What New Artists and Musicians Can Do to Keep From Being Taken Advantage of - See a California Music & Entertainment Lawyer

October 31st, 2008

Why Sarah Palin is the Best Darn Comedy on TV Today - a Newport Beach Entertainment Attorney’s View
By: R. Sebastian Gibson | 22/10/2008 | National, State, Local
Newport Beach, Orange County, San Diego and Palm Springs Entertainment Lawyer Sebastian Gibson looks at the Sarah Palin factor in this election and thanks her for bringing comedy back to politics. Sebastian Gibson has nearly thirty years of experience in representing clients in Beverly Hills, Corona del Mar, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, Newport Coast and Crystal Cove in Orange County to La Jolla, and Del Mar in San Diego, Palm Desert, Indian Wells and Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert and London.

Read more

Posted in Copyright Definition | No Comments »

The Effects of Divorce on Children

October 30th, 2008

When going through a divorce, parents make a lot of mistakes that can cause long-term damage to their children. Mainly when people who have children decide they can’t work things out and their marriage will not last, divorce is the only answer.

Ending a marriage is always difficult, even when the divorcing couple has no children. Including minor children in the proceedings only adds to the pressure. It’s important that mothers and fathers focus on minimizing the negative effects of the divorce on their children.

Children will experience a wide range of emotions when their family is in the midst of a divorce. For children, anger will be the most predominate reaction, as it will be directed towards the parents, themselves, and the unfortunate predicament they have no control over. The younger children will usually think the divorce is their fault. Parents, when dealing with their own chaotic emotions, must remember to assure children that divorce is not their fault.

Children can experience the same grief and loss associated with losing a loved one in death. They might be concerned about where they are going to live, losing friends and family and life as they know it. The child usually loses the ability to concentrate, losing interest in school work and dropping grades.

Boys and girls will go through divorce much differently. Boys will act out when going through divorce; they may become angry, aggressive, hyper, and cause a lot of disruptions. They can be more likely to abuse substances such as alcohol and drugs. Girls may become very quiet and reflective, showing signs of depression and anxiety caused by keeping their feelings bottled up inside. Divorce may cause girls to become sexually active at a young age.

Parents need to put their children first and be supportive of them like they were when the family was together. The non-custodial parent should have a fair share of visitation with the child unless there is an indication of abuse or neglect which could result in harm to the child. This is extremely important especially during the early days of the separation. Studies have proven that a parent’s involvement drops when access has been removed in the beginning of a separation.

Parents should be careful that children do not get caught in the middle of their divorce. The way parents deal with the impact of the divorce on the children will have a direct effect on how they will handle their own adult relationships.

Some studies have proven that some children may feel relief by the divorce if there was a lot of fighting. A family whose parents did not quarrel a lot will be much more upset by a divorce, as it comes as a surprise. Counseling is most effective on this type of devastating divorce and may help the married couple work out an alternative to divorce.

To reduce the negative effect your divorce will have on your children, consider using a mediator to help keep the conflict and discord to a minimum. Pick lawyers who seem to fit with your best interests; the ones experienced in family law will help complete the divorce as easily and fairly as possible.

Read more

Posted in Copyright Definition | No Comments »

Lawyers - Managing Your Winning Team

October 29th, 2008

Watching the Olympics and the incredible feats of the athletes it was interesting to see those who were able to summon up world-class performances, personal bests and those that struggled.

This week I completed a Change Management workshop for a team, which is about to undertake significant operational change. What soon became evident was that the team was already suffering as a result of a wobble.
Most lawyers have some degree of managerial responsibility so what to do when your team starts to wobble?

1.    Be aware that the performance of the team is likely to be adversely affected by change. Tackle unrest positively at an early stage.

2.    Communicate with your team on all levels and in a variety of ways. Don’t presume that just because you understand the change and have told people a number of times before they will have grasped your message.

3.    Be prepared to take the time to address peoples’ concerns however difficult that may be for you personally - don’t dodge the difficult questions.

4.    Don’t shoot the messenger or react defensively if the message coming back loud and clear is not what you want to hear.

5.    Consult only when any feedback will make a difference to your decisions - be up front with people and say that you will consult when they can make a difference. Nothing destroys your credibility more than gaining the reputation for “phony” consultation. You will find that next time you want genuine consultation, staff will not trust you and their likely reaction will be to say, “do what you want you are going to anyway!”

6.    Explore what is important to individuals and to the team as a whole. Look to incorporate those values in some form into the change.

7.    Set a clear common vision of where you want to be – what is the equivalent of winning that gold medal?

Read more

Posted in Copyright Definition | No Comments »

What Makes a Character Brand Licensable?

October 28th, 2008

It is very easy to think that character design alone determines the success and failure of a character brand and how many licensing and merchandising deals it can garner. In actuality, the very first criteria for merchandising opportunities is mass exposure before anything else. Licensing agents and manufacturing companies are often opposed to taking on properties that look nice but do not have mass exposure.

Read more

Posted in Copyright Definition | No Comments »

What New Artists and Musicians Can Do to Keep From Being Taken Advantage of - See a California Music & Entertainment Lawyer

October 27th, 2008

Why Sarah Palin is the Best Darn Comedy on TV Today - a Newport Beach Entertainment Attorney’s View
By: R. Sebastian Gibson | 22/10/2008 | National, State, Local
Newport Beach, Orange County, San Diego and Palm Springs Entertainment Lawyer Sebastian Gibson looks at the Sarah Palin factor in this election and thanks her for bringing comedy back to politics. Sebastian Gibson has nearly thirty years of experience in representing clients in Beverly Hills, Corona del Mar, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, Newport Coast and Crystal Cove in Orange County to La Jolla, and Del Mar in San Diego, Palm Desert, Indian Wells and Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert and London.

Read more

Posted in Copyright Definition | No Comments »

What New Artists and Musicians Can Do to Keep From Being Taken Advantage of - See a California Music & Entertainment Lawyer

October 26th, 2008

Why Sarah Palin is the Best Darn Comedy on TV Today - a Newport Beach Entertainment Attorney’s View
By: R. Sebastian Gibson | 22/10/2008 | National, State, Local
Newport Beach, Orange County, San Diego and Palm Springs Entertainment Lawyer Sebastian Gibson looks at the Sarah Palin factor in this election and thanks her for bringing comedy back to politics. Sebastian Gibson has nearly thirty years of experience in representing clients in Beverly Hills, Corona del Mar, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, Newport Coast and Crystal Cove in Orange County to La Jolla, and Del Mar in San Diego, Palm Desert, Indian Wells and Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert and London.

Read more

Posted in Copyright Definition | No Comments »

What New Artists and Musicians Can Do to Keep From Being Taken Advantage of - See a California Music & Entertainment Lawyer

October 25th, 2008

Why Sarah Palin is the Best Darn Comedy on TV Today - a Newport Beach Entertainment Attorney’s View
By: R. Sebastian Gibson | 22/10/2008 | National, State, Local
Newport Beach, Orange County, San Diego and Palm Springs Entertainment Lawyer Sebastian Gibson looks at the Sarah Palin factor in this election and thanks her for bringing comedy back to politics. Sebastian Gibson has nearly thirty years of experience in representing clients in Beverly Hills, Corona del Mar, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, Newport Coast and Crystal Cove in Orange County to La Jolla, and Del Mar in San Diego, Palm Desert, Indian Wells and Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert and London.

Read more

Posted in Copyright Definition | No Comments »

A San Diego and Palm Springs California Literary and Publishing Attorney Looks at the Harry Potter Case Ruling and Copyright Infringement Law

October 24th, 2008

If you are a writer, a publisher, a California copyright attorney, a literary agent or lawyer anywhere from Corona del Mar, Rancho Mirage, San Diego, California Orange County, CA, Los Angeles, Malibu, La Jolla, Del Mar, Encinitas, Carlsbad, Oceanside, San Marcos, Vista and Escondido or the cities of Huntington Beach, Yorba Linda, San Clemente, Buena Park, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Costa Mesa, Irvine, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, and Laguna Hills, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Buena Park, Temecula, Indian Wells, La Quinta, Palm Springs, or Palm Desert, you will be interested in a recent case involving the Harry Potter author, J.K. Rowling. This is an important decision for writers, copyright attorneys, and literary lawyers everywhere. 

 

In September 2008, a New York judge handed down a decision in favor of author J. K. Rowling and Warner Bros. who own the film rights in the Harry Potter books, in a literary and copyright law case involving a fan website that was planning on publishing a reference book on the Harry Potter saga.

 

What the ruling determined was that the reference book simply copied too much of the Rowling books to be considered fair use. The fact that what was copied was creative material as opposed to factual material, also hurt the website’s case as creative material enjoys a higher level of protection.

 

What the ruling does is to reiterate the rule that for a derivative book to enjoy the fair use protection under the law, it must be very transformative. It must create something else. Instead, the judge found that the reference book copied Rowling’s distinctive style and words in excess of what would otherwise be legitimate to create a reference guide.

 

The ruling does nothing to dilute the right of parody or literary criticism to be protected by the fair use doctrine. Rather, the ruling may elevate the importance of the “market impact” factor in the four part standard used by judges in evaluating fair use.

 

Those four factors are first, the purpose and character of the use (is the new work transformative into something different - in this case use of material from two companion reference books of Rowling made the website reference book less transformative). While another part of this factor is whether the use is commercial or noncommercial, most uses are for profit. Another part of this factor is whether the infringer acted in good faith or not.

 

The second factor is the amount and substantiality of the use, i.e. whether the amount of the use by the infringer is reasonable for the transformative purpose. Here, apparently, it was not.

 

The third factor is the nature of the copyrighted work, creative works being given much greater protection than factual works.

 

The fourth factor is the harm to the market of the original work by the infringing work. Here the court found that while the website reference book might not harm the market of the Harry Potter novels, it might very well harm the market of Rowling’s companion books.

 

Consequently, the New York judge issued a permanent injunction against publication of the website reference guide. The decision may be appealed and it is possible if the website reference book were edited, it might pass muster. But in this copyright lawyer’s opinion, the success of an appeal or an edited book to pass muster as being fair use is unlikely under these circumstances and as a result of this ruling infringers in California and the U.S. will now have an even harder time trying to make a profit off of another writer’s work.

 

If you have a publishing, literary, or copyright infringement law issue in San Diego, Newport Beach, Irvine, Orange County, La Jolla, in the Inland Empire, Los Angeles, Palm Springs or anywhere in Southern California, we have the knowledge and resources to be your Malibu Copyright Lawyer and your Palm Springs and San Diego Publishing Attorney. Be sure to hire a California law firm with literary and copyright infringement law experience who can serve areas such as Los Angeles, Palm Springs, Palm Desert, Anaheim, Irvine, Beverly Hills, Malibu, Newport Beach, Carlsbad, Corona del Mar, Laguna Beach, Huntington Beach, Santa Ana, Rancho Cucamonga, Ontario, Fullerton, Del Mar, San Diego, Orange County, San Luis Obispo, Buena Park, La Jolla, Oxnard, Ventura, La Quinta, and Santa Barbara so you are properly represented and get the compensation you deserve.

 

If you have a publishing or copyright law issue of any kind, call the Law Offices of R. Sebastian Gibson, or visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com  and learn how we can assist you.

Read more

Posted in Copyright Definition | No Comments »

Broadcasting Dispute Become a Regular One in India

October 23rd, 2008
As the Supreme Court of India noted in its landmark judgment pertaining to the broadcast media, ‘the airwaves’ are ‘public property’. Their use has to be controlled and regulated by a public authority in the interests of the public and to prevent the invasion of their rights. Obviously the only legitimate role for the state in this regard is that of trustees for the public. It is surprising to see a government organization enforcing its rights so aggressively. India’s national broadcaster ‘Doordarshan’ having taken a strong objection to private news channels using the unauthorized recording of the Beijing Olympics 2008. Prasar Bharti has obtained an order from the Delhi High Court that restrains all private news channels from sharing Doordarshan’s footage of the Beijing Olympics, unless they enter into a commercial agreement with Prasar Bharati and the Indian Olympics Association. Then they issued a letter to all private broadcasting organizations states that their sole rights over the broadcasting of the Beijing Olympics, and anyone interested of showing it on their channel needs to make an agreement with us.
Prasar Bharati filed a complaint against private news channels before the Delhi High Court on August 22, 2008 for “encroaching” on exclusive broadcast rights to the Beijing Olympics 2008 . They paid around $3 million for getting the exclusive broadcasting right to the Olympics Association. The only way of to recover this investment is the sale of advertising spots, and the sale of footage to other broadcasters. They argue footage beamed by other news channels damages these viable interests. So the national broadcaster is set to claim damages of around Rs 5 crore from over a dozen news channels for illegal usage of footage. Several news channels have been using the live telecast especially in the last few days of Olympics; it includes the games involved by Indian participants Abhinav Bindra (shooting), Sushil Kumar (wrestling), Vijender Kumar (boxing), Saina Nehwal (badminton) and Anju Bobby George (athletics).
The private news channels for their part can argue the “fair dealing” exception under section 52 of Indian Copyright Act which allows for the use of copyrighted material for the purpose of reporting current events. It is most likely that the news channels will get away with breaching the guidelines, while broadcasting more than 10 seconds of the medal winning matches, by citing public interest; however, there will still be hell to pay for broadcasting the spectacular opening ceremony which was one of the most viewed events in the world. The same stands true if any news channel was broadcasting entire events.
They also argue in the defense of using footage hinged primarily on two points. The first point put across by the private channels was that since the Olympic Games take place once in four years, it was in ‘public interest’ to show it to the larger public in India, especially when Indian sports persons have won medals for the country in their respective sports items. The second point was that the footage of the Olympics beamed by the private news channels clearly showed “Dordarshan’s logo”, which not only ensured that the footage did not pass off as their own, but actually helped moved eyeballs to DD sports.
On March 15, 2004, the Supreme Court produce a provisional order on a special leave petition (SLP) filed by the agent of exclusive telecast rights holder for the India-Pakistan cricket series, Taj Sports India Pvt Ltd . After hearing of arguments, the Apex Court has directed Ten Sports which is the management company of Taj Television Ltd, to share the signal with DD citing ‘public interest’ since India was a cricket crazy nation and more than half the cricket crazy people did not have access to Ten Sports. It was clarified in the order that Ten’s signal should be relayed by DD as is complete with logo and all the advertising that the Dubai-based sports broadcaster Taj television ltd has secured. The apex court also ordered Prasar Bharati to deposit Rs 100 million with it as surety towards compensation payable, if any, to Ten Sports in regard to the dispute .

On February 17, 2006 the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) on awarded global media rights to Nimbus Communications for all international and domestic crickets owned or controlled by BCCI to be played in India over the next four years. The broadcasting rights from March 1, 2006, to March 31, 2010. Nimbus Communications paid $612 million to BCCI for getting this exclusive right. Public broadcaster Prasar Bharati did not participate in the bidding process. This leads to next dispute between Nimbus and DD in January 2007 regarding the broadcasting right over the second One Day International between India and West Indies. Nimbus filed a petition before the Delhi High Court for preventing DD from using footage of our exclusive right. But in its provisional order, the court directed Nimbus to provide feed to DD, which will telecast it on DD International and its DTH service. The cricket action on DD International will, however, be at a delay of seven minutes. Considering the popularity of sports events in India especially cricket, DD and government always manages to force private broadcasters into sharing their signal with national broadcaster.
In an interview given to CNN-IBN, the Union Information and Broadcasting Minister Priyaranjan Dasmunsi said “BCCI had no right to sell the terrestrial and radio broadcasting rights to Nimbus because they are sacrosanct and belong to Prasar Bharati and AIR respectively,” Dasmunsi went as far as alleging that BCCI violated government guidelines when it invited tenders to sell the cricket broadcasting rights. BCCI Secretary Niranjan Shah responds that they would abide by the rules of the country but they too need to earn money. “We will look at it. We have to abide by the rules and regulations of the country but we have to also earn money. If we don’t sell the rights how will we get the money?
For escaping from the continuing conflict over the distribution/sharing of broadcasting signal, Doordarshan used its supremacy with the ministry for Information and Broadcasting (I&B), which made it mandatory for private television channels to share their live feed of the all one day international (ODI) cricket matches and the Twenty20 ties and some other test matches, citing public interest abroad . This “Broadcasting Signals Ordinance 2007” mandates that live television and radio feed, minus advertisements, be shared with Doordarshan and All India Radio for events judged as being of national importance by the Union Government. On the contrary, private television channels had paid substantial amounts of cash to secure telecast rights to all of those matches .

Read more

Posted in Copyright Definition | No Comments »

Why New Artists and Musicians Need Legal Advice the Most - To Keep From Being Taken Advantage Of

October 22nd, 2008

Music contracts are notoriously long, complicated and almost undecipherable to all but a music lawyer. Thirty page contracts are nothing unusual in this business. And there are so many contracts you will be faced with as a musician. Sign the wrong contract and you can be married to a bad agent, promoter, manager, distribution deal, publishing deal or record company and have your career over before it ever began.

Read more

Posted in Copyright Definition | No Comments »

« Previous Entries