AdultBizLaw.com - Fattorosi & Chisvin

We have just added eleven cases to our Case Law database. The following cases, all dealing with the Right to Publicity and the Right to Privacy have been added to our database and can be viewed or search via keywords. These cases are note worthy for their importance to the use of model releases and copyright protection.

Robyn Astaire v. Best Film & Video, 116 F.3d 1297 (9th Cir. 1997)

Abdul-Jabbar v. GM Corp, 85 F.3d 407 (9th Cir 1996)

Mickey Dora v. Frontline Video, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 790 (1993)

Newton v. Thomason 22 F.3d 1455 (9th Cir 1994)

Joe Montana v. San Jose Mercury News, 34 Cal.App.4th (1995)

Joplin Ent. v. Allen, 795 F.Supp. 349 (WD Wash 1992)

Clint Eastwood v. National Enquirer Inc, 149 Cal.App.3d 409 (1983)

Groucho Marx Prod. v. Day and Night Comp, 689 F.2d 317 (2nd Cir. 1982)

Guglielmi v. Spelling-Goldberg Prod., 25 Cal.3d 860 (1979)

Lugosi v. Universal Pictures, 25 Cal.3d 813 (1979)

Motschenbacher v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco, 498 F.2d 821 (9th Cir 1974)

We have updated our member’s Video Seminars with the online video seminar by Prof. John Zelezny called Shooting Video in Public Places. Here is a sample clip of the seminar. The full seminar is approximately 10 minutes long.

To watch the entire seminar please join AdultBizLaw.com

We have updated our member’s Video Seminars with the online video seminar by Prof. John Zelezny called Domain Names & Trademarks. Here is a sample clip of the seminar. The full seminar is approximately 10 minutes long.

To watch the entire seminar please join AdultBizLaw.com

We have updated our member’s Video Seminars with the online video seminar by Prof. John Zelezny called Understanding the Miller Obscenity Test. Here is a sample clip of the seminar. The full seminar is approximately 10 minutes long.

To watch the entire seminar please join AdultBizLaw.com

We have updated our member’s Video Seminars with the online video seminar by Prof. John Zelezny called Avoiding Copyright Headaches and Websites. Here is a sample clip of the seminar. The full seminar is approximately 10 minutes long.

To watch the entire seminar please join AdultBizLaw.com

We have updated our member’s Video Seminars with the online video seminar by Prof. John Zelezny called 30 Years of the Indecency Doctrine. Here is a sample clip of the seminar. The full seminar is approximately 10 minutes long.

To watch the entire seminar please join AdultBizLaw.com

Entertainment in its many forms, such as motion pictures, plays and dance performances, is expression protected by the First Amendment. Yet the Supreme Court has ventured down the muddled path of declaring some kinds of entertainment less protected than others. This is true with nude or topless dancing.

When nude dancing is performed to entertain and communicate with others, it is protected expression. But the Supreme Court said in a 1991 case involving nightclub entertainment: “[N]ude dancing of the kind sought to be performed here is expressive conduct within the outer perimeter of the First Amendment, though we view it as only marginally so.”

To read the entire article please join AdultBizLaw.com

Since the late 1990s one of the nation’s most intense legal battles has focused on so-called “peer-to-peer” – or “P2P” – digital file sharing over the Internet. Napster and dozens of like businesses distributed software that allowed individual computer users to search other users’ computers for specified digital content and then to download that content – without paying. The technology is a tremendous tool for sharing information. The problem, however, was that the files most often “shared” were copyrighted music and video.

Legally speaking, it’s been clear that copyright owners may sue individuals who download (copy) protected content without permission and without paying. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to enact copyright protection, and the First Congress did so. The copyright law, as revised several times over the years, gives the authors of creative content the exclusive right to market their material for a specified time. The purpose of this special form of property protection is to encourage creative enterprise.

To read the entire article please join AdultBizLaw.com

First-Amendment rules for broadcast are different than for other media. That’s because the broadcast spectrum is considered a scarce resource that must be regulated to ensure an orderly, effective means of communication. This governmental foot in the door has led not only to assigning broadcast frequencies but also to content regulation. So while the very narrow class of material called “obscenity” can be outlawed in any medium, only in broadcast can the more broadly defined “indecency” be prohibited. This is done mainly under the rationale of protecting children.

The indecency law is at 18 U.S.C. § 1464, and the Federal Communications Commission is empowered to penalize broadcasters who violate the statute. The FCC defines indecency as material that “describes or depicts, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities or organs.” Unlike obscenity, it’s not limited to material devoid of political or artistic value.

To read the entire article please join AdultBizLaw.com

Nothing in the field of cyberspace law has generated more emotion than efforts to curb sexually explicit material on the Internet. The prevalence of often- raunchy, sex-oriented sites and cyber-advertising has outraged many, who view it as a pornography invasion into homes and an enticement to children. But for many others, it is the effort to censor that infuriates; they see Internet regulation as the oppressive hand of government in an otherwise pristine frontier of wide-open speech.

In the 1990s many speculated about how the First Amendment would apply to the Internet. Would the medium be accorded the same First Amendment freedom as a newspaper or magazine, where only true obscenity can be banned? Or would the Internet be regarded more like broadcast media, subject to regulation of “indecent” content that would otherwise be fully protected expression?

To read the entire please join AdultBizLaw.com