Ken Basin

Contact Ken

This time of year, the legal press is pretty well flooded with articles summarizing the most important cases and decisions of the last year, or looking ahead to the most important cases of the coming year.  This is all well and good — indeed, just this Tuesday, I offered my own list of five important cases to watch in 2012.  But what’s the fun of spending all of one’s time following important cases, when there are so many amusingly absurd cases to watch out there instead?  In that spirit, here are five cases that may not break any legal ground in the coming year, but that you’ll still want to keep an eye on (if only to have something funny to talk about at cocktail parties). Continue reading the full story . . . »

Ken Basin

Contact Ken

‘Tis the season.

‘Tis the season to be jolly.  ‘Tis the season to go shopping.  ‘Tis the season for political gaffes.  ‘Tis for hilarious gifting of intentionally awful presents.  Yes, ‘tis the season for lots of things, but most of all, ‘tis the season for top-ten lists.

Ten best movies.  Ten best dressed.  Ten best pet gifts.  Ten best of everything.  Ten best top-ten lists.

It seems only fitting, then, to embrace the spirit of the season, and look ahead to 2012 in obligatory list form.  But let’s mix it up a little by breaking up our list into two parts.  Today, we bring you five important cases you should watch in 2012.  On Friday, we’ll follow up with five totally unimportant trainwrecks of cases you might not be able to pry your eyes away from. Continue reading the full story . . . »

Jesse Saivar

Contact Jesse

Q:  What are the legalities of using actors to portray real people in a film — a fictionalized bio-pic in which the main character is purely fiction but some of the other characters are real, both living and deceased?  For example, if Forrest Gump did not use actual footage but instead chose to represent those scenes using actors to represent the famous people?

A:  I really liked Forrest Gump when I saw it.  I’m pretty sure I even cried in it.  Now I hate it for some reason.  Maybe it’s just a general backlash against Tom Hanks’ haircut in The Da Vinci Code.  But let’s not get into that.

As to your question…we Americans generally think we all have a 1^st Amendment right that gives us the ability to say what we please when we please, which has lead to such enlightening phenomena as Ashton Kutcher’s constant Tweeting (thanks a lot, Founding Fathers).  What is important to understand, however, is that this right of free speech is not absolute.  We are not always free to say what we please, especially when it comes to saying things about other people. Continue reading the full story . . . »

Dan Nabel

Contact Dan

For those of us (males) who entered adolescence in the early ‘90s, Angelina Jolie is a semi-celestial being whose very presence makes us want to cry out “we’re not worthy.”  Okay, so maybe the 13 year-old in me still wants to be Crash Override spelling out “CRASH AND BURN” for Acid Burn after defeating The Plague.  But that is neither here nor there.

The news of the day is that a Croatian author/journalist named Josip Knezevic has filed a federal lawsuit (using an Americanized version of his name) against Angelina and several persons/entities related to her upcoming film, In the Land of Blood and Honey, for copyright infringement.  According to Mr. Knezevic, he wrote a book entitled, The Soul Shattering (not to be confused with the World of Warcraft aggro reducing spell, SoulShatter), which Angelina’s executive motion picture producer, Edin Sarkic, allegedly ripped off.  The case is interesting because it not only provides a detailed description of what was ripped off, but it also provides a plausible explanation for how the alleged rip-off occurred.

Continue reading the full story . . . »

Matt Galsor

Contact Matt

Q: Hello, I just read the article on what “defined net profits” is/means.  I’ve just signed a deal memo and am concerned with the wording…actual proceeds, no mention of gross or net (which may be a good thing).  Please let me know what might be next steps…

A: The basic difference between gross and net is the off the top deduction of expenses and fees in calculating net.  Speaking of off the tops, I just came from a bris.  It was a particularly good one.  Have you ever been?  If not, find one on Facebook or Craigslist, grab a few friends, and attend.  You’ll enjoy it.  Mohels tend to have a great sense of humor.

Anyway, your deal is probably with a production company that will not distribute the film itself.  And the term “actual proceeds” probably refers to the revenues received by the production company.  The blog about “defined net proceeds” focused on a distributor or studio definition of back-end, which is basically distribution revenues less distribution costs.  In your case, if in fact your deal is with a production company that will not distribute the film itself, you will be participating in the production company’s revenues.

Continue reading the full story . . . »

Lisa Y. Wang

Contact Lisa

I tried, Law Law Land readers, I really, really tried. I struggled, but alas, I was not strong enough to stop myself from writing about the Kardashian divorce.

The 72-day marriage (if it can even be called that) of Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries (herein referred to as “KK,” or maybe “666” would be more appropriate), is chock full of legal issues. What about the prenuptial agreement? (“Ironclad,” I’m sure, but speculation is already swirling about whether Kim’s “shady behavior” has rendered it “worthless.”) What to do with the gifts? (Apparently Kim is donating $200,000 to charity in lieu of returning the gifts. I’m sure the people who bought her the $375 candy jar, or $6,500 vase, or $1,250 serving spoon, or $1,600 teapot, or $840 ashtray are thrilled about that decision and the tax write off she gets. And no, I did not make up those items or prices). Why isn’t gay marriage legal and this is? (Beats me, but it really makes you think about that whole “sanctity of marriage” argument.)

No, you aren’t having a stroke, it really is that big and shiny.

But the burning issue I want to write on? What happens to THE RING? (I think the 20.5-carat sparkler deserves all-caps treatment.) Continue reading the full story . . . »