Search results for

As with many other intersections of entertainment law and the larger world with which it interacts, boycotts have become more common, more prevalent, and more politically complex.

Given how hard it is to become known, all bands zealously guard their names, using a variety of legal means to secure their trademarks and other forms of intellectual property, so as not to dilute their performance identities without service mark protection or other means to prohibit unfair exploitation. Virtually all groups morph and change identities over time, in part as new members come and go, leading to legal disputes over who owned the naming rights and legal control of many well-known bands.

Legal challenges to politicians using music have a long tradition, even though it is not always possible to prevent someone you do not like playing your songs at their rallies or in their ads. And the various forms of push back have included songs written against candidacies, as well as other digital and social media protests.

Much of music is automated and huge amounts of data are available for a variety of purposes. The growing musicology, marketing, and data analytics of music give rise to legal considerations, out of sight but important nonetheless—in a thoroughly modern conflict of privacy and community.

Trademarking, trade dress, and the various copyright provisions give legal protection to individuals and corporations or business entities in their branding and name recognition efforts. Trademarks also play an important role in entertainment law, including a number of interesting backstories on song naming and personal appellations.

I teach both entertainment law and immigration, so the intersection between these two worlds is always of interest to me, and in the shrinking world of concert venues and border crossings, a number of important cases and issues have arisen.

Entertainers entertain, and rely upon a bevy of lawyers and business professionals to negotiate their contracts, handle their financial affairs, arrange their tours, and undertake the many details required to get our favorite troubadours on stage. However, there have been so many examples of these professionals behaving badly either by mismanagement and carelessness, or worse, by theft, self-dealing, or collusion.

What do Def Leppard, Prince, The Everly Brothers, and Taylor Smith have in common? Would it surprise you to know that these singers either re-recorded earlier song catalogs to gain control, or threatened to do so as a negotiating strategy and to exert control over their masters?

It is said that the only sure things are death and taxes. Our Class today is what can happen even to the most litigious and successful entertainers if they die intestate, that is, without a legal will and estate plan. This narrative has some really unfortunate, wasteful, and surprising stories, such as those with the intestate Prince and Aretha.

Eminem is arguably among the best and most successful rappers in rock and roll, still on an incredible career trajectory that excites and provokes, constituting an important body of work. But he is also among the most litigious entertainers, both giving it out and taking it in a wide variety of civil and criminal cases.