A Michigan State Court recently dismissed claims against Euclid Media Group, the parent company to several media properties, including Deadline Detroit, Inc. (“Deadline”), for publishing articles about a Plaintiff’s conduct at a Birmingham Public School Board of Education meeting. See Paul Marcum vs. Euclid Media Group, Docket No. 2022-191878-CZ (Mich. Cir. Ct. Jan. 4, 2022) (Dkt. 129) (“Order”).

On August 23, 2021, Deadline published an article, “Man Who Gave Nazi Salute at Birmingham Schools Meeting Loses Tennis Job” (the “Article”). The Article asserted that Plaintiff had gestured and uttered a Nazi salute toward two African American women and a Jewish woman who had voiced their support for a classroom mask mandate. The Article not only identified Plaintiff by name, but it also included his picture and stated Plaintiff had been “accused of flashing a Nazi salute and repeatedly chanting ‘Heil Hitler.'”

Continue Reading Truth Remains an Absolute Defense Against Defamation Claims

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently upheld the federal cyberstalking statute against a constitutional challenge. See United States v. Ho Ka Yung, 37 F.4th 70 (3d Cir. 2022). The Third Circuit narrowly construed the statute’s intent element to require an intent to make the victim fear death or bodily injury or to cause the victim distress through threats or intimidation.

According to the opinion, the case begins with Yung’s application to Georgetown Law. The admission interview went poorly, and Yung was rejected. In turn, Yung allegedly embarked on a cyber-campaign against the unsuspecting interviewer, including creating fake blog posts as the interviewer bragging about raping women and children, filing false reports accusing the interviewer of sexual assault, and impersonating the interviewer’s wife in online sex ads. After the FBI became involved, Yung was charged with cyberstalking.

Continue Reading Third Circuit Upholds Federal Cyberstalking Law

On June 3, 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an Arizona district court erred in dismissing a defamation suit for lack of personal jurisdiction. The suit was brought by an attorney against three Catholic bishops and their respective dioceses located in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Ohio. See Burri L. PA v. Skurla, No. 21-15271, 2022 WL 1815827 (9th Cir. June 3, 2022).

According to the complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants made defamatory statements about him to individuals in Arizona. Plaintiff alleged that these communications were designed to interfere with a contract that Plaintiff had with the Phoenix Eparchy in Arizona. Defendants also allegedly repeated these defamatory statements about Plaintiff at a meeting with multiple representatives from the Phoenix Eparchy, where they urged the Phoenix Eparchy to drop a prior action that Plaintiff had brought on behalf of the Phoenix Eparchy against Defendants in Arizona. Based on Defendants’ conduct and communications, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendants in Arizona for defamation and tortious interference.

Continue Reading Personal Jurisdiction and the Calder Effects Test: Ninth Circuit Sides with Florida Plaintiff in Defamation Suit Against Bishops

Last month, a bipartisan pair of senators released the first comprehensive cryptocurrency bill that, though it is unlikely to become law, will frame how Congress discusses future legislation. The sweeping draft from Senators Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), viewed as friendly to the crypto industry, defines digital assets and proposes a lighter-touch regulatory architecture, among the provisions that address current core cryptocurrency policy debates in Washington.

The Responsible Financial Innovation Act would settle jurisdictional battles among executive branch agencies by giving the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) oversight over most digital assets and constraining the authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), whose chairman, Gary Gensler, has taken a more combative stance toward the crypto industry. The CFTC would not have authority over digital collectibles or non-fungible digital assets, including NFTs. While NFTs are outside the scope of the current draft, a future proposal could alter the status quo.

Continue Reading Bipartisan Bill to Regulate Digital Assets Introduced: Pathway to Comprehensive Regulation Remains Unclear, NFTs Not Addressed

More than two years have passed since the tragic helicopter crash that killed basketball player Kobe Bryant, his daughter Gianna Bryant, and all others on board the January 26, 2020 flight. Since that time, several cases related to the crash have been working their way through the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, including two brought by Vanessa Bryant, the widow of Kobe Bryant and mother of Gianna Bryant. One case, brought by Vanessa Bryant against the owners of the helicopter and the estate of the helicopter’s pilot, was settled by the parties and voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on December 14, 2021.[1] The other case was brought by Vanessa Bryant against the County of Los Angeles and others, alleging severe and continuing emotional distress caused by Los Angeles County employees who allegedly took and disseminated graphic photographs of the crash site using their personal smartphones. That case, Vanessa Bryant v. County of Los Angeles, et al., No. CV 20-9582, is headed for trial following U.S. District Judge John F. Walter’s denial of the County’s motion for summary judgment on January 5, 2022.[2] The trial is scheduled to begin on July 26, 2022.[3]

One of the most contentious issues we can expect at trial is proximate causation. It is not disputed that Vanessa Bryant has suffered significant emotional injury. Nonetheless, the County is poised to argue that Vanessa Bryant’s emotional distress was not proximately caused by the alleged tortious acts of the County.[4] One way the County may attempt to do so is by using Vanessa Bryant’s mental health records to show that it was the effects of the helicopter crash itself, and not the subsequent acts of County employees, that caused her emotional distress.

Continue Reading Vanessa Bryant v. County of Los Angeles, et al.

On April 7, 2022, Venable partner Sarah Cronin was featured on the NPR podcast The Indicator from Planet Money, where she discussed pandemic insurance for the entertainment industry and her role handling insurance recovery disputes on behalf of policyholders.

According to the podcast, a lot can happen in a music venue that could result in injury to people or damage to property for which the owner could be held liable. That’s why business owners often rely on insurance to cover themselves, but policies are complex, and so are the various kinds of coverage they offer. The pandemic forced the closure of music venues around the country. Owners of many of these businesses believed their existing insurance policies would help them weather the storm, but many of those policies weren’t designed for pandemics.

Even before COVID-19, pandemic coverage was rare, but it has since virtually disappeared. “Now with event cancellation insurance, every insurance company throws on a communicable disease exclusion so that there would not be coverage,” said Cronin.

Click here to access the podcast.

To learn more about Sarah Cronin’s insurance practice, click here.

A United Kingdom High Court recently ruled in favor of singer-songwriter Ed Sheeran (Sheeran) in a contentious copyright infringement case over his 2017 song, Shape of You (“Shape”). The Court granted Sheeran’s claim for declaratory relief, ruling that Shape did not infringe the copyrights of UK artist Sami Chokri’s (Chokri) song Oh Why.

Sheeran’s popularity extends far beyond the United Kingdom; he is an internationally known artist. Shape topped the charts worldwide and, with over 3 billion streams, is the most-streamed song on Spotify.

Continue Reading STEMMING THE TIDE: Ed Sheeran’s Copyright Victory Brings Changes to Copyright Evidentiary Burden

On April 20, 2022, Variety released its annual Legal Impact Report, featuring the top in-house attorneys, litigators, and transactional attorneys in the entertainment industry. Lee Brenner, William Briggs, David Fink, and Josh Rosenberg were recognized in the Litigation category. Chris O’Brien was recognized in the Transactional category.

Continue Reading Lee Brenner, William Briggs, David Fink, Josh Rosenberg, and Chris O’Brien Recognized in Variety’s 2022 Legal Impact Report

On March 28, 2022, William Briggs was recognized by Billboard among its 2022 Top Music Lawyers. This prestigious list spotlights the savviest legal counselors in the music industry.

Mr. Briggs is a trial lawyer and civil litigator with broad experience in the entertainment industry. He represents some of the top talent in film, television, music, and sports. He has experience in state, federal, and appellate courts, and with arbitrations, involving intellectual property disputes, complex entertainment contract disputes, partnership disputes, rights of publicity and First Amendment issues, and employment matters.

For this year’s Top Music Lawyers report, Billboard asked attorneys not only about their clients and achievements but also their top concerns for the music business. Mr. Briggs noted that many artists today “have been sued or have had claims made against them for copyright infringement arising from social media posts. Many have found pictures of themselves [online] and have simply reposted those photographs on their social media accounts. Those posts have been the subject of copyright infringement claims by paparazzi, who often claim entitlement to damages greater than a license fee they could obtain for the photograph. We have resolved a number of these claims.”

To learn more about William Briggs’ entertainment law practice, click here.

Venable LLP is pleased to announce the arrival of Joshua Rosenberg, partner, and Max Wellman, counsel, at the firm’s Litigation Practice in the Los Angeles office.

Mr. Rosenberg handles a wide range of complex litigation matters, including breach of contract, copyright and trademark infringement, employment disputes, defamation, invasion of privacy, and general business matters. He has represented numerous entertainment industry clients, including studios, production companies, talent agencies, management companies, concert promoters, record labels, recording artists, actors, writers, directors, producers, studio executives, and social media influencers. He has also represented manufacturers, real estate developers, high-net-worth individuals, and nonprofit organizations.

Mr. Wellman represents individual and corporate clients in business and entertainment matters. He works closely with his clients to build relationships and manage their needs, both in and outside of the courtroom. When handling litigation, Mr. Wellman focuses on complex commercial disputes involving intellectual property, trade secrets, commercial debts, corporate dissolutions, and general contract and business tort claims. Outside the courtroom, Mr. Wellman provides strategic and operational advice, primarily in the entertainment, media, and technology industries, including assisting intellectual property owners in building, protecting, and monetizing their assets. He predominantly represents production companies, global influencers, merchandising companies, developing artists, entrepreneurs, consumer product brands, and technology start-ups.

Continue Reading Venable Expands Service Offerings for the Entertainment and Media Industry with the Addition of Joshua Rosenberg and Max Wellman