Photo of Lee S. Brenner

Lee S. Brenner

Subscribe to Lee S. Brenner's Posts

Lee Brenner, chair of Venable’s Entertainment and Media Litigation Group, is a trial attorney and business litigator. With numerous published decisions throughout his career, Lee has deep experience in the media and entertainment industry, particularly in the areas of defamation, copyright law, idea theft, credit disputes, privacy, intellectual property, and right of publicity. A recognized leader among his peers, Lee is also co-editor of Communications Lawyer, the American Bar Association’s publication on media and First Amendment law.

Lee’s legal achievements have been recognized by numerous leading industry associations and publications. He was named a Leader in Law nominee by the Los Angeles Business Journal; an Intellectual Property Trailblazer by the National Law Journal; and a Local Litigation Star by Benchmark Litigation. Lee has also been listed in Chambers USA, in The Best Lawyers in America, as a Top Intellectual Property Lawyer in the Daily Journal, and as 2020’s Entertainment Lawyer of the Year by the Century City Bar Association.

Contact:Read more about Lee S. Brenner

In its second copyright opinion this term, the U.S. Supreme Court held 5–4 that the “government edicts doctrine” prevents states from owning copyrights in annotated codes.  See Georgia et al. v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., No. 18-1150, 590 U.S. ___ (Apr. 27, 2020).  Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority opinion, and Justice Thomas and Justice Ginsburg penned dissents.

The Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA) contains every current Georgia statute (i.e., all of Georgia’s laws), along with non-binding annotations explaining each statute (e.g., summaries of judicial opinions applying the statutes or references to relevant secondary sources).  The OCGA is created by Georgia’s Code Revision Commission, which is a part of the state’s legislative branch.  By virtue of the Commission’s work, the state of Georgia claimed a copyright in the annotations within the OCGA—i.e., the parts of the OCGA other than the statutes themselves.  Thus, when Public.Resource.Org (PRO) posted the OCGA online and distributed copies to others, Georgia sued PRO for copyright infringement.
Continue Reading SCOTUS Says States Cannot Copyright Annotated Codes

California employers beware. In Tilkey v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. D074459 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 21, 2020) (Order), California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal recently affirmed a judgment on a theory of self-published defamation. In doing so, it held that the plaintiff, a former life insurance salesman for Allstate, was justly awarded damages based on his compulsion to recite the allegedly false allegations Allstate made for terminating his employment to prospective employers.
Continue Reading California Court Affirms Self-published Defamation Judgment

On May 13, 2020, reality TV star Maurice “Mo” Fayne was arrested and charged with federal bank fraud by the U.S. Department of Justice in connection with his alleged misuse of loan proceeds obtained through the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). Fayne submitted his PPP application in April, on which he claimed his company, Flame Trucking, had 107 employees and a monthly payroll of about $1.5 million. Fayne obtained over $2 million in funding from the program under the pretense of using the funds to support his trucking company. Instead, Fayne allegedly spent the money on $85,000 in jewelry, including a Rolex Presidential watch, a Rolls-Royce Wraith, and $40,000 in child support.
Continue Reading TV Star Arrested for Misuse of Stimulus Funds

For many entertainment businesses, the recent congressional stimulus has proved to be a smash hit. The IRS, however, is a tough critic and is looking to claw back some of that money by disallowing deductions associated with such stimulus funds. On April 30, 2020, the IRS released Notice 2020-32 (the Notice), which provides some clarity regarding the tax treatment of loans received pursuant to the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). Specifically, the Notice clarifies that any expenses paid with proceeds from forgiven PPP loans are not deductible for federal tax purposes. In an earlier post, we raised the question of whether such a deduction would be allowed; now the IRS has answered, but it may not get the last word on this issue.
Continue Reading No Deductions (Yet) for Business Expenses Paid with Paycheck Protection Loans

The Circuit Court for the City of Richmond, Virginia, recently quashed plaintiff Marathon Resource Group, LLC’s subpoena to a journalist regarding a voicemail she received during the course of an investigation into Marathon’s business practices.  See Marathon Resource Group Management, LLC v. Fresh Cuts Lawncare, Inc. et al., Richmond City Circuit Court, Case No. CL 19-5973 (the Order)

In the underlying litigation, Marathon had sued Fresh Cuts Lawncare, Inc. and its owners (collectively “Fresh Cuts”) regarding, among other things, statements made by Fresh Cuts in news reports and via a Facebook page that Marathon had engaged in unfair business practices and failed to pay invoices.  Marathon claimed that the purported defamatory statements were harming its business and subpoenaed journalist Kerri O’Brien, of the Richmond affiliate of ABC News, who had obtained statements from Fresh Cuts and others in the course of her investigative report about Marathon’s business practices.  Marathon’s subpoena specifically sought to obtain a voicemail recording from O’Brien, which Marathon claimed would substantiate the publication element of its defamation claim against Fresh Cuts.  See Order at 2.
Continue Reading Court Quashes Subpoena to Investigative Journalist

A California federal court recently dismissed the majority of the counterclaims asserted by the Writers Guild of America (the Guild) against William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, Creative Artists Agency, and United Talent Agency (the Agencies) in a highly publicized suit over the Agencies’ right to receive “packaging” fees.

The case arose from the Guild’s decision last year to prohibit talent agents from earning packaging fees on film and television projects.  For decades, it was common practice for studios to pay talent agents “packaging” fees for acquiring and pooling talent (e.g., assembling writers, actors, and directors, as talent agencies have a substantial roster of such talent) for a given project.  These fees frequently consist of a combination of license fees paid by studios for a project and a percentage of the project’s gross receipts.  The Guild banned this practice last year, claiming that packaging fees create conflicts of interest between talent agents and the writers they represent.  In the Guild’s view, enabling talent agents to participate in the profits of a film or television project through packaging (1) lowers production budgets (thereby reducing writer compensation) and (2) lowers the agents’ incentive to increase their writer-clients’ compensation.  The Guild favors a commission-based system, where a talent agent takes a percentage of their clients’ earnings, which it believes better incentivizes talent agents to maximize their writer-clients’ compensation.  Following the Guild’s ban, the Agencies filed suit, alleging the packaging prohibition amounts to an illegal group boycott in violation of the Sherman Act.
Continue Reading Counterclaims on the Cutting-Room Floor: How a Central District Court Cut Down the Writers Guild’s Countersuit Against Hollywood’s Talent Agencies

The Los Angeles County Superior Court recently granted an anti-SLAPP motion brought by the defendant, MBC Broadcasting, Inc. (MBC), in a defamation suit based on news broadcasts by MBC. MBC broadcast four news stories regarding allegations of improper corporal punishment and child abuse at Young Youth Core Academia (YYCA), an after-school academic program for children owned and operated by Helen Byon in the Koreatown area of Los Angeles. Following the broadcasts, Ms. Byon and her son (Plaintiffs) sued MBC for alleged defamatory statements. MBC subsequently filed a special motion to strike Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to California Civil Procedure Code section 425.16, California’s anti-SLAPP statute.

Courts engage in a two-step process when considering an anti-SLAPP motion. On prong one, the defendant is required to make a “prima facie showing” that the plaintiff’s causes of action arise from a protected activity, which includes the defendant’s right of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue. Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing, the court proceeds to prong two. There, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate a reasonable probability of prevailing on the merits of the complaint.

The Court first held that MBC satisfied prong one because “news reporting on the serious topic of child abuse is an exercise of speech concerning an issue of public interest.” Therefore, MBC’s broadcasts constituted protected activity under section 425.16.Continue Reading Court Slaps Down Corporal Punishment Defamation Case Against Broadcasting Corporation

Eric Wedgewood (creator of a once-popular meme account on social media) sued The Daily Beast Company LLC (Daily Beast) for defamation, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). On March 11, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the Daily Beast’s motion to dismiss the complaint. See Wedgewood v. The Daily Beast Company LLC, No. 19 C 3470 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 11, 2020).

According to the Daily Beast article (see infra), Wedgewood has used many pseudonyms over the years, including the pen name Heiko Julien. On April 14, 2018, an anonymous user (not Wedgewood, but using the handle @HeikoJulien) began posting screenshots of direct messages that Wedgewood had allegedly sent to underage girls through a social media account. After eight days, the anonymous account was shut down.

Two weeks later, on April 25, 2018, the Daily Beast published an article titled “‘He Started Messaging Me When I Was 16’: Female Memers Slam ‘Content Zone’s’ Creator,” referring to Wedgewood. The article quoted two anonymous women who claimed that Wedgewood sent them inappropriate messages while they were underage, and it reported that Wedgewood had shut down his accounts after being accused of sending inappropriate messages to underage girls.Continue Reading Court Dismisses Defamation Claim Against The Daily Beast

The Coronavirus, Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the CARES Act) provided the largest economic stimulus in American history in hopes of combating the economic effects of COVID-19. $349 billion was set aside for the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), which provides loans, sometimes forgivable, to eligible small businesses. As we noted earlier, many production companies and other businesses in the entertainment industry will likely qualify to receive funds under the PPP.

But what if a company does not qualify for a PPP loan? For example, larger entities ultimately might be ineligible because of the 500-employee cap for eligible businesses. For these companies that cannot access PPP funds (or choose not to), the CARES Act provides alternative potential payroll tax relief.

The CARES Act creates a fully refundable payroll tax credit, the Employee Retention Credit (ERC), for eligible employers that do not receive a PPP loan. Companies entitled to an ERC will be able to use federal employment taxes, including withholdings, that such companies should have otherwise remitted to the IRS to fund “qualified wages” (defined below). Notably, if a company determines that its ERC will exceed qualified wages, it can request an advance of the credit from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) through IRS Form 7200.Continue Reading Not Entitled to a Paycheck Protection Program Loan? Payroll Tax Relief for the Entertainment Industry Is on the Way Under the CARES Act

On March 4, 2020, Arnold Schwarzenegger (through his company, Oak Productions, Inc.) filed a lawsuit in a California state court against ASAP Group, LLC (doing business as Promobot).  See Oak Prods., Inc. v. ASAP Grp., LLC, No. 20SMCV00347 (Mar. 4, 2020).  According to the complaint, Promobot manufactures customizable service robots that can be made to look like real people, and it has “made Schwarzenegger the unwilling ‘face’ of Promobot” by marketing a robot made in the former governor’s likeness[1] without his permission.

Specifically, Schwarzenegger’s complaint lists four causes of action, based on (1) California Civil Code section 3344; (2) common law right of publicity; (3) unjust enrichment; and (4) unfair business practices (i.e., likelihood of confusion regarding whether Schwarzenegger has endorsed Promobot).  And although the case is still in its infancy, it is worth noting that this is not the first time a celebrity has brought right of publicity claims against the use of a robot that resembles her or him.Continue Reading Man vs. Machine: Schwarzenegger Files Right of Publicity Suit Against Robot Builder