<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://rss.justia.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Entertainment Litigation Blog</title>
      <link>http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/</link>
      <description>Published by The Avanzado Law Firm</description>
      <language>en</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2012</copyright>
      <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 13:40:00 -0800</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/?v=3.33</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

            <atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://rss.justia.com/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom" /><feedburner:info uri="entertainmentlitigationblogcom" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><feedburner:emailServiceId>EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom</feedburner:emailServiceId><feedburner:feedburnerHostname>http://feedburner.google.com</feedburner:feedburnerHostname><item>
         <title>ENTERTAINMENT LITIGATION: HOLY SMOKES!! DISTRICT COURT PERMITS PUBLISHER'S COPYRIGHT LAWSUIT OVER BATMOBILE</title>
         <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;DC COMICS DEFEATS MOTION TO DISMISS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS OVER BATMOBILE REPLICA CAR KITS&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.bat-mania.co.uk/main/vehicles/images/batmobile_1966.jpg" width=160 height=120 alt="Original Batmobile" align=right border=1&gt;DC Comics, publisher of the original Batman comic strip, filed a lawsuit  against the manufacturer and seller of vehicle modification kits that allow a consumer to create his or her own "Batmobile."  The original Batmobile (pictured on the right) was an integral part of the 1960s television series based upon the DC comic books.  "Gotham Garage" sold kits allowing consumers to build and own a replica of the iconic Batmobile.  DC Comics sued, alleging that the replicas infringe upon their copyright to the Batmobile.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;After the jump, I'll discuss the motion to dismiss proceedings before the Honorable Ronald S.W. Lew in the Central District of California.  I'll also provide some insight into the business replica Batmobiles and the potential implications of Judge Lew's ruling upon the auto industry and car design.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=aLD1FCwZb0o:eBBn0VTJYgw:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=aLD1FCwZb0o:eBBn0VTJYgw:7Q72WNTAKBA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=7Q72WNTAKBA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=aLD1FCwZb0o:eBBn0VTJYgw:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?i=aLD1FCwZb0o:eBBn0VTJYgw:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=aLD1FCwZb0o:eBBn0VTJYgw:qj6IDK7rITs"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~4/aLD1FCwZb0o" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://rss.justia.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~3/aLD1FCwZb0o/entertainment_litigation_holy.html</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2012/02/entertainment_litigation_holy.html</guid>
         <category>Legal Decisions</category>
         <pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 13:40:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2012/02/entertainment_litigation_holy.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>ENTERTAINMENT &amp; MEDIA LITIGATION: LOSING ANONYMITY</title>
         <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;COMMUNICATION IN THE SOCIAL MEDIA AGE&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;img src="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/292280/VANCOUVER-RIOTS-2011.jpg" width=171 height=114 alt="Vancouver couple" align=right border=1&gt;By now, you've seen the image.  In June 2011, the Vancouver Canucks lost game 7 of the 2011 Stanley Cup Finals to the Boston Bruins in Vancouver.  Chaos ensued, and Vancouver burned.  Sports fans rioting in disappointment over losing a championship (or in celebration of winning one) is hardly unusual.  However, as the people of Vancouver rioted in the streets, a picture captured a couple in a private, intimate moment against a backdrop of smoke and police in riot gear.  The photographer and the media reporting on the Vancouver riot did not know their names.  They were simply the kissing couple.&lt;p&gt;Not surprisingly, the stark contrast between the violence in the background and the kissing couple lying on the street was a sensation -- the picture went "viral" -- disseminated worldwide on social networks as well as traditional media.  With that kind of coverage, there was no chance that the anonymous couple would stay anonymous for long.&lt;p&gt;After the jump, I'll discuss the implications of the instantaneous spread of information and social media -- particularly on anonymity and expectations of privacy.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=pqHBwdtly6E:NjIt_6Swi9A:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=pqHBwdtly6E:NjIt_6Swi9A:7Q72WNTAKBA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=7Q72WNTAKBA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=pqHBwdtly6E:NjIt_6Swi9A:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?i=pqHBwdtly6E:NjIt_6Swi9A:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=pqHBwdtly6E:NjIt_6Swi9A:qj6IDK7rITs"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~4/pqHBwdtly6E" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://rss.justia.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~3/pqHBwdtly6E/entertainment_media_litigation_6.html</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2011/08/entertainment_media_litigation_6.html</guid>
         <category>Other Media</category>
         <pubDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2011 06:30:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2011/08/entertainment_media_litigation_6.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>ENTERTAINMENT LITIGATION:  DISNEY/PIXAR DEFEAT COPYRIGHT LAWSUIT</title>
         <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STUDIO WINS ENTERTAINMENT LITIGATION RELATING TO "CARS" FRANCHISE&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;p&gt;The studios behind the "Cars" motion picture franchise ended their July with a bang -- winning their litigation in Los Angeles federal court over the creation of the franchise.  &lt;img src="http://www.movieposter.com/posters/archive/main/38/MPW-19222" width=100 height=146 alt="Cars II Movie Poster" align=right border=1&gt;Last Wednesday, July 27, 2011, Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank of the US District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles dismissed all claims against the Walt Disney Company, Pixar and studio-related companies filed by a plaintiff who claimed that the highly successful "Cars" films were based upon his copyrighted screenplay and treatment.  &lt;p&gt;Plaintiff Jake Mandeville-Anthony alleged that Disney/Pixar and the other defendants infringed upon his copyrights in two prior works and that the studios owed him compensation for using his materials based upon an implied contract.  Mandeville-Anthony's pursuit of damages against these studios came to an abrupt end with Judge Fairbank's order dismissing his entire case on the pleadings.&lt;p&gt;After the jump, I'll discuss the issues raised by the claims in this case and the import of the court's decision dismissing the case at such an early stage.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=jmFSSaYw4cA:njup_Ycz7lE:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=jmFSSaYw4cA:njup_Ycz7lE:7Q72WNTAKBA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=7Q72WNTAKBA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=jmFSSaYw4cA:njup_Ycz7lE:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?i=jmFSSaYw4cA:njup_Ycz7lE:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=jmFSSaYw4cA:njup_Ycz7lE:qj6IDK7rITs"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~4/jmFSSaYw4cA" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://rss.justia.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~3/jmFSSaYw4cA/entertainment_litigation_disne_2.html</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2011/08/entertainment_litigation_disne_2.html</guid>
         <category>Film</category>
         <pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 09:30:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2011/08/entertainment_litigation_disne_2.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>ENTERTAINMENT LITIGATION:  WARNER BROS. SETTLES "HANGOVER II" LAWSUIT</title>
         <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;STUDIO SETTLES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT CLAIM BROUGHT BY TATTOO ARTIST&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.filmofilia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/hangover_2_poster_6.jpg" width=107 height=158 alt="Hangover II Movie Poster" align=right border=1&gt;&lt;p&gt;Late last month, Warner Bros. settled the copyright infringement lawsuit brought by the tattoo artist who designed the tatoo which appears on the face of former world heavyweight boxing champion Mike Tyson.  The tattoo artist, S. Victor Whitmill, sued Warner Bros. for copyright infringement in April 2011 because Ed Helms' character in The Hangover: Part II sports a similar tattoo to the one Tyson made famous.  Whitmill initially sought (unsuccessfully) to prevent or delay the release of the film.  When that failed, Whitmill pursued his lawsuit in Missouri federal court, seeking damages and removal of his purported copyrighted work in any further exploitation of the movie.  The settlement, of course, now eliminates the chance that Warner Bros. might be forced to digitally alter the movie.  &lt;p&gt;After the jump, I'll discuss some of the legal issues raised by Whitmill's claims and why Warner Bros. likely felt it had to settle the case.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=nFtQTc-nb-E:-66po1m5WDk:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=nFtQTc-nb-E:-66po1m5WDk:7Q72WNTAKBA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=7Q72WNTAKBA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=nFtQTc-nb-E:-66po1m5WDk:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?i=nFtQTc-nb-E:-66po1m5WDk:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=nFtQTc-nb-E:-66po1m5WDk:qj6IDK7rITs"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~4/nFtQTc-nb-E" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://rss.justia.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~3/nFtQTc-nb-E/entertainment_litigation_warne.html</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2011/07/entertainment_litigation_warne.html</guid>
         <category>Film</category>
         <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2011/07/entertainment_litigation_warne.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>ENTERTAINMENT LITIGATION:  THE ART OF A TRIAL</title>
         <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;TOP COURTROOM MOTION PICTURES&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;P&gt;In the spirit of the many lists of "top" whatever in the entertainment industry, I decided to write about my favorite courtroom films.  Before doing so, I decided to do "research" -- so I purchased some movies that I had not seen before and some others that I had not seen in a while.  It was gruesome research watching all these films.  But someone had to do it.&lt;p&gt;After the jump, I'll give you some thoughts on my favorites and my views on what real-life trial lawyers can learn from the fictional ones.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=XQpHNOkvF58:BvCy94Ohp9Q:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=XQpHNOkvF58:BvCy94Ohp9Q:7Q72WNTAKBA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=7Q72WNTAKBA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=XQpHNOkvF58:BvCy94Ohp9Q:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?i=XQpHNOkvF58:BvCy94Ohp9Q:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=XQpHNOkvF58:BvCy94Ohp9Q:qj6IDK7rITs"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~4/XQpHNOkvF58" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://rss.justia.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~3/XQpHNOkvF58/entertainment_litigation_the_a_1.html</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2010/09/entertainment_litigation_the_a_1.html</guid>
         <category>Film</category>
         <pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 2010 13:35:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2010/09/entertainment_litigation_the_a_1.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>ENTERTAINMENT LITIGATION: COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS CONFIRMS NOMINEE FOR CHIEF JUSTICE</title>
         <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;JURIST ONE STEP CLOSER TO BECOMING FIRST FILIPINO-AMERICAN STATE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;P&gt;My practice and this blog is focused on entertainment, media and intellectual property litigation.  However, the past week -- an historic one for the Filipino and Asian American legal community -- was consumed by the confirmation process for California Court of Appeal Associate Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye and her nomination to become the first Filipino-American justice of the California Supreme Court, and first Asian-American Chief Justice of California.  On Wednesday, August 25, 2010, Justice Cantil-Sakauye's confirmation hearing before the Commission on Judicial Appointments took place at the California Supreme Court in San Francisco.  I was privileged to testify in support of Justice Cantil-Sakauye's nomination on behalf of the Philippine American Bar Association.&lt;p&gt;More on my testimony and Justice Cantil-Sakauye's hearing after the jump.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=bUDCbI4V_eQ:XyUZw_hE14E:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=bUDCbI4V_eQ:XyUZw_hE14E:7Q72WNTAKBA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=7Q72WNTAKBA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=bUDCbI4V_eQ:XyUZw_hE14E:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?i=bUDCbI4V_eQ:XyUZw_hE14E:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=bUDCbI4V_eQ:XyUZw_hE14E:qj6IDK7rITs"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~4/bUDCbI4V_eQ" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://rss.justia.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~3/bUDCbI4V_eQ/commission_on_judicial_appoint_1.html</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2010/08/commission_on_judicial_appoint_1.html</guid>
         <category>News</category>
         <pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 11:50:23 -0800</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2010/08/commission_on_judicial_appoint_1.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>ENTERTAINMENT LITIGATION:  2010 NINTH CIRCUIT JUDICIAL CONFERENCE</title>
         <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;JUDGES, ACADEMICS AND PRACTICING LAWYERS GATHER FOR YEARLY CONFERENCE&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.mauinews.com/photos/news/lg/534577_1.jpg" width=120 height=109 alt="Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy" align=right border=1&gt;&lt;p&gt;The 2010 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference took place last week in Maui, Hawaii with United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy as the keynote speaker.  The Ninth Circuit holds a judicial conference every year in one of its districts -- Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon or Washington.  (The Ninth Circuit also includes Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.)  I was privileged to serve as a Lawyer Representative of the Central District of California from 2004 through 2008, attending conferences in Spokane, Washington, Huntington Beach, California and Honolulu, Hawaii. This year, I was invited as an "ex officio" Lawyer Representative.&lt;p&gt;After the jump, I'll share some thoughts about the conference and its importance to the legal profession.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=pCaxBDlkMRo:g_1enhKABrE:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=pCaxBDlkMRo:g_1enhKABrE:7Q72WNTAKBA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=7Q72WNTAKBA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=pCaxBDlkMRo:g_1enhKABrE:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?i=pCaxBDlkMRo:g_1enhKABrE:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=pCaxBDlkMRo:g_1enhKABrE:qj6IDK7rITs"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~4/pCaxBDlkMRo" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://rss.justia.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~3/pCaxBDlkMRo/entertainment_litigation_ninth.html</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2010/08/entertainment_litigation_ninth.html</guid>
         <category>News</category>
         <pubDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2010/08/entertainment_litigation_ninth.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>ENTERTAINMENT LITIGATION:  WHEN THE CLIENT AND LAWYER TURN ON EACH OTHER</title>
         <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;THE IMPORTANCE OF A STRONG LAWYER-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;P&gt;The lawyer-client relationship can -- and should -- be among the most intimate relationships -- grounded in mutual trust and respect, with open and honest communication.  A client comes to the lawyer with a problem -- the lawyer learns all of the facts and charts the course to a solution -- and both are on the same page as they work together towards the resolution of the problem.  However, as with any other personal relationships, it's no surprise that lawyers and clients can hit rough patches in their journey -- even when the relationship is a "good" one.  This post is about examples of what can happen when the lawyer-client relationship deteriorates into an adversarial one.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;There are many factors to consider when deciding whether to file litigation.  I've previously touched on certain "downsides" to such litigation -- the potential that &lt;a href=http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2009/01/entertainment_litigation_updat.html target=_blank&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;u&gt;the litigation will spiral out of control&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/a&gt; or that the litigation will result in &lt;a href=http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2009/01/entertainment_litigation_what.html target=_blank&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;u&gt;unintended consequences and embarrassing disclosures&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/u&gt;.  This post is about the downside to strategic litigation choices -- including the decision to file a lawsuit in the first instance -- and how those choices can affect, positively or negatively, the strength of any lawyer-client relationship.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;After the jump, two recent lawsuits between lawyers and clients -- including one case involving one of my mentors -- illustrate the importance of full and open communication between lawyers and clients during any litigation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=pY-r2KYgXnc:ZY9rBnJe2x0:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=pY-r2KYgXnc:ZY9rBnJe2x0:7Q72WNTAKBA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=7Q72WNTAKBA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=pY-r2KYgXnc:ZY9rBnJe2x0:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?i=pY-r2KYgXnc:ZY9rBnJe2x0:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=pY-r2KYgXnc:ZY9rBnJe2x0:qj6IDK7rITs"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~4/pY-r2KYgXnc" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://rss.justia.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~3/pY-r2KYgXnc/entertainment_litigation_the_u.html</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2010/08/entertainment_litigation_the_u.html</guid>
         <category>Legal Decisions</category>
         <pubDate>Mon, 09 Aug 2010 10:47:58 -0800</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2010/08/entertainment_litigation_the_u.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>ENTERTAINMENT LITIGATION:  REPRESENTING THE UNPOPULAR CLIENT</title>
         <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;WHEN DOES A LAWYER GET TO DITCH A CLIENT&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://reporter.blogs.com/.a/6a00d83451d69069e20134855efbc8970c-pi" width=140 height=180 alt="Mel Gibson" align=right border=1&gt;Mel Gibson's recent diatribes -- lending credence to the widely held view that he's a racist and abuser of women -- provoke an old but interesting debate about lawyers' duties to clients and when a lawyer can "fire" a client.  Last week, Matthew Belloni of The Hollywood Reporter wrote a post on his &lt;a href=http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/07/why-havent-mel-gibsons-lawyers-dropped-him.html target=_blank&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;u&gt;THR, Esq blog&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/u&gt; about Gibson's lawyer, Tom Hansen, staying "loyal" to Gibson -- unlike Gibson's agents who dumped him.  &lt;p&gt;THR's post was about deal lawyers.  One lawyer, quoted (anonymously), says that he/she "couldn't represent someone who I didn't personally believe in" and that "a lawyer should be judged by who he chooses to get into business with -- and who he stays in business with."  Interesting.&lt;p&gt;After the jump, why I disagree with this sentiment.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=MlHBn78k7hY:imkPwPXz0Cg:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=MlHBn78k7hY:imkPwPXz0Cg:7Q72WNTAKBA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=7Q72WNTAKBA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=MlHBn78k7hY:imkPwPXz0Cg:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?i=MlHBn78k7hY:imkPwPXz0Cg:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=MlHBn78k7hY:imkPwPXz0Cg:qj6IDK7rITs"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~4/MlHBn78k7hY" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://rss.justia.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~3/MlHBn78k7hY/entertainment_litigation_repre.html</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2010/08/entertainment_litigation_repre.html</guid>
         <category>News</category>
         <pubDate>Mon, 02 Aug 2010 18:30:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2010/08/entertainment_litigation_repre.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>FILIPINA JUSTICE NOMINATED TO HEAD CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT</title>
         <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;GOVERNOR SCHWARZENAGGER NOMINATES JUSTICE TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE TO BECOME FIRST FILIPINO-AMERICAN ON STATE SUPREME COURT&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/courtsofappeal/3rdDistrict/images/sakauye.jpg" align=right&gt;July 22, 2010 is an historic day for the Filipino-American legal community.  Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye of the California Court of Appeal has been tapped to become California's first Filipino-American Supreme Court justice and the first Asian American woman to head any state supreme court.  As the President and Chief Executive Officer of the PABA Foundation -- the fundraising arm of the Philippine American Bar Association -- it's a proud day for me and the entire Filipino-American legal community.&lt;p&gt;View the Governor's press conference &lt;a href=http://gov.ca.gov/speech/15638/ target=_blank&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;u&gt;here&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.You can read PABA's press release celebrating Governor Schwarzenagger's historic announcement &lt;a href=http://www.pabala.org/mc/page.do?sitePageId=117486 target=_blank&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;u&gt;here&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.  You can also read the press release of the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) about Justice Cantil-Sakauye's nomination &lt;a href=http://www.napaba.org/napaba/showpage.asp?code=PR-TaniSakauye072210 target=_blank&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;u&gt;here&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;p&gt;Congratulations Justice Cantil-Sakauye.  &lt;p&gt;&lt;embed src='http://gov.ca.gov/player-licensed-viral.swf' height='230' width='340' bgcolor='DFDFDF' allowscriptaccess='always' allowfullscreen='true' flashvars="&amp;backcolor=DFDFDF&amp;dock=false&amp;file=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dot.ca.gov%2Fgovflash%2F20100722_judge.flv&amp;frontcolor=3F3F3F&amp;icons=false&amp;image=http%3A%2F%2Fgov.ca.gov%2Fimages%2Fessays%2F0722201001.jpg&amp;lightcolor=3F3F3F&amp;plugins=viral-2d&amp;stretching=fill"/&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=g7jWpWsLnug:mtmr-UKPUBE:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=g7jWpWsLnug:mtmr-UKPUBE:7Q72WNTAKBA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=7Q72WNTAKBA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=g7jWpWsLnug:mtmr-UKPUBE:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?i=g7jWpWsLnug:mtmr-UKPUBE:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=g7jWpWsLnug:mtmr-UKPUBE:qj6IDK7rITs"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~4/g7jWpWsLnug" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://rss.justia.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~3/g7jWpWsLnug/filipina_justice_nominated_to.html</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2010/07/filipina_justice_nominated_to.html</guid>
         <category>Short Takes</category>
         <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2010/07/filipina_justice_nominated_to.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>ENTERTAINMENT LITIGATION:  THE BRATZ BEAT BACK BARBIE ON APPEAL</title>
         <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;NINTH CIRCUIT OVERTURNS MATTEL'S TRIAL COURT VICTORY AGAINST MGA ENTERTAINMENT IN BATTLE OF THE DOLLS&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/09/15/majbratz_wideweb__470x337,0.jpg" width=235 height=168 align=right&gt;The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed an opinion today reversing a multi-million dollar verdict and injunction in favor of Mattel, maker of Barbie dolls, against upstart competitor MGA Entertainment which makes the Bratz doll line.  The case has garnered much attention as two highly popular doll lines and their manufacturers battled each other in federal court in Los Angeles.  Chief Judge Alex Kozinski's entertaining opinion today likely will have far reaching consequences beyond toymakers -- affecting copyright infringement, trademark infringement and constructive trust litigation.  &lt;p&gt;You can read and download Judge Kozinski's opinion &lt;a href="http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2010-07-22%20Mattel%20v%20MGA%20Entertainment%20%289th%20Cir%20-%20Kozinski%20op%29.pdf" target =_blank&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;u&gt;here&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.  More on his opinion after the jump.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=Tcmhu4jtGPw:RVlZdNb-cO4:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=Tcmhu4jtGPw:RVlZdNb-cO4:7Q72WNTAKBA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=7Q72WNTAKBA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=Tcmhu4jtGPw:RVlZdNb-cO4:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?i=Tcmhu4jtGPw:RVlZdNb-cO4:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=Tcmhu4jtGPw:RVlZdNb-cO4:qj6IDK7rITs"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~4/Tcmhu4jtGPw" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://rss.justia.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~3/Tcmhu4jtGPw/entertainment_litigation_the_b_1.html</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2010/07/entertainment_litigation_the_b_1.html</guid>
         <category>Legal Decisions</category>
         <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:29:11 -0800</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2010/07/entertainment_litigation_the_b_1.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>ENTERTAINMENT LITIGATION:  LINDSAY LOHAN SUES E*TRADE FOR $100 MILLION</title>
         <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;ACTRESS CLAIMS BABY GIRLFRIEND COMMERCIAL IS ABOUT HER&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Actress Lindsay Lohan is once again in the news.  This time, however, it's not because of what Lohan and her running buddies have done in some nightclub, or the latest in the ongoing feud between Lohan and her father.  Instead, Lohan has made the news by filing a $100 million lawsuit against the online stock trading company, E*Trade, over their "milkaholic" baby girlfriend commercial.&lt;p&gt;Lohan's break as an actress came in the 2004 motion picture "Mean Girls."  After that film, Lohan tried to expand her influence into the music arena, releasing a couple of albums to mixed reviews.  Lohan graced the cover of &lt;i&gt;Vanity Fair&lt;/i&gt; magazine (right) with a pictorial spread that evoked images of Marilyn Monroe.  However, instead of becoming a "triple threat" -- actress/model/singer -- Lohan has become more widely known for being fodder for tabloids and paparazzi.  With stories about her lesbian lover and their widely reported breakup, stints in rehab, car accidents, public feuds with her father and "overexposed" pictures of Lohan all over the 'net, Lohan is now the symbol of young Hollywood and their unabashed desire to have a good time.&lt;p&gt;Now comes Lohan's latest foray into the news:  a $100 million dollar lawsuit against E*Trade for their latest "baby" commercial.  After the jump, I'll detail why Lohan's lawsuit has the feel of a publicity stunt.  And if you haven't seen the commercial which debuted during the Super Bowl, you can view that after the jump as well.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=tY3dssOrxrM:xrvYRVuZ4VY:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=tY3dssOrxrM:xrvYRVuZ4VY:7Q72WNTAKBA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=7Q72WNTAKBA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=tY3dssOrxrM:xrvYRVuZ4VY:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?i=tY3dssOrxrM:xrvYRVuZ4VY:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=tY3dssOrxrM:xrvYRVuZ4VY:qj6IDK7rITs"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~4/tY3dssOrxrM" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://rss.justia.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~3/tY3dssOrxrM/entertainment_litigation_linds.html</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2010/03/entertainment_litigation_linds.html</guid>
         <category>Television</category>
         <pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2010/03/entertainment_litigation_linds.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>ENTERTAINMENT &amp; MEDIA:  DELAYED TELEVISION COVERAGE OF OLYMPICS</title>
         <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;HOW VIEWERS ARE IMPACTED BY "TAPE DELAYED" COVERAGE OF 2010 VANCOUVER OLYMPICS&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;p&gt;As a sports fan in California, "watching" the 2010 Olympics has been a frustrating experience.  NBC has provided the west coast with little live coverage.  So those of us who live in the "tape delayed" part of NBC's coverage map have a choice:  (a) cease using communication devices and social media to avoid learning of results; or (b) watching the television coverage in spite of knowing the result.&lt;p&gt;I received a message on Twitter from a reporter from the &lt;i&gt;Los Angeles Times&lt;/i&gt; asking if I would speak on the record about the issue.  Never one to turn down an opportunity to speak my mind, I agreed.  The LA Times article appears &lt;a href="http://www.latimes.com/sports/olympics/la-sp-olympics-social-media22-2010feb22,0,1487920.story" target=_blank&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;u&gt;here&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;p&gt;My thoughts on the implications of tape delayed coverage on viewers after the jump.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=_GYaQExyMQk:9OcLGl8RvLg:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=_GYaQExyMQk:9OcLGl8RvLg:7Q72WNTAKBA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=7Q72WNTAKBA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=_GYaQExyMQk:9OcLGl8RvLg:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?i=_GYaQExyMQk:9OcLGl8RvLg:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=_GYaQExyMQk:9OcLGl8RvLg:qj6IDK7rITs"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~4/_GYaQExyMQk" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://rss.justia.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~3/_GYaQExyMQk/entertainment_media_delayed_te_1.html</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2010/02/entertainment_media_delayed_te_1.html</guid>
         <category>Television</category>
         <pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:20:05 -0800</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2010/02/entertainment_media_delayed_te_1.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>ENTERTAINMENT &amp; MEDIA LITIGATION:  HOWARD K. STERN'S DEFAMATION CLAIM SURVIVES SUMMARY JUDGMENT</title>
         <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;NY FEDERAL JUDGE RULES THAT ALLEGEDLY DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS ABOUT ANNA NICOLE SMITH'S ATTORNEY/COMPANION SHOULD BE PRESENTED TO A JURY&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;p&gt;Last Wednesday, on August 12, 2009, a federal district court judge in New York ruled that the defamation case filed by Anna Nicole Smith's former attorney and companion, Howard K. Stern, against the publisher and author of the book "Blonde Ambition: The Untold Story Behind Anna Nicole Smith's Death" should proceed to trial against the author, MSNBC investigative reporter, Rita Cosby.  Judge Dennis Chin's decision provides several interesting legal tidbits as well as a glimpse into the media frenzy that followed Smith and her death.&lt;p&gt;"Blonde Ambition" made several explosive revelations about Smith, Stern, and Larry Birkhead, Smith's other love interest and father of her baby, Dannielyn.  Cosby wrote among other things that (a) Smith caught Stern and Birkhead having oral sex with each other at a party in Los Angeles, (b) Smith remarked that Stern was gay, (c) Smith watched a sex tape of Stern and Birkhead on a regular basis as witnessed by her nannies, (d) Stern regularly "pimped" out Smith to others to have sex with and (e) Stern played a role in Smith's death.  As expected, these revelations made Cosby's book an instant best-seller.  However, also as expected, Stern was none too pleased with the contents of that book -- and sued Cosby and her publisher for defamation in New York.&lt;p&gt;The following are the highlights of Judge Chin's decision.  You can see a copy of Judge Chin's ruling &lt;a href="http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2009-08-13%20Stern%20v%20Crosby%20MSJ%20Opinion.pdf" target=_blank&gt;&lt;b&gt;here&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=DjHt7zCxWk8:QyEABgbXKR8:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=DjHt7zCxWk8:QyEABgbXKR8:7Q72WNTAKBA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=7Q72WNTAKBA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=DjHt7zCxWk8:QyEABgbXKR8:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?i=DjHt7zCxWk8:QyEABgbXKR8:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=DjHt7zCxWk8:QyEABgbXKR8:qj6IDK7rITs"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~4/DjHt7zCxWk8" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://rss.justia.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~3/DjHt7zCxWk8/entertainment_media_litigation.html</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2009/08/entertainment_media_litigation.html</guid>
         <category>Legal Decisions</category>
         <pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2009/08/entertainment_media_litigation.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>ENTERTAINMENT LITIGATION: ANOTHER REPUBLICAN POLITICIAN SUED OVER USE OF MUSIC</title>
         <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;ROCK STARS SUE CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN SENATE CANDIDATE OVER TWO SONGS&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;p&gt;Since the election of Barack Obama, there appears to be a rash of lawsuits filed by rock and roll stars against Republican candidates for office.  I previously wrote about &lt;a href=http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2009/03/entertainment_litigation_feder_1.html target=_blank&gt;&lt;b&gt;Jackson Browne's federal case&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/a&gt; against the Republican National Committee and Senator John McCain over the use of Browne's song "Running On Empty" in an Ohio internet campaign spot.  That case reportedly has apparently &lt;a href=http://www.thresq.com/2009/07/jackson-browne-john-mccain-settlement.html target=_blank&gt;&lt;b&gt;settled on confidential terms&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt;, resulting in an apology from the McCain camp.&lt;p&gt;In April, Eagles star, Don Henley, and Mike Campbell, guitarist for Tom Petty &amp; The Heartbreakers followed suit -- literally.  Henley and Campbell filed two lawsuits against Republican California State Assemblyman, Charles DeVore who is running for the Senate seat currently held by Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer.  The lawsuits arise from DeVore's use of of the music in the songs "Boys of Summer" (which Henley and Campbell co-wrote) and Henley's "All She Wants To Do Is Dance" in political spots where DeVore replaced the original lyrics with his own politically motivated lyrics.&lt;p&gt;While many are surprised that the RNC, McCain and the Ohio Republican Party settled so quickly, the issues in the Henley/Campbell suit seems less likely to favor the rockers.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=0YGopVX1gEI:dA69E8OeYPY:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=0YGopVX1gEI:dA69E8OeYPY:7Q72WNTAKBA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=7Q72WNTAKBA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=0YGopVX1gEI:dA69E8OeYPY:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?i=0YGopVX1gEI:dA69E8OeYPY:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=0YGopVX1gEI:dA69E8OeYPY:qj6IDK7rITs"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~4/0YGopVX1gEI" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://rss.justia.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~3/0YGopVX1gEI/entertainment_litigation_anoth_1.html</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2009/07/entertainment_litigation_anoth_1.html</guid>
         <category>News</category>
         <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 10:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2009/07/entertainment_litigation_anoth_1.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
      
   </channel>
</rss>

