Podcasts
are a great way to keep abreast of current topics and news and learn about the
subjects you are interested in. I
regularly listen to podcasts via Apple’s iTunes, where many shows may be found
for free. Today I will talk about two
Entertainment Law podcasts that I like.
Joe
Escalante is a entertaining Entertainment Law reviewer. His blog, Barely Legal is one
of the more exciting and accessible regular Entertainment Law blogs. I listened to the February 7, 2014 episode,
which featured issues such as being able to sue the Red Hot Chili Peppers for
going acoustic, whether Justin Beiber can be deported, a J.K. Rowlings
defamation case, whether artwork made from a copyrighted trademark could be
resold, and what type of entity your band should be.
One of the
things I learned is that in order for defamation to occur by a celebrity,
actual malice must be shown as celebrities are talked about in many ways all
the time. Interestingly, this is not the
case in the United Kingdom, and thus many defamation cases are filed in the UK
rather than the Unites States. However,
the recent J. K. Rowlings defamation case led the courts to decide defamation
law much more closely to what the United States courts have decided.
Another blog that I find
interesting is Gordon Firemark and Tamara Bennett’s Entertainment Law
Podcast. I listened to episode 43:
“No Copyright, Sherlock?” and episode 39: “Fair Use, etc.”
In episode 43, they discuss
Faulkner Literary Rights Group’s copyright lawsuit against Sony Pictures
Classic over the use of a Faulkner quote from “A Requiem for a Nun” in a Woody
Allen film. However, the lines are not
identical and the line is only nine words.
The fair use test shows that it was deminimous, meaning that it is not
detrimental to the work and is not damaging the marketplace for the original
work. Perhaps in opposition, it may have
inspired people to actually read Faulkner.
In episode 39 one of the topics
discussed is Paparrazzi. Justin Bieber
recently experienced having one of his crew hit by a car during Paparrazzi
trying to take photographs of Bieber, and Bieber is now calling for stronger
legislation regarding the topic. California’s
strong 2010 Paparrazzi law was struck down recently in the case of California
vs. Rafe, which is now in appeal. One of
the issues is that it could include wedding photographers going into the street
to get a better shot, etc.; thus the law may be too vague. Hawaii’s new laws extend photography
restrictions for privacy beyond celebrity into anyone having familial privacy
and personal time.
I recommend these podcasts highly,
and encourage you to check out podcasts on these topics and other topics that
intrigue you.
Work Cited:
Barely Legal Entertainment Law Podcast 2-7-14
Entertainment Law Podcast Episode 43: No Copyright,
Sherlock?
Entertainment Law Podcast Episode 39: Fair Use, etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment