Entertainment & Sports Law

Weekly Summaries Distributed August 7, 2015 The Ray Charles Found. v. Robinson Constitutional Law, Copyright, Entertainment & Sports Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Mollett v. Netflix, Inc. Entertainment & Sports Law  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Receive this and other FREE daily opinion summaries from Justia

The Ray Charles Found. v. Robinson Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Docket: 13-55421 Opinion Date: July 31, 2015 Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Copyright, Entertainment & Sports Law The Foundation, the sole beneficiary of Ray Charles' estate, filed suit to challenge his heirs' purported termination of copyright grants that Charles conferred while he was alive. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction. The court concluded that the suit meets the threshold requirements of constitutional standing and ripeness, the argument that the Foundation may be a beneficial owner lends no support to its claim to standing; the Foundation is a real party in interest and has third-party standing; under the zone-of-interests test, the Foundation properly asserts its own claims where termination, if effective, would directly extinguish the Foundation’s right to receive prospective royalties from the current grant; and the Foundation is indeed a party whose injuries may have been proximately caused by violations of the statute. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment. http://j.st/4mxE View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Mollett v. Netflix, Inc. Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Docket: 12-17045 Opinion Date: July 31, 2015 Areas of Law: Entertainment & Sports Law Plaintiffs filed suit against Netflix under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), 18 U.S.C. 2710, and California Civil Code 1799.3, alleging that Netflix violated these statutes by permitting certain disclosures about their viewing history to third parties. The court concluded that plaintiffs failed to plead a plausible violation of the VPPA because, as the court held, the disclosure alleged by plaintiffs is a disclosure “to the consumer” that is permitted by the Act. The fact that a subscriber may permit third parties to access her account, thereby allowing third parties to view Netflix’s disclosures, does not alter the legal status of those disclosures. As plaintiffs' complaint pleads only a lawful disclosure under the VPPA, the district court was correct to dismiss the first count of plaintiffs’ complaint. Likewise, plaintiffs failed to plead a violation of California Civil Code 1799.3. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims. http://j.st/4mxD View Case On: Justia Google Scholar