It's entertainment law update episode number 160 for September 2023.
Music.
Hello, everybody. Actually, it's early September 2023. We usually record our show late in the month,
Personal conflicts and things. So, we made an adjustment and here we are. It's September 5 as we record this. So, this is the August episode. Let me record it in September. Hello, Tamara. How are you?
Hi, I'm fantastic and thank you. I, for allowing us to push back a week.
Had a wonderful trip to.
Well, two our listeners, thank you for being with us. This is our podcast about entertainment law up where each month we pull together, round up, and update you on the legal and business news stories and share some opinions and commentary and analysis and,
And and we're pleased to do it again for you. We also have a little bit of an announcement. We have a new sponsor.
For our show and we're very proud to welcome J.
D. Supra. So, JD Supra is a leading platform in professional services content marketing, helping lawyers to turn their expertise into networking opportunities media visibility and new business
JD Super Publishers and Distributes Blot blog posts articles podcast videos and other thought leadership content to hundreds
Of thousands of subscribers on a daily basis that includes business leaders and house council media members the sea suit
And others who haven't need to know interest in legal regulatory in compliance matters. So that's all of you folks. The folks listening to the show. JD super clients.
Not only enjoy wide readership of their thought leadership material but they're also provided with the data and tools to turn visibility into marketing and business development success.
And you can find out more by visiting resources. JD Supra. Com.
Our show on JD Supra as well as in the usual podcast places. So, hopefully we'll have more people finding us and,
Stand up on entertainment law.
Who's this person?
From Los Angeles I'm Gordon Fireman,
We're so excited to have JD Super. We just skipped.
Episode. Anyway,
Always here for a good time. Well, yeah. So, I I you went to Calgary and Bamp with your family which sounds like a lovely, lovely trip. I am just back from Denver, Colorado where I spoke at the podcast movement conference and had a wonderful visit and,
Denver seems like a really nice area and,
It was great to get away and even better to come home. So,
I don't know 50°.
So, it was it was a very good thing. That's amazing. Part of the world I haven't visited yet. So, I'll have to get up there at some point.
Anyway, let's jump into the content of our show and and start talking about some of the
Legal news and although it almost feels like it's not news this first case we're going to talk about.
This story over the years and most recently it looks like it was episode 137 that's quite some time ago the case is finally really really really,
I want you jump in and fill us in on what's going on
Well, give you a little bit of background. Under federal copyright law, a sound recording copyright does not grant a general performing right?
So that means am and and FM radio stations do not need a license or need to pay royalties when they play a recording
On terrestrial radio. But we do have a digital public performance right. Which came into effect in,
Thousands I can't remember exactly when that passed but I applicate satellite online radio 0:06 AM: Pandora,
But then we've got this other little mix in the law that prior to the music modernization act passing,
There was no sound recording copyright protection.
Under federal law. So, there's a mishmash of state law that protected.
Did those pre 72 sound recordings there's been this whole question of whether or not a public performance right attached to those understate law so Flo and Eddie
The original founding members of the the turtles happy together was one of the big songs spearheaded these copyright claims to their recordings for the sound recordings,
First filed in 2014 was their first lawsuit and we've been through a lot of different lawsuits and a lot of different states. Yeah. Trying to determine,
State law allowed a public performance right in
The sound recordings. And also class actions, settlements that were part of these claims against series XM in in pandora. So, we're down to the last case with Pandora.
Enduring while this is all been going on we've also had the music modernization act of 2018 pass,
Which actually then granted the rights to collect these royalties but we're looking at this gap in time when there was no right to collect the royalties.
So, ultimately, in the ninth circuit, Flo and Eddie versus SiriusXM radio, we covered this one in 137 and September 2021.
They're looking at in 2022 Flo and Eddie filed this case.
All the way back to 2014 lawsuit violation of a California civil code
Under state law misappropriation, violation of California business and professions code section and then conversion,
Pandora's this is just against pandora's unauthorized reproduction of pre 1972 sound recordings for financial gain,
Saying that Pandora creates creates many copies of the recordings including one for their permanent server, backup, cash,
All of these allowed or allowed to make their site operate appropriately. So hanging their hat not on public,
But this reproduction right?
And.
It is commonly understood that one infringe is a copyright owner's reproduction right by making one or more unauthorized copies,
Even if they are solely for their private purposes of the reproducer,
Finding instead that Flo and Eddie's copying claims rise and fall with public performance rights,
Yeah so the ruling is determined relying on states rulings to essentially make the point that flow in 80s claims are nonviable
The ninth circuit,
So even if the court wanted to end,
Because they're saying there's.
Related state law claims fail,
Pandora this was a competing motions for some judgement pandora wins and his entitled December judgement,
The last action is I think finally,
Finally ending.
I mean and this is brought in it.
In the California state line of of court violence I'm not sure which,
Trial courts summer judgement ruling but.
That the settlement,
Wasn't everything contention on the outcome of other cases kind of,
For anyone who who's signed up for the class and met the class requirements, verified so on and so forth.
And there were a couple of different payouts that came about.
And then, it was contingent on how these various state law claims in Florida, California, New York,
Maybe there were two cases in Florida, two cases in California. I'm guessing we had cases against Pandora. They had cases against pandora and serious,
So all of those,
I feel like I had clients that maybe got three payouts, four payouts, two substantial, then some,
Drips and drops and that was it because,
Yeah.
So, okay. So, the path is is clearer. Ahead of us then. Yes, yes.
In a case that deals with some entities that I've never heard of before now and I don't know about you Tamara but Coco Melan and Baby Bus,
Maybe our kids are too old.
It's moonbag entertainment versus baby bus network technology company,
For children and it includes children, adults, and animals that interact with each other in daily life. Originally was created in 2006 by j jon,
To provide free education and entertainment for him his wife and his children,
It reaches a one 1 million subscribers and a one 1 billion total views and in 2020 the UK based moonbug acquired cocoa melon
And the next year two former Disney executives bought moon bug which also owns a variety of other YouTube kids programming,
Blippy and little baby bum.
Companies with 164 1 million YouTube channel subscribers to date it's the second most viewed YouTube channel with over 165 1 billion views as of August
Of this year and by way of perspective Justin Bieber Ed Sheeran and Taylor Swift rank number 38 39 and 40
Respectively with just over 30 1 billion views each so that's huge so baby bus is a Chinese YouTube channel founded in 2009,
It started it's super jojo channel in 2019 and it now has 24 1 million subscribers,
Baby bus and coco melons channels feature both feature animated families of five including a baby
It's JJ and Koko Melan and Jojo in Super Jojo and an array of nursery rhymes and songs for toddlers moonbug and coke melon creator treasure studio,
In the US federal district court here in California,
Alleging that baby bus was infringing coca melons copyright with its animated series super jojo and that super jojo was built by blatantly copying coco melon and sided striking similarity in the
Free writing channels character settings and song titles lyrics and or images and other things.
We have some pictures of them side by side. They look very similar although cartoon babies are going to look similar but,
Baby busted concede that an infringed seven of coco melons works before trial but then they contested the alleged infringement of 35 others,
17. 6 million in actual damages and discord profits and five. Eight millions in,
Electable in the alternative,
TYZ Law Group which represented Moonbug in the case made a statement after the verdict and they said that artistic expression and content creators are always worth protecting and the owners and creators of valuable property must stand firm against flagrant
Plagiarists.
The jury saw through the other stuff anyway so,
I guess felt confident that the defendant I guess felt confident enough that they could overcome. Yeah. To take it all the way,
To a to a jury verdict versus,
Thinking it was looking bad enough to perhaps need to settle I I don't know,
Striking.
Well,
And said yes, this is in French man. Yeah, so it's it's interesting. I mean, I do think that the similarities are are striking as you said. The question is, how much of those are similarities on on protectable things, themes, ideas, concepts.
Hey most likely will. What did you think about this next story? The the case of,
Copyright ID fraud.
Crazy to me. Okay. I could see a movie being made out of this. Yeah. So,
I
Oh he used the word mastermind loosely. The alleged mastermind of a copyright criminal copyright fraud screen,
There were two gentlemen Webster but Fernandez and.
Terren,
In two basically manipulating YouTube's content ID system.
75 1000 songs,
By google to help content owners fight copyright infringement. So, once you, you know, you can upload if
You have to click a button that says you own the copyright.
When they get part of that add revenue but the
The two defendants in their company media move LLC,
By instead using a third party that had access to the content at ID to make the claims on their behalf,
23 1 million in revenue.
And the big one is pay rest to tuition. Yeah,
I actually went out and I think I the link we have if you kind of click through it it has a link to the song titles that they were falsely claiming,
File a claim for restitution if one of your songs shows up,
A lot of the song titles were in Spanish.
So so on a gap in the market that nobody was claiming these titles and that's why they went after him so yeah be be aware if she
You know you may want to take a look at the list on behalf of your clients just to see if anything pops and I would say especially if you represent clients in a Spanish music in the Latin music market,
Yeah.
Deceived in this way.
Yeah, I wonder if we're going to see some civil suits.
Wouldn't be surprised. Yeah. I think we should.
Certainly that third party
Company would have taken a piece of the action wouldn't it so,
And I guess their weather was some interesting arguments to you know regarding pleading, pleading down, they're sentenced, their criminal sentence, but,
Yeah that's a whole they were living a life.
Relinquish all their ill gotten gains. So. 75 1000 songs.
Makes you wonder I mean you know that that's,
Well, I just don't it's hard to believe anybody just said, yeah, yeah, okay. We'll put it through.
How could even this like you said the third party,
Pick a major music publishing company or a major record label. They're not going to have 75 1000 songs,
But you know you're going to have to be a universal music. I was going to say Sonia TV Warner.
Youtube content ideas sister.
Most of those songs probably land under some of those big publishers. So,
This Saturday I think there's lots of lots of finger pointing to be done so,
No, you represent clients in music business and I would say,
Area.
Good point.
In the area of contributory copyright and friends when we have some interesting new developments in a case involving red bubble,
Red Bubble is an online marketplace for print on demand,
Can you know manufacture with what they do is they buy product and then you can create designs and upload them and have them print
You know, sort of.
You know, coffee cozies and all those kinds of things. And,
Versus red bubble is the case. Why would jam owns a couple of trademarks? Brandy Melville Hart and the Brandy Melville LA lightning trademarks. So, why would y'am Sue's Red Bubble,
For trademark infringement
Violations with YYGM are doing that red bubble the online marketing place was willfully blind
To its users infringing on YY jams and electrical property the jury found that red bubble had willfully contributorally in
A counterfeited and committed contributory trademark infringement.
The judge after the trial reversed one of those contributory counterfeiting claims and upheld the remaining ones also denied why we're jam a permanent injunction and attorney's fees and prejudgement interests so it goes up on appeal to the ninth circuit which
Has overturned much of that lower court resolution on the contributory infringement claim according to the panel willful blindness requires number one a subjective belief that infringement is likely happening and too
Delivered actions to avoid learning about it
But the panel emphasizes that this this standard is actually quite narrow and it requires the defendant to be aware of specific instances of infringement
Or specific infringers.
You know, going back to the YouTube days.
Violations once the defendant knows about specific instances I'm infringement.
Bonafide efforts to root out infringement could support a verdict finding no liability even if the defendant
Was not fully successful in stopping infringement. So, they vacated the the the trial courts,
Ruling on willfulness and sending it back for reconsideration.
Under the correct legal standard the disrecord had initially ruled that counterfeiting could only occur among similar product
And they peels panel disagreed stating that consumer confusion could still occur even if the counterfeit items were not identical to the trademark products sold by brandy melville,
They said confusion could have resulted because the products on red bubbles website bearing the heart mark are the kinds of trademarked goods brandy mellville cells,
I guess, you know, if if you could look at Brandy Melvin, say, well, yeah, they sell T shirts and this is on,
Other kind of sportswear. Doesn't, you know, the the trunk or the sounds like said, well, not the same kinds of goods. So,
It can't be counterfeit.
If you're on one kind of clothing
Even if you're registration only extends to T shirts caps and hats but then it shows up on,
Pants and some pants smell like it's medical devices versus t-shirts,
Expansion. A reasonable consumer could conclude that
Brandy Melvo was now making tote bags. Yeah. That's right.
Thoughtful post by our colleague Eric Goldman.
When it comes to trademark infringement. So,
Is is this what it's going to have to be? There's how how well obviously the court is saying what the standard is. General knowledge that infringement trademark infringement happening on your website isn't sufficient anymore.
Specifically know,
Yeah you've gotta be put on notice,
That sounds very consistent with as you said the copyright cases involving you know was a via converses YouTube all those years ago,
Trademark infringement but,
Seek out an identifying screen for infringement,
What's interesting? Yeah, there's also a companion case, a Tori versus Red Bubble out of the ninth circuit. I kind of landing the same way. If it red bubble was notified as specific instances, they remedy the situation,
Yeah no contribution no contributory infringement.
Comment briefly.
We do not have a fast, easy take down method in the copyrights this time.
Under the DMCA put fast and easy may not be,
I respectfully retract my adjectives.
I I will say though over the years I have,
Send such notices to use to services that might be equal to or similar to red bubble and they've always been responsive. Yeah,
When when it goes through the DMCA actual take down process for copyrights.
They have built out their platform to which copyright claims are submitted very similarly
I'm sorry in which trademark claims are submitted very similarly to the DMCA take down but there's no requirement for them to do that. Yeah.
Adhere to DMCA procedures either,
Or again, this is anecdotal and not even anecdotal. It's just word of mouth.
Broomer.
I don't know what their current policies are or how they work.
I don't think so. I I just think it,
Practice pointers if you're aware of infringement, you know, notify them and tell them to take it down and that's how you preserve your claims against them anyway.
Okay. Well,
In early August zoom that tell communication the video chat service updated its terms of service which set off alarm bells among accusers those new terms included language suggesting that Zoom might be allowed to use some data it gathers
To train artificial intelligence,
But I'm such terms often are they're pretty vague about exactly how and when and what data and so on the the provision stated
You agree to grant and hereby grant zoom a perpetual worldwide non exclusive royalty free sub licensible and transferable license
To perform all acts with respect to the consumer content
Including for the purpose of machine learning and artificial intelligence,
So, a lot of users immediately interpreted. Oh, they're going to take all the transcripts of all my calls and give it to chat GPT and.
Kinds of things. Lots of online discussions about are they stealing customers content to train its own AI models or others more than a few folks I've encountered have been swearing off of Zoom as a result of the news about this.
Change in the terms of service and real sort of PR nightmare
For Zoom. So, as of last week, they updated their provision again and they specifically added a disclaimer saying that Zoom does not use any of your audio video chats, screen sharing, attachments, or other communications
Like commuter customer content like poll results, whiteboards, reactions, those kinds of things to train zoom or third party artificial intelligence models.
Unfortunately, I think some of the damage is done and we've seen this over and over and over again when companies in the online space change their,
Terms of use for their privacy policies we had you know big,
Uproar when Facebook did it a few times.
Reason for mentioning adhere is a practice pointer if you write terms and service and privacy policies for
Your clients. Try to be aware of these kind of unintended consequences and how easily these things can be misinterpreted by lay people or honestly by journalists. Who are reading these things?
And do your best to insert this kind of clarifying narrowing language and things like that in in the early days. So, you can avoid the PR nightmare. Maybe even you know, run these things by up the flagpole with people before you go live with them to,
Just sort of get a sense of hey what are we missing here.
I use it I I do use Zoom because it's,
You know, I I used teams. This is Microsoft Product and then I use it another product that just got bought out by dial pad,
Yeah. Audio.
Clip to that button yet.
I really need to go read their terms of service.
Because i don't know what they are allowed to do if they transcribe my audio.
The audio let's just say it's not a zoom meeting for the nonprofit you work with but it's a client meeting,
Bird confidentiality of those calls is pretty important for lawyers. That's right.
This call.
What's happening with that? No matter what the service is. I think as as attorneys we really need to think about that. With the confidentiality as well as. Yeah. You know it just where is it going?
Well.
And even if it's not a transcription that is customer facing you may not even know it but you know they could transcribe it in the background and never even tell you about it I think they probably need to disclose that they're doing it and that's why these changes to terms of use are happening,
But that's another, you know, another concern.
What if i don't even know it's being transcribed?
Or what?
Hmm I don't know now I'm going to go read everything again so we just made more work for ourselves,
And it sounds like more non billable work. So, I really appreciate that too. Oh, you're welcome. I'm glad I could help out.
Well deals with,
Neither of them is allowed to own copyrights.
Technology I will call him who has previously mentioned in episodes 155 and 154 of our show he's the creator of Dabas DAB US and AI designed to invent
Patentable content and the creativity machine which has been designed to create visual artistic works.
From some interviews Taylor has argued that his AI is autonomous and potentially sentient which is why he's
Pushing litigation in this area. So in the
Disrecord of DC he saw to register the visual artwork a recent entrance to paradise naming himself as the claimant,
As a work for hire due to ownership of the author and the creativity machine as the author so he says
I own it because my machine made it at my best essentially and the creativity machine is the author. So, claiming that it was autonomously generated by AI and it lacked
Traditional human authorship.
So he appealed that,
Basis that the rejection was arbitrary, abusive, discretion.
The US corporate law only protects works of human creation,
Versus Sarani,
Despite the camera being only a generating only a mechanical reproduction.
It's not the Oscar Wild photograph case.
The requirement of human involvement is the court has been a consistent element even when books include,
Something authored by god,
Of discussions.
Then the cart also mentioned the Naruto versus Slater case,
Mucky selfie case that only humans had standing to
To Sue and those kinds of situations. The court did acknowledge that questions about necessary human inputs for AI generated works as well as other legal questions raised by AI like originality and how the systems are trained.
Leave openings for a qualification or justification as done in serenity but
Acknowledge that it wasn't the case here and deemed that since the work has,
No human involvement the answer is simple not copyrightable as a result,
Ah
Not going to be able to replace writers completely using AI if you want to claim ownership of the output,
So, human authorship will still be necessary.
You know, I don't know. Do you think it will?
I think it'll be an argument raised by the studios hey what are you so worried about the loss as pretty clearly we can't own what AI creates so why would we use AI to make things,
You know, I don't think that's going to be persuasive for either writers or actors.
Hey.
We've we've talked about that before. You and I on occasion use AI as tool in our tool belt.
Hey we use AI to to do noise reduction on the episodes we make so that that sounds nicer,
There we go and sometimes we stop and I go turn the air conditioner off. So, you know.
Hey, hey, you know, that will be part of it. I did also put into the show notes a link to the copyright, alliance, who has resources specifically
Quickly for copyright cases related to AI. I know in a previous episode, I'm pretty sure we put a link in for
Add thorough kind of just blog cases on AI where we discuss that a lot of those were criminal cases not specifically into what intellectual
Property driven cases so,
Well, I don't think it's too early to make a prediction for the next year too that we'll be seeing an awful lot of AI litigation in the copyright the trademark Patton Space as well as other arenas,
Hey Facebook I do want to kind of point out so what,
Failure was part of what he was saying it's had on was claiming,
The work was,
He's not claiming an individual authorship he was claiming it was at the direction of and it would fit into a work for hire and the court
I guess the copyright office stated as well as the court said.
Within the course and scope of their employment or it needs to fit within these other categories. Now, that that's an interesting one. Could you have a machine make it fit within the other categories? I don't think so. Because it's still has to be a human
Doing it. So,
They could go on up and again so but we'll keep watching and you know you can look at the,
Copyright reconsideration decisions based on human authorship and there's a there's a quite a few of them.
Yeah. Where they've been refused. So. What do you think the odds are that the congress will step in and add a definition to the copyright act that says that authorship and then an author must be a human or something along those lines?
Ah
Congress isn't going to get anything much done in any any of these arenas for any period of time
In in our,
And in local property as well as I'm sure as we discussed on criminal I'm not following it down that path. Yeah. They have to be. Oh yeah.
There are conversations being had,
And honestly,
So what about this ruling.
Feed of a crime scene,
At the argument was the reasoning behind the statute was that police activity is too dangerous for people to get up close and record law enforcement doing their jobs,
So the ACLU various media.
For this and they won on July 21
Judge Tuchi issued a permanent injunction and declaritory judgement ruling that Arizona's law limiting how close people can get while recording law enforcement is unconstitutional,
Yeah, this is really interesting.
You know, as you know, in first amendment jurisdiction, one of the things we look at is is there a valid time place or manner restriction that can be made and I think the 8 foot
Thing was trying to make that place part of at work,
But I'm when I heard about the law of my first thought was well anybody who's being pulled over and turns on their camera phone while they're interacting with the officer is violating this law,
Yeah you know and is that really a
Is that a safety issue? I mean, I get it if I just, if I'm a bystander, maybe I don't need to be within 8 feet of a crime scene.
Well, but you know, think about it. How far away was the person who caught the incriminating footage of the George Floyd situation,
Yeah, I don't know. Were they within 8 feet they may have been further a while.
Well, I think there's nothing wrong with police officers saying, hey, step back, you're interfering with me doing my job but an arbitrary number of feet isn't the right.
Approach. I think that's what the courts sort of doing here. It says that there's a clearly established right to record law enforcement officers engaged in the exercise that their official duties in public places.
Narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest and here they single out a specific subject matter,
Law enforcement activities and it's giving it different treatment than other kinds of,
Of speech-related activity. So, it prohibits her chills a substantial amount of first men and protected activity,
No dice.
These are media planners,
And so I am,
Dinner put it into that context of saying I'm a reporter on the job I'm not at the individual who's filming this,
I think that does even heighten it further to a real first amendment. Oh, yeah. Well, when it, yeah, the media is the obvious.
Flag waiver for this kind of shirt.
Statues, laws, and place procedures that could
It'd be enforced which I think is, you know, we have a perimeter on the, on the scene. We, you know, various different things or like you said,
You know you're you're going to have to step back. Yeah that cameraman is in between the officer and the alleged perpetrator or whatever. You know that's your
You're violating other laws. Obstructing the officer and performances duties or whatever.
Past trying past these. I don't know.
Who was very it was a touchdown for issues like this and I I have a feeling this all started with,
Okay. I just want to know who I know which you're just talking about that team.
To this happening so,
Well, we have some sort of public service messages than things we want to share. We're just going to go through them real sort of quickly.
Cooperate claims board is allowed to hear contract issues so a quick notice to those who are working on CCB cases or or advising clients about them new rules allow for counter claims related to contract
Spewed. So, the CCB now can hear sort of the whole case,
An infringement claim in the CCB. So that's Jack is good news.
I think so. I think it I don't know. Will it slow things down or speed things up? Well, we'll have to wait and see.
Item for Tony's. Yeah. We've got a couple of public listening sessions or a public listening session coming up on September 26. You may want to tune in to that or it probably will be recorded to listen later.
Relates to when as the attorney of record,
Status and obligations as the attorney of record and representation actually comes to an end. Currently, attorney recognition.
When ownership changes or when an application is abandoned,
Ends when our registration is cancelled or expired ownership changes are acceptance of a final rejection of a post registration maintenance
Filing. The UP, USPTO has never inquired as to when an actual engagement agreement
Ends between an attorney and an applicant or registrant. So, I mean, there is the possibility that your,
As you may know we've had this change under the trademark modernization act where Nail
Clients the applicant are registered are receiving emails from the USPTO,
Actually, when does registration, when does our representation end? So, the USPTO is seeking additional feedback regarding possible changes.
Or a party trip proceeding actually files and withdrawals the representation so,
Stakeholders are being asked to provide comments on whether or not
This new proposal will make it easier to withdraw. How should they implement this? Go read it. There's a lot of meat there that I think impacts us and I've just hit
Highlights. Yeah.
Hey.
When we think our representation has ended and and what also if I tell my client my representation has ended and we agree it ending but I don't go in in affirmatively withdraw myself,
Hey Tony of record engagement.
Goes beyond the the,
The termination that the trademark office says you could have liability to a client because you didn't get a notice from the USPTO and then didn't act on it because the USP Theater wouldn't have sent the notice.
Highlights the importance of doing our own calendaring a reminders and being all those kinds of things and,
To the client that hey when the registration issues,
Yeah and and do we need to put that in the engagement letter? Or do we put that in the letter that goes out with the actual registration certificate that says your mark is registered
My representation ends.
Yeah, I mean, I, you know, I think what it's, it's actually something I think a lot of attorneys don't do well is the,
Notification or letter call what you want,
You know, especially those of us that do transactional work, right? Sure, and especially if we have a client where we might have a portfolio. Yeah.
But you know you're suddenly bound to something that might happen 5 or 10 years down the road.
I think this is important. I I don't,
Because I can I can hear the very large law firm saying our representation never ends we want to always but then I kind of feel it from my end going oh my gosh I don't want to be on the hook forever,
Yeah.
Yeah. Maybe it is. I don't know. Right. I don't know. Anyway, that's that's our you have an exciting public service announcement.
Yeah, well, first off, let's just finish this. So, if you can.
And you can find out you know sending the email on what's needed to to participate in that
In that listening session and the big announcement that Tamara just teased is of course,
Tyranny ended with relinquishment of the mark by the owner taco johns the Mexican chain with,
400 locations around the country the term is now free to be used in every state except for New Jersey where there's a third party who has a
Unrelated taco,
Taco Tuesday trademark.
On
Something's not right there. Anyway, it doesn't only cover tacos from Taco Bell. The company will reimburse patrons for tacos from any restaurant store or street vendor. In addition every Taco Bell location has been offering free
Doritos locos tacos every tuesday since August 15 and will continue to do so every Tuesday leading up to the first ever nationwide taco Tuesday on September 12,
So as of this recording there's only one
One of those taco days left that's September 5 that happens speed today that they were recording,
Get your taco.
There you go. But on September 12, the second deal celebrating Taco Bell's legal victory will be unleashed. I think that's the,
DoorDash. Yes.
Day on September 5 and then if you listen to this,
I'm excited about AA law that
Past actually 2 years ago in Texas but got funded this year in Texas this is the Texas music
Incubator rebate program.
Gross receipt taxes and sales taxes paid in the prior fiscal year,
Texas is the first state to legislatively define music venue.
What was going on with COVID and COVID reopening restrictions and so,
The Texas music office which is part of the governor's office was able to work with the legislators the legislature to get music venues defined the first round of applications open September 1
And closes November 30 and this is for small
The news you either have to have a venue that only has a 3000 person capacity or
Or music festival promoter held an accounting with a population less of 100 1000 so it's really to help these small venues small festivals recoup,
Some of these expenses. So super excited about this new program in Texas. I think it's a great approach to stimulating the arts a little bit and,
And allowing these,
Industries that were hit especially hard by lockdowns things like that to bounce back a little more easily and I'm really excited to see that I hope some other states will follow soon
Yeah, I I knew too. I mean, really, I had the opportunity to speak with Brenda, Anthony, who's our director of the music office from Texas 2 weeks ago, I guess and he was kind of feeling me in on it and and hopefully other states will because they are really looking at
Texas as the,
You know.
Actually make as much money from things like selling liquor and,
Severely hit by lockdowns but,
Why not my lockdowns but having a harder time bouncing back so it could be a bouncing back. So anyway, we've got the link in there to both of an article as well as directly to the governor's Texas Music Office website.
To apply during this window of time that's open,
Do you have any upcoming speaking engagements or appearances you're going to be making,
Yes, so we're going to be part of the,
Entertainment Law Institute sponsored by UT Law CLE in Austin.
Regarding states when you
Planned,
And those kinds of things. So, that'll be super fun.
Nine and 10. There you go. Eight, ninth, and 10th is the conference. Yup. Check that out, folks. Come join us. It's always a great Seeley
Yeah I'm also going to be down in New Orleans for the Fin con event coming up there and looking forward to being a part of that and and sharing some ideas about podcasting and the law in that arena as well so
Yeah and maybe you can we plug in the links the registration links for both of those. Make sure we do that. Great. That sounds great.
That's great. So, that is the end of this episode of Entertainment Law update and as always, big thank you to you, the loyal listeners for spending your time with us.
Also, want to say a big thanks to our new sponsor JD Supra, the leading platform for professional services content marketing.
Where you can reach out to and connect with.
Cease sweet folks and others who haven't need to know interest in legal.
Regulatory and compliance matters. Clients not only enjoy wide leadership of their thought leader material.
But they get data and tools that help them turn visibility into marketing and business development success. So, resources. JD Supra. Com is the place to go for more about that and if you have feedback for us, we love it when we hear from you
You can visit the website
Entertainment law update. Com and we have a little voice widget. You can just record your message or send us an email, entertainment or update@Gmail. Com.
And Tamara how can folks get a hold of you? Hey, thank you Gordon. So, online, T Bennett Law. Com is my website or create, protect
Both of those will get you to my website and my blog and a new a new version of that. I hopefully soon to come in the next month. That'll be exciting for me.
At Tamara Bennett T A M E R A B E N N E T T we'll get you
To most social media sites and I do want to say a shout out obviously you can contact us through the way that Gordon just said some of you guys
That no was personally Lou Levi. I don't know what you're cooking for supper tonight but he answers one of the questions we had asked a month ago or so. So, he's always great to follow up with us. So, you know, if you.
If we ask a question or we get something wrong or we don't get it exactly right.
Yeah or we can't remember a case that was it Lucy sent me he's like is this the case you're talking about and I'm like no that's not it but I'll add that into the list there you go.
Awesome. Well, from Los Angeles, California, I'm Gordon Firemark and you can find me@Firemark. Com. Email address is G Fire Market Firemark. Com and G firemark is the handle on almost all the social media websites.
And want to say thank you to our team. We have managing editor John Janiceek. We have Charles Thorn, Mark Lindaman, Malhar Oza, Alexis Allen,
And violet jang who have all joined us to help
Put this episode together and we are always open and looking for folks to join the team so if you're interested in becoming a part of the ELU family,
Tom.
Music.