Posts In "Talent"

Talent




Meet Five Celebrities Who Have Had Worse Tax Days Than Yours

In celebration of Tax Day today, we here at Law Law Land offer tribute to our favorite celebrity/IRS run-ins.  Now, lest you think this is just another list airing dirty celebrity tax laundry, think again.  This is a classy publication, as you well know, so if you’re looking for dirt on which celebrities owe what, look elsewhere. . . like here, or here, or here.  Instead, on this national day of tax collection, Law Law Land is pleased recognize five (or more) of our favorite celebrity tax stories of all time… so far.

Honorable Mention:  Timothy Geithner

In our Honorable Mention category of “Really, Are You Kidding Me?,” we recognize former Treasury Secretary (i.e., head of the U.S. Treasury, the folks you make that tax check out to) Timothy Geithner, who underpaid his personal federal income taxes from 2001 to 2004 by failing to report and pay social security and self-employment tax on income received from the International Monetary Fund.  Mr. Former Secretary subsequently amended his returns since he “should have been more careful.”  We imagine he regretted his “unintentional” decision not to report that income when appearing before the Senate Finance Committee during his confirmation hearings to control the United States’ piggy bank.

Honorable Mention:  Nick Diaz

In our Honorable Mention category of “How Dumb Can You Be?,” the award goes to MMA fighter Nick Diaz, who recently announced during a post-match press conference that he has “never paid taxes in his life” and “is probably going to jail.”  Well, if Nick had only read about some of the other people on this list, then he definitely would have seen that coming! Continue reading the full story . . . »

TwitterFacebookLinkedInGoogle+Share

“Where Are They Now”: Law Law Land Edition

This time last year, Law Law Land joined the hackneyed proud tradition of legal blogs offering year-end lists of cases to watch in the coming year (though in our defense, we did try to mix it up by reviewing totally absurd cases as well as totally important cases).  But “year in review” and “year to come” are cultural clichés that never held much appeal to me.  “Where are they now?” on the other hand?  That’s more my speed.  (Maybe that’s why I always adored the last five minutes of every episode of VH1’s Behind the Music, where the program would show the artist in their current, everyday life and tease the inevitable “impending comeback.”)  So what has become of those five big cases we told you to watch this year?  And did we pick good ones or not?  (Preview:  Yes, we did.  Oh shush, I don’t care if we’re biased.)

Viacom v. YouTube:  It’s the case that just won’t die.  When we last left Viacom — which led a cadre of content owners in a billion-dollar holy war against YouTube for its “Wild West” early years of unfiltered, infringement-heavy content — the company was appealing a federal court’s dismissal of its copyright infringement claims against YouTube.  And sure enough, in April 2012, the Second Circuit revived the case, holding that while the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (or DMCA) generally shielded YouTube from liability for its users’ acts of infringement, Viacom could continue to pursue the site based on allegations that YouTube willfully turned a blind eye to, or exerted “substantial influence” on, its users’ infringing activities.

Surprisingly, internet rights groups were largely pleased with the decision, which declined to create an affirmative duty for companies like YouTube to actively monitor their users’ submissions for infringing content.  Meanwhile, the decision has become the centerpiece for other, lower-profile litigations surrounding related issues.  For instance, a group of major record labels who have been locked in litigation against video service Vimeo for three years just moved to eliminate Vimeo’s DMCA defense based on the principles set out in the Viacom/YouTube decision.

Marathon v. Fox & SpillaneTalent manager Rick Siegel’s years-long crusade against California’s Talent Agencies Act — which notoriously allows clients to void contracts with, and even reclaim previously-paid commissions from, managers who “procure employment” for them without a state-issued agency license — seems to have gone nowhere in the year since we last wrote about it.  As of the end of 2011, Siegel’s long battle with his former client, actress Rosa Blasi, had morphed into a lawsuit by Siegel against his former attorneys, by which Siegel hoped (with the support of the talent management community) to use a procedural end-around to directly assault California’s law.

But while Siegel’s efforts may have failed, the talent managers of California have not gone gentle into that good night.  In November 2012, the National Conference of Personal Managers (of which Siegel is a member, though his direct involvement with its recent efforts is unclear) brought a direct constitutional challenge against the Talent Agencies Act in federal court — one where they get to challenge the law in the abstract, without worrying about a sympathetic celebrity litigant clouding the minds of judge and jury.  It may still be a long shot — anytime someone tries to claim that a law violates the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition on involuntary servitude, you have to raise your eyebrows a little — but it’s a clear sign that the ongoing conflict among agents, managers, and state labor regulators will continue to rage for months and years to come.

Scorpio Music v. Willis:  My god, can it be?  Yes, I think it is — that rare and beautiful lawsuit that actually results in somebody winning and somebody losing (rather than everyone settling and walking away)!

This case involved the efforts of Victor Willis, the original “Police Officer”/lead singer of the Village People, to reclaim his share of the copyright in the iconic “YMCA” (among several other Village people hits) from music publishers Scorpio Music and Can’t Stop Productions.  And you know what?  He did.  Willis’s lawsuit was the first major test case for the “copyright termination” provisions of the 1976 Copyright Act that are applicable to post-January 1, 1978 works, and widely considered the first major copyright termination case involving a songwriter.  The decision addressed many issues which will be vital to such songwriter termination lawsuits, including the right of a songwriter to terminate only his shareof a copyright grant without the cooperation of other co-authors (such as co-writers, bandmembers/performers, and, potentially even producers and sound engineers) — and sets the stage for possible future showdowns involving Bob Dylan, Tom Waits, Tom Petty, and other high-profile musicians who have sent copyright termination notices of their own.

Of course, no one is happier about this than Willis himself, who sounds like he was raring for a fight — and now relishes his victory.

Viacom v. Time Warner Cable:  When we wrote, in December 2011, about Viacom and Time Warner’s clash over Time Warner Cable’s launch of an iPad app that allowed subscribers to view Viacom channels on their mobile devices, the dispute was already see-sawing between “almost resolved” and“fighting to the death.”  But sure enough, by May 2012, the case had settled — with media outlets reporting (despite the confidential nature of the settlement) that Time Warner would not pay Viacom anything extra for iPad streaming of Viacom channels.

But that one settlement hardly resolved the future of the television industry, which continues to struggle to find a new business model in an on-demand, anti-advertising, rapidly technologically evolving age.  Less than two weeks after Viacom and Time Warner Cable settled their iPad dispute,ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox all went to war with Dish Network over its new AutoHop feature, which allows subscribers to automatically remove commercials from their DVR recordings of broadcast TV shows.  In November, a federal judge in California denied Fox’s attempt to block Dish Network from offering the AutoHop service, but the victory for Dish Network was incomplete, as the judge indicated that she was inclined to accept some of Fox’s copyright infringement theories.  Dish Network and the networks have essentially picked up exactly where Viacom and Time Warner Cable left off, effectively seeking to define the future of television industry and technology in the courtroom instead of the R&D lab.  Great.

Zuffa v. New York:  In November 2011, the owner of Ultimate Fighting Championship brought a constitutional challenge to New York State’s then-14-year-old ban on the public exhibition of mixed martial arts, claiming that the statute violated UFC’s First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and other constitutional rights.  While the case rages on, UFC has a few less weapons remaining in its legal arsenal.

In August 2012, federal judge Kimba Wood in New York dismissed two out of seven of UFC’s claims — based on the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment — after applying a highly deferential “rational basis” standard for assessing the New York state legislature’s legislative action (i.e., asking whether the legislature had some “rational basis” for the law).  A helpful note to plaintiffs in constitutional law cases:  if you’re challenging a law and your claim is subject to a “rational basis” review, you lose.

UFC’s First Amendment claims, and its challenges to the New York ban as being vague and overbroad, live on.


Panties: 1, Fair Use Doctrine: 0

nancy morgan

Picture a sexy young bride, reclining sensuously on the nuptial bed.  Smiling seductively, she lifts her wedding dress — a stretch white mini — to give her new husband a glimpse of the lingerie covering her private parts.

The happy couple.  Fully clothed.Come to think of it, you don’t have to imagine this scenario.  You can see the photograph of pop artist/bride Noelia Monge and her manager/husband Jorge Reynoso in Issue 633 of TVNotas magazine.  (A decidedly less scandalous photo of the happy couple is here on the right.  Sorry, folks, this is a family-friendly blog.)

Didn’t know they were married, did you?  Neither did anyone else — until their hitherto personal wedding photos appeared in the aforementioned gossip magazine, unbeknownst to the couple.

In a case that even federal judges had to admitread like a telenovela, Monge and Reynoso sued publisher Maya Magazines in Los Angeles federal court, alleging copyright infringement and misappropriation of likeness.  The trial court dismissed the claims and held that the publisher had the right to publish the photographs under the fair use doctrine, which provides refuge from infringement claims when the use of copyrighted material is for purposes such as news reporting.

But last month, the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that TVNotas’ publication of the happy couple’s extra-happy-looking photos was not protected by the fair use doctrine, setting up Monge and Reynoso to claim some damages.  But in a world where celebrities are constantly battling to limit their exposure in the tabloid press, how did Monge and Reynoso win this fight?  And what does it mean for the constant struggle between celebrities and publishers?

Continue reading the full story . . . »


Why Celebrities Who Don’t Want to Live in California Might Still Want to Die There

The right of publicity — the legal doctrine that protects the right of celebrities to control and profit from their names, likenesses, and other aspects of their identities — is a familiar topic here at Law Law Land.  But it can be a more complicated subject than we sometimes give it credit for.  Unlike copyright and trademark law, which are (mostly) defined by federal statutes that provide for consistent nationwide rules, the right of publicity is exclusively a creature of state law.  And, thanks to the patchwork of inconsistent and often confusing state laws that have evolved over the years (with heavy influence and lobbying from the heirs of particularly valuable/merchandisable celebrities, like Elvis Presley and Albert Einstein), its application to the dearly departed can get pretty quirky.  For example:

Are you a celebrity who died as a California resident?  Great — your heirs can exclusively exploit your name and likeness for another 70 years!  Oh, were you actually a New York resident when you died?  Just kidding, then, your heirs are totally out of luck, and unauthorized t-shirts with your face will be hitting stores shortly.  That is, unless, your heirs sue in Washington or Indiana, which purport to apply their right of publicity laws to any individual, regardless of whether the celebrity’s state of domicile recognizes the right.  Unless, of course, the federal courts decide that those laws are unconstitutional (a conclusion reached by a Washington district court in a 2011 case involving Jimi Hendrix; the Ninth Circuit will be making its own ruling soon).  And even among those states that expressly recognize a post-mortem right of publicity, there is broad disagreement about the length of protection afforded, the retroactivity of the statutes, and a whole host of other issues.  Got it?  Don’t worry, nobody else does either.

Just ask the lawyers for the estate of Marilyn Monroe, whose recent unsuccessful right of publicity lawsuit could be “Exhibit A” in renewed effort to enact a federal right of publicity law.

Continue reading the full story . . . »


No Dogs on the Table, Please

If you’re like me, every once in a while, you see an adorable-looking dog and just say to yourself, “Oh dogs, gotta love ‘em.”  And, if you’re like me and live in Los Angeles, you occasionally follow that by saying to yourself, “What the…?!  Can that adorable-looking dog really be standing in the middle of this [department store/market/restaurant]?”  Singer/reality star/(alleged) plastic surgery cautionary tale Aubrey O’Day recently brought that question to the front of many people’s minds, with her decision to allow her dogs to sit on the tables at local brunch spot Toast reportedly triggering a city Health Department investigation.

Don’t get me wrong, I am an avid animal lover.  I even wanted to be a vet in high school, when I was trying to “find” myself.  But anytime I see a starlet with a pink-clad Chihuahua (or three) sticking out of her purse, I can’t help but ask how pets have managed to become people’s latest accessory, going almost everywhere with their owners (if the word “owner” makes you cringe, I apologize in advance, but that’s a legal term and not intended to hurt the feelings of any animals reading this blog).   And aside from people’s disapproving glares, are there any limits to where your favorite celebrities (and you) can bring their pets?

Continue reading the full story . . . »


Monkey See, Monkey Sue

On behalf of Law Law Land, I would like to apologize to HBO, the New York courts, and basically, the world at large. A few months ago, my colleague Elisabeth Moriarty suggested that a creative Indonesian monkey should, perhaps, be afforded copyright rights in his adorable self-portrait. That suggestion must have angered the intellectual property gods, who have now unleashed their wrath upon the simian world. Some bozo, I recently learned, sued a cartoon ape for purported right of publicity violations and infliction of emotional distress. Rest easy, Magilla — no one is on to you for that failed bank robbery attempt. I’m talking about the lawsuit recently filed by Johnny Devenanzio… (If you are wondering who this Johnny fellow is, don’t worry, you are not alone.)

For those of you who are not MTV reality show devotees, let’s get you up to speed. Johnny got his start on the Real World Key West, a “true story…of eight strangers…picked to live in a house…work together and have their lives taped…to find out what happens…when people stop being polite…and start getting real.” Johnny then appeared on The Challenge — which used to be called The Real World-Road Rules Challenge, at least back when anyone I know cared about The Real World, or Road Rules, or any kind of challenge that might pit the two against each other — and he continued to make a fool of himself on numerous The Challengespin-offs (all of which involved copious amounts of alcohol, the occasional fist fight, and a fair amount of stupidity). These shows portrayed Johnny as an arrogant, scheming meathead who likes to stir up drama, earning him the nickname “Johnny Bananas.” (Ironically, you can also hire Johnny to give lectures on alcohol awareness, humility, and conflict resolution. That sounds like a great idea…)

Now, let’s get to the lawsuit. With a little help from lawyer Stephanie Ovadia (yes, the same lawyer who represented our beloved Lindsay Lohan in some of her most entertaining lawsuitsever), Johnny is suing the people behind the hit HBO series Entourage (R.I.P.). The lawsuit is based on a storyline involving a fictional cartoon called Johnny’s Bananas in which Kevin Dillon’s character, Johnny “Drama” Chase, lends his voice to a cartoon ape, aptly named Johnny, who tends to go “bananas” when things don’t go his way. Angered by this storyline (and likely upset after his lawyer pointed out that he has a striking resemblance — both mentally and physically — to an unattractive, hot-headed cartoon ape), the real-life Johnny is now claiming that HBO is trying to capitalize on a nickname that he “is solely responsible for creating.” (Apparently Johnny needs to brush up on his Chicago mobster trivia, as he’s not the only “Johnny Bananas” around.)

In his complaint, Johnny seeks an injunction to bar HBO, Time Warner Cable, and Entourage creator Doug Ellin from (a) distributing or broadcasting Entourage’s final season in any way, shape, or form, and (b) manufacturing and selling Johnny’s Bananas merchandise. Johnny also seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the tremendous emotional distress he suffered as a result of Entourage’s “offensive and disparaging” use of his nickname. Does Johnny have a shot at victory? Continue reading the full story . . . »