Transcript

Introduction

[0:02] It's entertainment law update episode 165 for February of 2024.

[0:08] Music.

[0:14] Hello, everybody and welcome to another episode of Entertainment Law update from Los Angeles, California. I am Gordon Firemark, And from the Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex I'm Tamara Bennett And we are so glad that you are here with us for this our podcast about entertainment law where each month we pull together a round up of legal and, Business news stories and share our opinions and commentary in analysis and Tamara you are just back from a what looked like a wonderful vacation in New Zealand yes, I am. I mean, we could spend the whole podcast just talking about my.

[0:50] That the Johnny and Tamara excellent adventure in a camper van on the South Island of New Zealand so, Wow. It sounds like a lot of fun. It was amazing. It really was the trip of a lifetime to go and, We didn't have enough time. You just never have enough time. We still didn't get to see so many things while we were I saw one of your posts on social and I thought to myself I wonder if she's going to come back from this train. Oh. It was questionable. Actually.
Set date we had to fly home but other than that everything was pretty fluid so we extended our camper van by 1 day and I think if we have a regret it's that we didn't just extend, The camper van for the rest of the trip. No, wow. Switching to the north island and doing some Airbnb. It was just, it was delightful. The people are wonderful and The South Island of New Zealand is like something I suspect most people have never seen before. Well, that's wonderful for for all the.

[1:56] The hassles that travel involves it really is sort of a joy too ghost some place you've never been before and explore and and take in some You know, new sites and new culture and all that kind of stuff. So, my, for the hours of travel, it is, it is worth it in the end to be able to To see and do that. I'm so thankful. We we've gotten to do that. Well, that's wonderful. I don't have any exciting news from myself this last month or so. So, we'll just get right into the show. This episode of Entertainment Update is sponsored.

Alec Baldwin Indicted

[2:28] By JD Supra the leading platform in professional services content marketing helping lawyers to turn their expertise into networking opportunities Media visibility and new business JD super publishes and distributes blog posts articles podcast videos and other thought leadership to hundreds of thousands of subscribers on a daily basis And that includes business leaders in house council media members the sea suite And others who have a need to know interested in legal regulatory in compliance matters JD super clients not only enjoy wide readership of their thought leadership but they're also provide with the data and the tools to turn That visibility into marketing and business development success and you can find out much more about JD Super by visiting resources. JD Supra, Dot com and we're glad to have JD Super on the team. So, that's great. Well, let's jump right into some of the big news for the last few weeks.

[3:21] First off the grand jury has indicted Alec Baldwin in that 2021 fatal shooting On the set of the movie Rust in New Mexico several criminal prosecutions have come out of that the first is at trial right now the armor on the film had a good tears read is being tried for her involvement and failures that led to The death of.

[3:43] Elena Hudson and the assistant director David Halls has plead guilty to unsafe handling of a firearm and he has received a probation sentence. So now, Alec Baldwin has been indicted on involuntary manslaughter charges. Basically, Baldwin was rehearsing with a gun that unexpectedly went off resulting in Helena Hutchins Death and injuring Joel Suza as well the director and so the indictment comes after there's been a bit of back and forth with the case especially When a new analysis on the gun that was used, Special prosecutors after digging into the new and information did decide to bring the case to the grand jury and, Blamo. We have an indictment. Forgive me for being lib about that. Baldwins defense team is gearing up for a fight. They promise they're looking forward to proving the case in court but that new information that came out.
Is that Baldwin has always said that he didn't actually pull the trigger just to pull back the hammer and the gun fired.

[4:41] But now with this charge hangover him he could be facing some serious time in the kicker is, Despite that insistence that he didn't pull the trigger a new analysis of the gun suggest otherwise saying that You know after examination of the gun the trigger had to have been pulled for the gun to fire the way that it did and that's why the case was reopened against, Mister Baldwin. So, as you can imagine, the whole situation sparks civil lawsuits from Hutchins family as well and others connected to the tragedy. Everybody's pointing finger about who's responsible.
Foreign sharing safety on set and the answer is really everybody is responsible for that but despite all this the Rust movie production did pick back up, Toward the end of last year and finished filming in Montana and Hutchins Widower is involved as an executive producer so at some point we would get to see the movie and, You know, now, all of this will factor into the publicity around the film, I'm sure. So, it's a tragedy, it really is, and, You know, wouldn't wish this kind of thing on any of the people involved.

[5:44] There's been have there been changes into the rules and regulations on handling, Firearms. I mean, surely, that will continue to, Hey you know the best practices and and the the rules were already in place I think what's going on here is that they weren't properly adhered to in the first place in this film So, may not be that there's a rule change needed so much as better training, better supervision, and oversight.

Blank Form Doctrine

[6:17] I would just think a rule would be there's never live ammo on a set yeah, That should be adhered to. So, well, we have another interesting, It's kind of a surprisingly basic case that came up here around the what was called the blank form doctrine, right? The eight circuit has, Has had a case of ruling in in the planet's name is Ronald Ragam R A G A N Jr. Versus Berkshire Hathaway Automotive. I keep on, I I read that incorrectly the first three times.

[7:05] Yeah. So, it's an eighth circuit, Appeal from a district court's ruling that a customer intake form, Designed for car dealerships to help in their sales processes lack the requisite originality for copyright protection, Regan had designed the form called a guest sheet back in 1999 he registered it with a copyright office received registration but, Claim any claimed ownership of this guest sheet and The any accused a particular auto dealership of infringement of that in an original lawsuit it was originally dismissed on jurisdictional issues because bro.
Berkshire Hathaway Automotive at acquired the dealership and then it continued using the guest sheet and that's what led him to file the second infringement suit.

[7:53] And the district court then granted Hathaway's motion for judgment on the pleadings arguing that the guest sheet lacked copyright ability and that's what prompts this appeal so, Ragan said look it's you know it doesn't it is creative enough. It has enough. They eat circuit disagree. They said it.
Exhibits minimal creativity constituted a basic customer intake sheet, Despite his assertions about the form sophistication the court said no it's very simple basic questions prompts and check boxes totaling fewer than 100 words and, The court sided the 1991 feist publications versus rural telephone service Supreme court ruling and reiterated the requirement that the work possess a minimal degree of originality that is independent creation in some level of creativity in order to be copyrightable.
Raganza argument that the selection and arrangement of words on the guest sheet demonstrated originality Couldn't buy it. They emphasize the need for creativity beyond mere selection and highlighted that the sheep primarily function as a tool for collecting information, Rather than conveying information so Ragan also contended that they copper registration certificate afforded it a presumption of validity eight circuit said.

[9:13] The challenge to the forms cup readability could be based solely on an examination of the form Regardless of the registration's presumption. So, rebutted the presumption just by looking at the form and making an analysis. The decision underscores the significance of demonstrating substantial creativity, In order to secure copyright protection and that mere selection and arrangement of words isn't going to be sufficient. The court made the distinction, Registration to start with. I mean, it really is a very generic, Intake form.

Form Copyrightability

[9:53] I think on examination it would be immediately refused.
I think so too. I think Dino the the intervening 25 years things have changed a bit and how the copperhead office looks at registration applications and, For better or worse in many cases but in this one yeah I think that he was trying to register a basic form that Probably shouldn't have ever received registration. So, but that interesting distinction between information gathering and conveyance, Really gets to the role of you know, functional function and purpose and determining copper edibility also. So, it's interesting.
Well and it was just we don't really have a like a, I guess there is a useful article exception to copyright registration which is more, The the spoon versus the ornate design on the handle of this. Not protected or paint design would but And I, this is a conversation I have often with clients is, you know, are they, The intake form or the way in which we gather this information or they particular questions we ask to a customer or a client or a student you know that should be protected by copyright, And so often it's a very similar situation. It's just it's very general information that's being pulled together.

[11:22] In this case on a forum so I'm I'm wondering and I would stay so maybe if it was more than the form it was a packet of information There could be sufficient originality or creativity in in more than fill in the blank form.

[11:41] Yeah they're instructions on how to use it and and you know, Explaining what what the information means and how it goes and yeah but yeah but in this case it was really just let's get this person's name and phone number and contact information and what they're interested in so we can follow up with them you know very, From the sounds of things. It's a very basic thing. I think that blank forms document asking why the useful articles doctrine is an interesting one.
Although I think it could be a dangerous slope to go down when you're talking about a form because I would say almost any form no matter how creative Could be characterized as a used floral. Sure. So, Then you get a new one. Yeah. Is it the scroll work on the on the spoon or is it the spoon itself? You know, what is what are we talking about here? So, But I really want I was just surprised this case went this far. Yeah. So there there are other factors that must have been driving this but then too.

[12:35] I'm not aware. Nothing was jumping out in my recollection of a previous decision in which the case The court rebutted that presumption that of primation evidence of validity of what was in the copyright Application and of the work being valid. So, if you file your accurate application for four publication or within 5 years after publication, that's right. Yeah. Yeah. This primer facia Evidence Putting into the record registration the court just said mmm we just don't think it was valid even if there you've over like you said overcome that primation I don't remember, Whether the feist case hadn't it been registered and they and the court Overruled or whatever but still. Yeah. So, that case it was a phone book, right? So, white pages section of a phone book.

AI Lawsuits Dismissed

[13:34] More than the blanks on a form and that's the conversation I have often with clients even to the point of, You know, you you may or may not be, you could be gathering confidential information, maybe there's some other ways you can protect it, the copyright probably isn't the way you're going to protect that, Exactly right. Exactly. Well, we're going to move over to our little AI corner. We have a couple of stories near what Tamara, why don't you take the first of this, Yeah a couple of cases we've been talking about for the last of and on for the last few months and if you episodes but the silverman Sarah Silverman and other all authors have, Unfortunately, for them, their claims against open AI and Meta have been primarily dismissed.
There are identical lawsuits filed in the northern district of California San Francisco, division, as well as.

[14:32] I'm not sure where the other one was filed. Okay.
Excuse me guys we've got two lawsuits going out there Silverman's lawsuits as she's playing a focused on open AI and Meadows unlicensed use of the author's work to develop their systems and their Alleged profiting from the use of that copyright. Basically, feeding in there, their literary works, to, I'll language train their AI systems, One of the oldest and biggest claims was that the AI systems are themselves, A system is an infringing derivative work. Made possible only by information extracted from this copyrighted material of third parties.
The US district judge in the suit against madas said that argument is quote nonsensical.
There's no way to understand the language learning models themselves as recasting or or an adaptation of any of the plain of the books.
The.
Judge in the open I AI case also dismissed on similar grounds as well as dismissing claims for vicarious copyright infringement negligence and unjust enrichment.

[15:48] So there's also a claim that the when a prompt is inner by a third party and results are yielded so I type in something that then open AI or chat spits out of response that that, Output from the platform constitutes an infringement of the work and then I kind of really question so did the judge I like it when I Agree.

[16:12] A fundamental contention that was argued is whether they can The authors can really substantiate this copyright infringement claim, Because there's not identical material and I would say substantially similar material that's being spit back out by the AI tools, Note that in I think in all of these AI cases we're going to talk about there's been no dismissal on direct copyright infringement.

[16:40] But the judge did dismiss claims offering evidence saying that silverman didn't offer any evidence that any of the outputs could be understood as recasting transforming or adapting the books of the planets, And that there was no derivative infringement that would need to enlighten ultimately prove that the outputs incorporated some portion of the plainist book and they just haven't been able to meet that standard.

[17:05] Again there was no output that was substantially similar but the planets have been granted Leave to a man. So, in addition to the directing fringement claims remaining, what's open in this case is still the unfair competition claim brought under California law. Which Next me kind of give a little pause to say don't we have a preemption question that anything that really sounds like unfair sounds and unfair competition actually with sound and recopyright law but We will see what the court has to say on that.
So anyway the suits followed another class action followed by the same attorneys regarding copyright framage infringement on images, Generated by stability AI which is another AI case we've talked about Yeah. In the past. In which we're going to talk a little bit about right now and I already addresses that preemption issue. Yeah. Yeah. But before we go there, you know, one of the things that I'm really interested in is that these cases seem to be focusing on the output side of these, AI tools.

[18:11] Rather than on the copying that has to go on in order to ingest the material in the first place. And I guess there's some.

[18:22] Wrinkles in the copyright law that go back to the probably the 70s and 80s dealing with computer technology and and that Need to copy the software into the memory of the computer and the so they're exceptions built into I suspect that's why but I'm I'm puzzled that, That we're not talking about the the wholesale copying on the input I think that the direct infringement claims that do remain. Okay, maybe that's it, you know. That that's what I think is that they did not move or failed on their motion to dismiss. Yeah.
On the claim of direct infringement. Yeah. I suspect there are facts. Yeah and another thing on that.
But another thing that comes into my mind here and and that I think well I know it's influencing my approach when I'm dealing with people who are putting content up on websites that they own in control is making sure that the terms of use, Specifically say you may not use this to train AI. Those kinds of things so then you at least have a contract claim.
Practice pointer. Yeah. Big practice pointer. Probably the New York Times case will look at something like that. I think that their terms of service probably did have some restriction on the use You know, for commercial purposes and things like that. So, I I there may be other kinds of claims at work here that we can.

[19:45] Expect to see used in cases dealing with AI going forward but it's something most of us just were overlooking. Up until the technology came out.

Importance of Terms of Use

[19:55] And I I love that as far as terms of use for websites great great practice tip I've actually been.

[20:06] As i'm working through recording artist contracts talent contracts that may be of a legacy nature yeah, Really dealing with and putting in language you can't use this to train. Right. Yeah, I think we have to do that and.

[20:27] Really interesting to me as people kind of you know everybody's kind of in their own lane as to the area of wall they practice and I don't think a lot of them Folks even within the entertainment industry who maybe aren't thinking about writing the write up publicity aspect a lot of times yeah, In addition to the copyright aspect, Yeah I don't know I think this that's a big concern yeah more, Discreet way. Is going to become more important here so that again, other new technologies will eventually come along that if we're not, Defending a building up the shields now. We may see the same thing happening again in 10 years with holography or something like that. So, All media now known in here after develop. We're going to need to stop using that or at least. That's right.
In the event of the use in this fashion there will be an additional license for gray or something. Well, I will have to. Yeah. When when we have the bargaining power to do so. We'll have to make that happen.
So you You alluded to the other AI case that's moving forward same court this is the identical case but dealing with the images this is Anderson versus stability eye at all also in the northern district of California another dismissal of claims.

Anderson vs. AI

[21:49] More messages about the training AI this time on the side of the artist. We've previously talked about this, the case of Anderson The stability AI involved a web comic artist that had discovered the AI had been trained to create works in her specific art style.

[22:07] Leaving style out of the equation for a second. So, stability is the creator of stable diffusion, software program that, Has downloaded according to the planets has downloaded or otherwise acquired copies of billions of copyrighted images without the permission of the creators and used them as training images to act as a software library for a variety of visual generative artificial intelligence platforms.
Including dream studio dream up mid journey, Are all owned by different companies. So, they're all defendants in this case. In October last year, the court largely granted AI generators, Move to dismiss the suit but left a few key claims to move forward among those claims were copred infringement Write a publicity on fair competition and bridge of contract there you go against deviant art and mid journey concluding that the allegations, On the other claims that were dismissed were defective in numerous respects. So.

[23:05] A claim for right of publicity wasn't reasserted when the suit was refilled but leaving our moved for its motion to strike the claim for good anyway and to dismiss the claim under the state A California anti-slap statute the artists are viewing that the AI companies were abusing the statute and the judge Took the artist side this time denying dismissal under the anti-slap law finding that the public interest exemption is met here so he noted that the claim was Initially dismissed because the suit failed to substantiate allegations That the companies used the names of the artists who brought the complaint to advertise the products and the planners had been able to had they've been able to alleged those facts they would have stated Their claims but that doesn't undermine that their original right of publicity claims were based on the use of their names and connection with the sale or promotion of Dream Up.

[24:00] A type of clean that would undoubtedly enforce the public policy in California that protects against misappropriation of names and likenesses. It's interesting that it's about the names.
So similar to Silverman's case the Anderson, cases claims of directing fringement was allowed to proceed based on allegations that the company used copyrighted images without permission there's that ingestion question in creating the AI technology So, so the anti-slap motion, Yeah, go ahead, sir. Well, I should say, I'm not sure when the next when the next filings are due on that to move forward but I want to remove we'll see have you seen a change in how courts are responding to anti-slap motions?
I haven't been paying that close attention. Well, I know that wasn't there a change in Texas is anti-slap Law just proposed in the legislature last week or something like that. We'll be reporting on it when and if it passes the other chamber and into the governor's office.

[25:05] Hey I don't know again there was a feeling by New Zealand but I think we've had there has been kind of this movement for revision to Grant us slap. Well, you know, it is an interesting balance of of power issue where you know, big companies that that bring these slap suits.
Feeling like well it gives too much power to the little guy we're trying to intimidate at least this is my perspective my political perspective is we're trying to intimidate these guys and you're making it too hard for us.

[25:36] Anna, I think, you know, in California, it's a there's a different approach to you know, different different, Political view of these things and and here, The the legislature is all about protecting the little guy. So, here I haven't seen it in California being an issue and and but I understanding is that there is a move in Texas is legislature too.
Loosen things a little bit with the anti stop make it a little harder for defendants to bring these motions Successfully.
Brent Cherman.

[26:16] Variety different.
Things related to anti-slap so yeah we'll get Brent to give us a good update well if and when we need it so Right, right? Well, we're going to move out of the AI, Corner. The AI cases here but I just want to sort of be transparent that this next story, the summary we're working from I, I used AI to put it together. So, what I did was actually put in the, And a couple of news reports and the opinion in the case, And i asked AI to give me a conversational style summary and so here I'm going to read that Do you? You'll see what we got. So, so do you want to share what what.

Cox vs. Sony Music

[27:02] Program you use. So, I used a customized GPT, you know, in Chatchy PT if you if you pay it for a subscription, it lets you create sort of custom, Tools and the one I have is called podcast prodigy and I use it for outlining and creating, Ideation for for some of the stuff I do and in this case I said hey Give me a conversational style thing. So, the case is Sony Music Entertainment versus Cox Communications. You may remember, we reported on this sometime back. Sony music entertainment, and a group of other record companies and publishers had taken Cox to Court overcopyright infringement allegations the fight was about suing individuals for downloading I'm sorry it wasn't about suing individuals for downloading music illegally it was about weather cox as the internet service provider could be held accountable for the infringement Actions of its users. A Cox is the internet service writer. Some of its users were caught sharing files illegally, And the music company said cock should be responsible since it provided the service Used for the illegal downloads and shares and there were some DMCA take down notices and the big complaint really was that Cox wasn't, I didn't have AA, Proper policy of three strikes in your route or you know some kind of a repeat infringer.

[28:25] Something like that. So I'm seriously it was 13 strikes. Right. Right. So the law provides for internet service providers like Cox to avoid liability.

[28:36] Under the DMCA if they play by the rules and that is they have to have the policy in place to deal with repeat infringers and previously recorded called out fuck a cox excuse me for not doing enough to stop infringement by repeat infringers so they were not allowed to hide behind that shield and the case had gone to trial, And the jury thought yeah Cox contributed to the infringement and profited from it so the jury said Cox's liable for contributory and own friend for contributing to and profiting from copyright and fringement And they came back with that one 1 billion dollars damages award that we reported on, Probably year and a half, 2 years ago, right? But the story doesn't end there. Cox did file an appeal and the appellate court has now ruled in a mixed response. They Agree Cox was in the wrong for contributing to the infringement but They didn't agree that Cox had profited directly from the infringement they said they didn't directly make money from the illegal downloads themselves Just from providing the internet service and that's not the same so they threw out the the part of the verdict About Cox Profiting from the infringement and and said that there needs to be a new trial to figure out the damages. So, it's a nuanced decision between.

[29:55] You know where is the line between vicarious and fringemen and contributorian infringement and, The court said look the distinction is here, Cox's liable for the contributory infringement but not for vicarious liability essentially agreeing that they contributed to the infringement failed to effectively manage repeat infringers But they disagreed about the direct profit and that was Why they vacated this one 1 billion dollars judgement so back to a jury a trial court and a jury did on the damages question at this point, Yeah and this is something just long time listeners know that we've been talking about this for almost, Well, we're pushing a decade. So, these were acts but to alleged acts of infringement that happened between 2013 and 2014.
You know it was that the height of, Illegal downloading of music and I don't know it's probably still on the height of it.

[30:59] But I mean the suit was filed in 2018 of the appeal got filed in 2021 so it is a battle that both sides are still Phil is very viable to keep Fighting. Yeah. And then kind of two proms on the vicarious liability. Must have the right inability to control Impressing activity and a direct financial benefit from the infringement so, You know it kind of makes me go back and think about all of our tube and red flag and they get 13 strikes there was knowledge and this isn't even coming up with the vicarious liability was was knowledge an issue it was just, Where they controlling it and where they gaining from it.

[31:46] I wonder could the jury have have laid the entire one 1 billion dollars judgement after all it was a statutory damages $150 thousand in you know will full infringement all times 10 1000, Infringe works I think was how the calculus is whatever it came out could they have laid that all on the contributory and just not, Not who does the vicarious liability matter and could they could we come back in and still have a one 1 billion dollars judgment without the vicarious liability component or Because it's a contributory infringement do you then a portion the liability across the actual infringers and the provider, I wonder if that's going to be where we are. Hey Facebook got to be and and I wonder if on the jury instructions they had to allocate, Hmm.

[32:38] Maybe, yeah, that's probably what happened. Well, or or they didn't allocate and because it was not allocated, they had to vacate the whole thing. Oh, yeah.
Yeah. Very interesting.
Well, I mean, and I think that this ruling is correct. You know, they didn't derive that direct financial benefit from the infringement. Now, like they were turning around and selling it or they want marketing their service as here. Here's how you can get all these songs.
Alright, it was just, hey, get it. I don't know. Unless, unless people knew, hey, if I get Cox, they don't Shut a stay on you know was would that make it valuable to use that service provider but also, Especially at that time period. You were really limited in who you could have for a service provider anyone. Right. Yeah. So, Well, you know, John are managing it or putting an interesting note here. He'd be pointed out that you know, this is a 21st century, Problem and a 21st century case but the court actually put a lot of its analysis on this vicarious liabilities situation On the Shapiro case from 1963.

[33:47] Amazon and analogy of landlords and tenants versus the owner of a dance hall and a band and, You know, where the NTC supervised and control the platform like a dance hall on a band is one thing But the landlord doesn't have control over what the tenants do inside the apartment So that lack of supervision is what takes out the vicariously. Oh that's crazy. They have to, Go back 60 years for a case. Yeah.

[34:21] Before anybody even thought about Actually, I mean, you didn't even have cassette recorders in in the 1960's. Nobody was making.

[34:43] Outcome as the joke as the That's the lower court deals with the K. Who knows there may be a settlement at this point.

Kat Von D Tattoo Case

[34:51] Now that a one 1 billion dollars is off the table at least for the moment. So, we'll see what happens. Keep you posted. Take the next one. So, Yeah so I always love when we get to talk about tattoo art.
I I don't want treating to me but it always is. So in January 27 of 2024 a jury ruled that celebrity tattoo artist Kat Von D was not liable For the the tattoo sheet of, Of an image of Miles Davis that she inked on to a client she used as a reference work a photograph by Jeffrey, This is where I should have had my glasses on.

[35:33] Yeah so anyway the plan of photographer in 2021 sued father complain against cat claiming that her celebrity tattoo based upon her referencing His photo of Miles Davis wasn't infringement in addition to the actual tattoo art that she created in, Tattooed attached to our client she also I guess in the process of of, Placing the tattoo inking the tattoo had photographs of her on social media, Putting the tattoo on as well as having this image of Miles Davis in the background that was protected by copyright of the planet.

[36:17] So the question is you know the Playing outside heads up monitoring damages also forcing Von Dee to remove all her social media post prints or online content that incorporates his photograph no claim Against the Person who's actually wearing the art only against the artist both parties move for some rejuvenate the plain of saw the ruling that his copyright Work has been infringed by a matter of law and Von D ask the court to determine whether or not using this photo as a, Image. Qualifies as a fair use.
That phrase reference image rings bells doesn't it? Yes it does. It's on the central district.
California judge found that most of the contested issues should be left to the judge such as whether or not the copyrightable elements from the phone.
Photograph were used to create the tattoo which raises our our question and concerns of was there substantial similarity between the photograph And the new piece of artwork. In the judge also said, hey, I'm going to put the brakes on this until we get a decision in the Andy Warhall Court case that we've talked about, Multiple times and more specific yeah more specifically we kind of did a really good rundown on the Warhall case in Apple so 157 last year so.

[37:41] Trial was set January 2024. Obviously, it went, it went to the jury on whether or not there was infringement, substantial, similarity, and they presented to my understanding evidence of the defense of fair use.
And in 3 hours the jury came back and said there's no substantial similarity between the photo, And the social media post is playing the original photo in the background, Wow it would that those qualified as as fair use and this verdict I think is probably pretty unexpected by most of us because, We expected it to focus on the.

[38:23] Using the photo it has a reference but really it came back in the courts the sorry the jury said, We're finding none infringement. We don't even have to get to fair use except on the social media stuff because it's just not infringing. That, I mean, if you look at these images side by side. You, I mean, you can see the photograph in the social post that has her doing it on the guys arm. It's sure looks similar to me, more than merely a little similar. It's, I mean, I don't know.
If if he, if the photographer doesn't appeal, I'm I'll be surprised. And you know, I haven't, I don't know what was in.

[39:08] What evidence went in and had what was a copyrightable, What were the copyrightable albums that were used? Because I didn't I know just in personal experience that's always kind of been this question when there's a reference work you know maybe it, What is like what's copyrightable about a picture of miles mean it is the person.

[39:35] And so again this goes into that whole lighting selection and all these things hose and the angle, So, go ahead. That was going to say end this image, you know, miles is actually putting his finger making a shoosh Kind of gesture into the right into the eyes of the camera and that is what you see on the Tattoo as well that's selection of the post that's not something that Miles Dave is always did or anything like that it's not a signature look for him the lighting of the photos fairly distinctive and and, You know, again, not just captured in natural light out in public somewhere. This was opposed Image with the studio lighting and all that. I'm I'm I'm you can hear. I'm very surprised at this outcome like many. And it'll be interesting to see what happens on appeal. Was there something about the jury instruction that was, Defective or or you know maybe the jury just sort of, Like to cat Vondy better than mister Sudlick and did their thing. Yeah, I don't know. And just as a refresher on Warhall, there was only one question before the Supreme Court.

Fair Use Factors in Copyright Cases

[40:47] Whether the first fair use factor which is the purpose and character of the used Including weather such uses of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes ways in favor in that case of the war off the foundation.

[41:02] Their commercial licensing of the imaging question to contact Nas. So, in oh it was This one factor on fair use and obviously the the court and the the statue case was, Waiting on that instruction and I'm sure the jury instructions aligned and yet, It was a non issue because they didn't get there. So, we'll see.

[41:29] Well, another case involving, I guess what we could characterize as appropriation art. Is involves our our friend and frequently spoken of artist Richard Prince.

Richard Prince Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

[41:42] In January 25 on January 25 New York Federal Judge Ruled that Richard Prince infringed on the copyright of two photographers Donald Graham and Eric McNatt when he used his works their works to me in his new portrait series and this has been a long running dispute that we've talked about before this is where.

[42:04] He took images I think that he found on on Instagram and blew them up on the canvases and put different captions on and and displayed them in, And get the Gagosian gallery. So, the Prince and the Gallery owner Lawrence Gagosian is ordered to pay the two photographers five times the sale price of Princes and Friends in Canvases. So, that's about $650 thousand.

Court Ruling on Fair Use and Transformation

[42:26] Prince had argued that it was fair use that his work constitute a commentary on social media and and copyright itself in the digital age he had argued that his work Transformed the original photographs by adding his own creative elements like comments and changes to scale in presentation but the photographers argued no Not transformative doesn't constitute fair use they argue that the Princess work was essentially the same as their photographs with only minor changes and they also argue that Princess work didn't provide any new meaning or commentary that wasn't already present in the photos. So, following the warhold decision, The judge ultimately took the photographer's side finding that princess use of the photos was not transformative enough and didn't provide New meaning or commentary. Sufficient. To amount to fair use and.

[43:18] Not already you know there was no additional commentary that would have some critical bearing on the work use itself so, Hey Facebook.

[43:34] So we're we're 10 years. Mm hmm.
Hard to believe. Well, it does speak to how slowly the the process works, doesn't it?
Yeah it does and and he blew up obviously what would have been a you know depending on the size of your screen and Nick One by one, a two by two, a three by three image. Yeah. On Instagram to a 5 foot by 6 foot canvases, But I appreciate I I think again this was the right ruling that Just changing the size there there was not transformative in Richard Prince has come down on the winning side of of other transformation cases.

[44:18] But this one just wasn't it. And on this one he has indicated that he's not going to appeal. He's he's going to take full loss. So, Okay and and hopefully learn from it and next time he doesn't appropriation work it'll be more Transformative somehow and there will be more blue paint on top of it. So, that's actually an interesting thing where where this kind of case actually does.

Trademark Registration and Domicile Address Requirement

[44:42] What the copyright law is supposed to do to advance the progress of the useful arts and science it's going to force him to be more innovative more creative and other artists as well So Mission accomplished. And I didn't pull up what the dates were on the rosterian case. Something is making me think 2012. I think it goes back.
That far or nearly. Yeah. Yeah.
So if anybody's interested Richard Prince that he's kind of has his own body of work.

[45:16] Yeah that restaurant is an interesting example because that was where he was actually Altering the emotion of the print of the photograph and and then reproducing it and maybe that isn't a different kind of transformation and commentary on the nature of Photography and art and all those things would be it'll be interesting to reanalyze the case in light of the the new wall, Era stuff. Some all student are all professor. You guys jump. Yeah. To do that. We would love to but well interesting.

[45:54] Case and facts on, Unraveling unveiling happening kind of as we come to press from late to universal music group That's the music publishing division of Universal Music sending an open letter to TikTok earlier this year saying hey, We're pulling all of our songs from your platform.

Universal Music Group's Dispute with TikTok

[46:19] And there's no longer going to be a partnership with TikTok and a press release posted on the UMG website again this is the publishing group Universal stated that their contractor For new over negotiations with TikTok hat Fell through over concerns of inadequate pay and lack of AI protection for their songwriters and stating ultimately tick tock is trying to build a music based business without paying fair value for the music Close quote and all of this sounds a little bit repetitive of the, Prior conversations and negotiations with Spotify and other types of platforms that we're using music without a affair or negotiated rate for the songwriters or artist Yeah. And saying that as to AI the tools being developed and promoted on TikTok to alter and replicate music in ways that dissolve royalties is nothing short of sponsoring artist replacement by AI. So, You know it they're just kind of been a big hub up for the last month as to what's going to really happen once I've made this open statement but now we know because within the last 24 hours of we're recording today on the 28th.

[47:32] The universal music group publishing songs are coming down And it's or they have to mute them on TikTok. Yeah. So, I also loved the argument from TikTok which is very reminiscent of terrorist real radio which says but, We're giving you all this free promotional and discovery vehicle. For your talent.
Gosh, thank you so much.

[48:02] Musicians and songwriters, artists, they, you wish you could take those exposure books to the grocery store or pay your mortgage with them, right?
Oh my gosh yes I you just we you love some good mailbox money but it's it is not happening on, That's setup. I mean, I understand there are some people. There are people who have been discovered on YouTube. People have been discovered on TikTok. But that doesn't mean you get This free and clear to use the creative works of others. So, I don't know. That's right.
So anyway it literally hot off the presses, The price that says happening right now to mute or take down it has broader implications then simply, Songs that are 100% universal.

[48:59] And those may be coming down and probably are coming down as well. Eh and maybe we'll talk next month that there will have been a resolution.

Impact of Trademark Negotiations on Songwriters

[49:07] I was going to ask you think this is an aggressive approach to negotiating more favorable terms in a renewal or do you think this is a more permanent, Policy, Hey unfortunately think TikTok and the likes there of our here to stay so universal as the more just publishing company in the universe, Is it probably got the bargaining power to come up with some better terms which I have been hope those better terms trickle down to, Independent publishers in the rights they get paid so yeah, Yeah. Hey, you know, I I I'm concerned. Yeah. Again, I have clients who are with Universal.

[49:53] You know what happened was Spotify is the the big players were able to go in and negotiate large upfront basis, That may or may not ever trickled to That this case songwriters are. I haven't heard about any artists complaining about this decision by universal to pull the songs. Yeah, I haven't. I haven't heard anything either. So, maybe some of the new younger artists, the smaller artists that are looking for that exposure but, Yeah I don't I don't see it as being artist, Guard is being unhappy about it.

[50:30] They're very upset about The lack of, you know, I recently write happening with With TikTok as well. So, well, I know our our next case is a practice pointer for You and I and trademark professionals and people who own trademarks.

Legal Challenge on Trademark Registration Requirement

[50:49] Right so and and you and I both are on the trademark lists serve where Pam Chestek the subject of this story is very active I'm I don't know if you know her personally I don't but Been following this since I feel like I know her but maybe it's only because we're she's been in this groups weather for so long. Right.
Well She is a Pamela chest tech and her her law firm professional LLC is chestick PLLC she's a trademark lawyer and what's going on here is that her firm, Has Chad challenged the United States Pet and Trademark Office regarding an application for the trademark chest tech legal the USPTO had refused her application because it only provided a PO box as the domicile address.

[51:40] Which doesn't comply with the requirement under the code federations 37 CFR, Section two. 3282 and two. 189 for those who are Care about that kind of thing. This rule is the one that mandates that all trademark applications have to have especially those from the outside the US have to provide a physical domicile address that is essentially a where you sleep at night Address not just a mailing address like a PO box or AA private mail Service. So, she contended that the rules enforcing this requirement were.

[52:16] Improperly promulgated are going against the procedural process in the substance of the address requirement in the first place.
She claimed that it was done without the necessary notice and comment rule making that it's arbitrary and capricious for failing to to consider the impact on privacy and other concerns I have had clients who are, Concerned when their home address is listed on their trademark application and they asked me hey can't I use a different you know whatever it's it's troublesome and.

[52:48] You know especially in this day and age after After pandemic where a lot of us are now spending more of our time working from home and may have actually given up our office address and and those kinds of things you don't want your Home address as the public record of things. You know, there's this we, Statement conversation from the US patent trademark office well that's That's not going to be disclosed because you can put in your Damasal address and then you can put in a mailing address. Yeah. Mailing address will be public.
I don't think anybody has any comfort level. That, Statement and so it is a real concern. Yeah. That, From a privacy standpoint I would even say that the USPTO has given us cause not to trust them about this because there have been other, Private information things that have eventually been you know Not behind such well secured pay walls are not supposed to be disclosed that Hey file a trademark application that we know is ultimately disclosed.

[54:08] How they pass this rule and they didn't do notice in comments so nobody had a chance to Weigh in and explain why they shouldn't require this and so on but the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said You know, the PTO's decision is upheld. They affirmed that the requirement is procedurely proper and not arbitrarior capricious, the court reasoned that the requirement was part of broader regulations aimed at ensuring Foreign trademark applicants are represented by US licensed council to combat unauthorized legal practice on compliance with US law by foreign entities. Okay, so we don't want some foreign applicant to just Rent an appeal box in Topeka and say, okay, this is where I live. I, we get that. But anyway, it was determined that requiring a doma salad dress did not substantively offer Excuse me, altar, applicants rights, but rather the manner in which they provide their information to the USPTO So it's a procedural rule and it's there for exempt from noticing common rule making, Record also found that the USPTO had sufficiently justified the introduction of the requirement as part of its effort to enforce this US council rule For foreign applicants any privacy concerns or potential impacts on individuals not addressed in the rule making process warrant deemed to renter excuse me to render.

[55:31] The the rule arbitrary or capricious as the court focused on, The record available to the agency at the time of the decision making so they repeat they dismissed her appeal so right now, If you want to apply for a trademark, you have to provide a damasal address.

Challenges in Providing Domicile Address for Trademarks

[55:48] As a practitioner at something I really have to drill down with the client on because, Again, this issue of so many of them are, you know, renting. Yeah. A co-work space or my mailbox, spot, or it's you know, Yeah. 123, Main St.
Sweet 16 to 85. So, you know, you see those in real eyes. Okay, hey, we I know this is a mailbox. I've even added issue where, My clients was a was a different law firm and I got a call a questioning.
Wow. And I'm like, no, this is their domicile business address. Yeah. You know, What do I have to prove to you to to show to do that so that's how in depth the examiners are looking at it when it's so actually valid street address but they see a different business, Well and interesting yeah so the examiners are actually jumping on google maps and things like that to verify is this address a you know they have a list of of the There's a name out or a phrase for them but the PMB postal mailbox. Yes. You know, the mailbox, etcetera, kinds of places.

[57:09] And so they won't allow those but you know they're being even more, Aggressive about investigating it and finding that you know some executive sweet businesses where there's a bunch of people renting offices and a bunch more receiving mail at this location it is the only official business address for the business, And I'm almost think on this one I had to send them their secretary of state filing, Hey don't care As long as they don't care.

[57:51] There's no work around. I mean, I think there is a policy at the Trademark office where if you have a reason that you need the privacy. For example, you know, you're you have a protective order against your ex spouse or something like that. You've gotta domestic abuse Injunction or if you've been stocked and things like that you can ask the, The director of the office through a special request process. I forget what it's called. You can ask them to waive the requirement, If you explain why but then does that thing become a public record and you know, I think it's this real concern.
As I advise clients.

[58:34] You have to assume this could become public record and what we found out is when we the requirement went into place about the same time that you had to put in, Email address for your client. For the applicant. Email address for the app that could not be the law firm filing it. And that is Blocked out or exed out when you file but then when the application registers, It becomes public because of the way in which the registration notices sit down. Yeah.
And so it's the yeah anyway just a simple for taking you know going in appealing the the ruling and all that and and, Hoped for a different outcome but I find myself wondering you know I'm drinking capricious the finding of the court pretty Pre-effective there but I promise I want to raise there some kind of a first amendment and I mean I don't think that this rule actually accomplishes the goal for.

[59:40] Eliminating the foreign applicants gaming the system kind of a thing so I I you know you're Constitutional scrutiny would get right here we're getting rational basis and yes it's rationally related but I wonder could we come up with some kind of a freedom of speech argument that says well wait a minute forcing me to publish this is Compelled speech.
Maybe there's a strict scrutiny approach that would be more effective I don't know I'm not guessing Pam and her team but and I think it comes down to finances you know, It cost money to fight these. So, I put up the good vibe for many, many people. Yeah. Yeah. To to try and bring this forward. So, Alright so it'll be quite another fair use case on copyright cat scratch fever time.

Copyright Infringement Case on Board Ape NFTs

[1:00:28] So that would be a ted nugent reference. Yeah. That I I grew up with a, Buddy of mine. His name Joe. Joe Newgen and he always told us that Ted was his uncle and I remember, Believe that for a long time but it's not true. Gotcha, Jeff. So, it just makes me Yeah. Yeah. So, this is a fourth circuit decision in a case called Philpott versus Independent Journal Review. Why don't you take it away, Yeah, so the US Court of Appeals for the.
Fourth circuit just ruled that the copyright of a photograph featuring the artist Ed Nugent was the subject of a valid cockerette registration and it's used in an article without proper attribution was not a fair use, So Larry Philpot is the photographer he'd took the image registered in 23 Teen with US copyright office if then he did go ahead and share it on the Wiki Commons website under a creative comments license requiring specific attribution and this is when Tamara's just going to insert a little practice point or just stay using a creative comments license is a license, It is not equal to a copyright registration. So, I'm very excited to see that our plan FDA Did both. In 2016, the independent journal review used this photograph in an article titled sign your daddy was a conservative.

[1:01:55] Associating Nugget with his conservative values but they didn't put the mint story set forth Attribution on the site instead they are in conjunction with use of photograph instead they used a link to new gents Wikipedia page which then linked or connected to the Whitby We can common sites we've got kind of multiple steps removed from the attribution, Plan to follow the cooperating fringement suit in 2020 because of this lack of attribution saying that the use was outside of the scope of the creative common licence and that the only remaining lawful use Would have been Dance would have been a fair use and again the defendants claiming fair used challenge the validity of the registration which I think is interesting and Dish report said there's a general genuine issue of material fact as to the validity of the registration interesting.

[1:02:54] And granted the summary of motion summary judgment on fair use with the photographer appealing both findings. The fourth circuit Circuit court assess the fair used to fans using the four prong framework and again applying the analysis from the Andy Warhall Foundation versus Goldsmith that we've already talked about a couple of times today, And looked at this factor of transformation in nature and the commercial purpose despite the district court deming the work A transformative due to its new contacts. The fourth circuit disagreed stating that both uses shared the same purpose which is depicting an actual depiction of Ted Nugent. In additionally, the court highlighted that the.

[1:03:41] Journals used was commercial and at the corporation stood to profit from that use even though the article itself may have generated minimal Revenue or income and the court went on to address the second and third prongs on fair use examining the nature of the copyrighted work in the portion used in it Continued or concluded that both favored the photographer saying that there was no fear used and then as Looking at the impact on the potential market the court sided a decision in Brammer versus Violent Hughes products, And I don't remember that. What that case was?
From 2019 explaining that cog cognizable market harm exist when a commercial uses not transformative but instead amounts to mirror duplication of the entire G Evan original, Hey, I guess that's what it bold down to. They took the photograph, put it on their article, and, And maybe tried to give attribution but didn't do it appropriately. So, here's my question to you. Let's say the photographer went through the step of the copyright, registration, but didn't put it up on, Wiki Commons requiring any kind of attribution.

[1:04:58] Does that make a difference? Still infringement just you know the the I guess the difference is then you're just infringing not exceeding the scope or or or not complying with the terms of a license.

[1:05:14] Possibility that there was a valid license in place had they complied with its terms right, Right and because they didn't comply then we have an active infringement. So, So interesting and and they found that because the photo hadn't been published prior to registration he had registered it as an unpublished work I guess probably as part of a multiple, Image fully or something. I You know, anyway, since he had marked it as an unpublished work, there was a question of when was it published and that was the reason for the challenge of the registration and the court said, no, no, no, no, no.
Yeah. It wasn't public.
And I didn't read this but I kind of can't make in some assumptions down the path of a display of the work on Wiki Commons in and of itself is not equal to publication. So that may have been the argument. Well if you hadn't put it on like a comments. Yeah.

[1:06:10] Isn't interesting issue that comes up in in the you know.
I'm seeing it coming up more often a question but when is publication occurring it's happening in the podcasting space as well because, Most podcasts are streamed over the internet. It's made available on a website or on a you know through a, An RSS feed whether it's downloadable or not seems to be the a deciding factor and whether that's a publication or not and so, Trying to register copyrights for podcasts right now what's that episode by episode basis and at this often cost prohibitive for someone who's putting out episodes every week and you know spending that extra what is it $65 to register a copyright, Hey Facebook yeah well it depends our factor could go into determining the cost of actually, With the piling face making moves on the question of well you can do Group registration of unpublished works of certain kinds and so on but only if it's done published so then What if you make it available for download those kinds of questions and and it all goes back to the analysis from that.

[1:07:22] I want to say about 1980 case involving the state of Martin Luther King and I have a dream speech with CBS, That the speech was not published. Yeah, it was a performance, not a publication, and here we, you were just saying a display on the Wiki Common site also, not A publication which is issues with you know content on on websites that maybe ever.

[1:07:50] Ever changing or you have documents and do again do you allow people to download those documents or can they only view those documents and all of that is a very Freaky assessment as to trying to come up with the data publication, And then I question, you know, what, what is that? If you get it wrong, but yeah, what? Because be really easy to get it wrong. And there are technological questions too, if you put something on a website, With contractional again with terms of service that just say this is for you to view and and consume but not to download the I mean anybody can write click on an image on a you know yeah so it's not Making it available for downloaded just happens to be the case that it is because of the technology. So, right. Who knows? Well, I thought the uga labs board ape NFT knock off lawsuit was over but, We learned this last month. No, not the case. The battle between the artists, writer, rips, and jeremy can and against you, you go labs, the creators of the original board a Yacht Club NFT wasn't as over as we thought it begins all in in May of 2022 when artists When these two artists rips and can decide to disturb the pot they launched what they called the rider rips board ape.

[1:09:14] It was an unauthorized collection that leaned heavily on the fame and notoriety of the original NFT's the board ape drop club, NFTs. It's sort of a bold thing that they did and it obviously didn't sit well with the Yoga labs the creators of the original NFTs and they saw it as a case of copper and infringement they file a suit they they, They brought the case in well last well it was a 2023 in April of 2023 rips and can were ordered to pay $one. 57 million in damages for infringement activities, And everybody thought okay that's the end of it, But no, the latest court order in the case, not only dismisses the counter claims, which ranged from allegations of emotional distress, a plea for declaratory judgment of no defamation, All dismissed in this latest corrulling and the court also significantly increased the financial award, Slapping defendants now with a nearly nine 1 million dollars bill for not just damages but legal fees expert witness fees and discouragement, And the decision goes further. Yeah. Yeah. The turnover of social media accounts. Yeah.

[1:10:34] So they had rips and, We're also instructed to hand over all social media accounts and the smart contract which is what is created with an NFT to ukulele which you know, Should end all of their business activities related to these NFTs destroy all of the, Of the the infringing NFTs and any related materials everything from software promotional items anything that has the board ap yacht club trademark on it, And hand over yeah that means just that's a big big interesting just kind of think about, You know, what does that, what does that destruction actually mean? You know, it In the past it would have been oh you made all these t-shirts or you made all these orcasettes that were in a fringing and so, After the incinerator they go alright. Right. So what destruction means? Yeah. And and now how does virtual destruction happen?
Well, I mean, yeah, what do you do? You get really, is it really, is it really destroyed? Yeah. Yeah, I guess you have to submit to a certification to the court that you've done it. You've destroyed it and then, are you in contempt if they're, it turns out there's some out there still.

Program Promoting Diversity in Copyright Registration

[1:11:57] I don't know. I don't know how yet. I mean, enforcing that is another story but, Nonetheless it's a powerful the handing over the social media accounts that's easy to verify of course but right, Wow. Well, little salad.
Yeah I feel a little validated that NFTs keep coming around since I made such a big deal that it would be a talking point for all of last year did you invest in any, No.

[1:12:28] Did check with some of my friends, adult children, are you?
And they're 20s and 30s I think did some investments I need to see how those are working out yeah I think I know somebody who actually has a board Club and even those I don't know that they're They're holding their value particularly well. So, they it has sort of gone off the radar for like this maybe bringing you back on the radar. Who knows? Hi, it might. Well, I added to the end of our rundown another public service announcement or our listeners.
Which is a program through the copyright alliance which is a trade organization it's an initiative to promote diversity and copyright applications and registrations the I, PDC program is bringing together volunteer attorneys I'm I'm working with them through our program.

[1:13:29] Indigenous creators and creators of color in the copyright system This is not based on a financial status anyone can apply if you meet the bipoc, Requirements anyway I put AA link in the program if you want to see if you can qualify and the goal is to educate program participants on the benefit of Opioid registration and empower them to register of their own works. As of right now, it says the program closes March 31. I Have it on pretty good. Information that it's probably going to extend past that. So, you know, if you or a, Black indigenous or creator of color or you work with, Folks that meet those categories have them take a look at this process through the copyright alliance again it is Very narrow and scope as far as it has to be a single author owned by an individual not a work for higher as to who can qualify but there's no financial urban requirement to participate, Okay. Will that brings us to the end of this episode of entertainment law update and as always we say thank you very much to you our loyal listeners for Spending your time with us and hopefully you share the fact that this podcast exists with your friends and colleagues and invite them to listen as well, We love those recommendations and also your.

[1:14:58] Reviews and stars and thumbs ups and all those kinds of things in the various podcast directories.
Anything you can do to help us get more listeners. We welcome them and appreciate that.
Mail so I have to say thank you to our new sponsor JD Supra a leading platform and professional services content marketing To help lawyers turn their expertise into networking opportunities media visibility and new business find more information about JD Supra by visiting resources. JD Supra Dot com and if you have feedback for us we would welcome it please leave it for us using the voice widget on our website at entertainment law update. Com or send us an email at entertainment law update At Gmail. Com you can find us on X at Apple and Law update and Tamara how can folks find you Yeah on most social media sites at Tamara Bennett, E R A B E N N A T T T Ben@Law. Com or create Project. Com. We'll take you to my website which has been newly revamped so, Jump over there and take a look if you are, Listening as soon as this gets posted and you're in the Dallas Fort Worth area tomorrow which is the.

[1:16:19] February 29 I'm going to be in Fort Worth speaking on AI and songwriters and music publishers and artists and copyright at the Fort Worth.

[1:16:31] Music festival panels and then on, Friday. If you're an attorney and you're in the DFW area, I'm going to be co presenting with Attorney Daniel White at the Wealth Council forum on, Protecting the legacy of artist and songwriters through a state planning. So, similar topic I've given before but if you're in the area and you hear this, come come say hello.
Right on. Right on. Well, I'm Gordon Firemark from Los Angeles and you can find more about me@Firemark. Com. The Email address G fire market firemark. Com and g firemark is my handle on most social media websites and coming events for me I'm going to be speaking, At podcast movement evolutions here in Los Angeles on March 27. Looking forward to that. I'm going to be doing a fun mock contract negotiation and tear down.

[1:17:29] Along with my colleague Lindsay Bowen who's another podcasting emphasize lawyer he's from the New York area we're going to be we're going to be tearing down AA town acquisition deal for podcast Network kind of thing and that's going to be real fun and and interesting and let's give a shout out also to our crack team of volunteer contributors we've got John Janiceek Armanic managing editor Charles Thorn Mark Lindeman Alexis Allen and Violet Jang all helped out with the creation of this episode along with Chat GPT thank you chat.

[1:18:04] And hey if you are interested in joining the fun as part of the team of contributors here at entertainment update you can send us an email and flaw up to excuse me entertainment law update@Gmail. Com Send over a resume and a little cover note and we'll get in touch with you and that's going to do it for this episode of Entertainment.

[1:18:24] Music.