye out for additions to the family of contributors. So, if you are interested in joining the team, entertainment law update@Gmail.com is the email address, send a cover letter and a resume over and.
We'll be in touch and I think that wraps it up for this episode of Entertainment Law update.
[41:55] Music.