Past Events

2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999 | 1998 | 1997


September 11, 2017


Speaker: Laura Brill, Kendall Brill & Kelly LLP  

Many articles have been written about the floodgates that would open in 2013 and beyond with regard to Section 203 Copyright Termination. Commentators predicted that songwriters, recording artists, and producers from the late 1970’s and 1980’s would send numerous notices of termination and there would be litigation over work-for-hire and other issues. Laura Brill, partner at Kendall Brill & Kelly LLP (and formerly at Irell & Manella) will catch us up on some of the most interesting developments and aspects of Section 203 and 304 Copyright Termination. Come with your questions and opinions for a lively exchange of information and ideas.


With a focus on complex civil litigation and appeals relating to media, entertainment, commercial, and regulatory disputes, founding partner Laura W. Brill has secured precedent-setting victories in numerous appearances before state and federal courts. She is a certified appellate specialist who handles a broad array of high-profile business disputes involving contracts, torts, intellectual property, governance issues; First Amendment and other constitutional issues; fine art restitution; government contracting, and challenges to municipal regulation.


Ms Brill is a thought leader who publishes and speaks widely on legal issues, including the First Amendment, entertainment and copyright law, appellate practice, and the legal profession. She maintains an active pro bono docket, with a focus on equal rights, freedom of expression, and challenges to the use of the initiative process.


Ms. Brill received an A.B. from Brown University and graduated first in her class at Columbia University School of Law. Recognized as among the top appellate and intellectual property litigators in California, Ms. Brill served as a law clerk to the Honorable Wilfred Feinberg on the Second Circuit and to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, with whom she has co-authored several articles. Laura also has been a law school guest lecturer at Yale, Georgetown, UCLA, and USC.

June 12, 2017


Speaker: Alex Kozinski

It was reported by state media in China that on January 14, 2017, Zhou Qiang, president of the Supreme People’s Court, delivered a speech calling on his colleagues to resist Western ideologies that threaten the leadership of the Communist Party, including constitutional democracy, separation of powers, and judicial independence. He called judicial independence a Western “trap,” and said Chinese courts must “dare to pull out the sword” to combat the erroneous Western notion and other false ideas that could undermine China’s judiciary system.


Alexander Hamilton, without breaking into rap cadence, wrote in The Federalist No. 78 in 1788:


“The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing. . . . . Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.”


Judge Alex Kozinski will engage in a conversation with Society President Gary Bostwick on judicial independence today in the federal court system, how it is maintained by law, how tradition affects its exercise in everyday operation, the efforts federal judges individually must exert to maintain their independence and what challenges judicial independence faces in coming years. To the extent appropriate, the conversation may cover Judge Kozinski joining the dissent in Washington v. Trump, on whether the Court should reconsider the panel’s decision en banc.


The conversation will also delve into Judge Kozinski’s views on topics of interest to the Society’s members in other areas such as net neutrality, applying state anti-SLAPP laws in federal court, how a young man’s thinking was shaped by life under Soviet domination and the elusive craft of writing impactfully and to be understood.


Judge Kozinski was appointed United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit on November 7, 1985, and served as Chief Judge from 2007 to 2014. He graduated from UCLA, receiving an A.B. degree in 1972, and from UCLA Law School, receiving a J.D. degree in 1975.


Prior to his appointment to the appellate bench, Judge Kozinski served as Chief Judge of the United States Claims Court, 1982-85; Special Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, 1981-82; Assistant Counsel, Office of Counsel to the President, 1981; Deputy Legal Counsel, Office of President-Elect Reagan, 1980-81; Attorney, Covington & Burling, 1979-81; Attorney, Forry Golbert Singer & Gelles, 1977-79; Law Clerk to Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, 1976-77; and Law Clerk to Circuit Judge Anthony M. Kennedy, 1975-76.


Judge Kozinski is married to Marcy Jane Tiffany and has three children: Yale, Wyatt and Clayton, and three grandchildren: Quinn, Owen and Anna.

May 08, 2017

The Republication Quandary: Lessons Learned from the Rolling Stone Trial

Speaker: Elizabeth McNamara, partner Davis Wright Tremaine LLP and lead counsel in Eramo v Rolling Stone  

If a client publishes something that draws a demand for correction or retraction, the careful attorney usually considers it and, if appropriate, approves publication of a correction. The Rolling Stone trial threw a wrench into the works. Perhaps the most revolutionary takeaway from the trial is that the republication doctrine, previously a sleepy concept invoked in largely predictable circumstances to restart the statute of limitations, is now used as a backdoor means to establish actual malice and liability because of a retraction. The Rolling Stone trial is not alone. Publishers now take care when they attempt to do the right thing and alert readers to errors in articles by corrections or editorial notes. Producers take care when they employ standard roll-out windows whereby a film or show opens on different platforms over time. These standard business practices are ripe for a trap tripped by plaintiffs who argue the work was “republished.” Liz will explore this development, a development little-known to even experienced attorneys, with other insights from weeks in the land of Jefferson – Charlottesville, VA.


Elizabeth McNamara is a partner in the New York office of Davis Wright Tremaine, nationally recognized in media defense. She has more than 30 years litigation and counseling experience in media and intellectual property law, representing publishers (books, magazines, newspapers, and websites), television and radio broadcasters, cable companies, and motion picture producers and distributors. Her litigation practice includes all areas of sophisticated IP, media and entertainment litigation at the trial and appellate level of federal and state courts, in such areas as libel, privacy, copyright, trademark, prior restraint, and reporter's shield laws. She was Rolling Stone’s counsel in Elias v. Rolling Stone LLC, et al., obtaining dismissal of the libel suit brought by three fraternity brothers against Rolling Stone and author Sabrina Rubin Erdely arising out of article "A Rape on Campus" and Eramo v. Rolling Stone LLC, et al. against Rolling Stone and Erdely in a libel suit by University of Virginia Dean Nicole Eramo resulting in verdicts against both defendants. The dispute has since settled.

April 17, 2017


Speaker: Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law and publisher of “The Volokh Conspiracy”  

Today, though, the relatively poor and the anonymous (literally and figuratively) can speak to the world, and can often find an audience, in Google search results even if not in daily visitors to a site. And while this democratization has many virtues, it has the vices of those virtues. Anyone can say anything about anyone—and they do. It should therefore be no surprise that the legal system has been changing in response to these changes; but many of the changes are happening under the radar of the academy and of the Supreme Court—indeed, mostly outside any appellate court.

March 13, 2017

Boldly Going Where No Copyright Lawsuit Has Gone Before: Fan Films & the Battle for Axanar

Speaker: Speaker: Erin R. Ranahan, Partner, Winston & Strawn  

Was the Axanar copyright infringement case brought by Paramount and CBS the final frontier of lawsuits against fan films – or just the beginning? With advances in technology enabling fan filmmakers to create low-budget films that look more and more like big-budget features, studios are left to decide whether to threaten and/or pursue litigation against some of their biggest fans, or allow fan films to live long and prosper.


In Axanar, Plaintiffs alleged that a 21-minute “mockumentary” fan film, Prelude to Axanar, and various draft screenplays for a yet-to-be produced longer fan film based on Prelude, constituted copyright infringement of fifty separate Star Trek works. After a year of hotly contested litigation, the Axanar case recently settled on the eve of trial. This was not before a wild ride in the media that featured surprising public statements by a Star Trek producer and director, the issuance of Star Trek fan film guidelines in the middle of the lawsuit, media scrutiny, and strong fan reaction.


Winston & Strawn partner Erin Ranahan will discuss her experience as lead defense counsel in the case, including what factors led Plaintiffs to target Defendants (despite the existence of hundreds of other Star Trek fan films), various challenges in the case, and rulings along the way, including those involving substantial similarity, liability and fair use. She will also address the potential impact this litigation will have on future cases.


Erin Ranahan is a Litigation Partner of Winston & Strawn, where she focuses her practice on copyright, new media, entertainment, trademark, right of publicity, and false advertising litigation. She has handled several high-profile intellectual property matters, including Axanar, and was on the team that won an important legal victory on behalf of Veoh in the landmark battle in UMG Recordings v. Veoh. Erin also successfully defended Myxer, a ringtone company and leader in ad-supported mobile entertainment, in a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by several of the world’s largest record companies, and represented several EMI entities that won summary judgment in the Nafal a copyright case, the original copyright infringement lawsuit against Jay-Z about the song “Big Pimpin.” She has and continues to represent Wolfgang’s Vault in various copyright and other intellectual property disputes. In 2016, Erin was recognized as a Law360 Rising Star, named to Benchmark Litigation’s “Under 40 Hot List,” and selected as one of the top “40 Under 40” attorneys by the Daily Journal. She was also recognized in The Legal 500 2016 for her work in copyright. She was named one of “Hollywood’s New Leaders” in Law in the October 2014 issue of Variety Magazine.

February 13, 2017

(Not) Tired of Being Alone: The State of the Law on Pre-1972 Sound Recordings


Speaker: Bobby Schwartz and Victor Jih  

Starting in 2013, the owners of pre-1972 sound recordings by the Rolling Stones, The Beatles, and others were convincing judges of their right to control the broadcast of these works and collecting nine-figure settlements from SiriusXM and Pandora. In October 2016, SiriusXM paid over $100 million to settle a California class action brought by former members of The Turtles.


The recording owners’ strategy has hit a brick wall. CBS Radio was sued in New York and California by owners of iconic R&B recordings from the 1960s, such as Al Green’s Tired of Being Alone. Instead of settling the putative class actions, CBS moved immediately for summary judgment on the grounds that it was broadcasting post-1972, remastered and acoustically improved versions of the recordings that were registered for federal copyright and therefore not subject to state law. Judge Percy Anderson in the Central District of California agreed, and spared CBS from any liability or need to settle.


Irell & Manella partners Bobby Schwartz and Victor Jih will discuss their work for CBS. They will explain how a technical expert identified meaningful differences in plaintiffs’ remastered sound recordings, and how an old sound recording makes it from a vault in New Jersey to be streamed on a radio station’s website. They will also cover the state of the law around the country, including the important decision in December from the New York Court of Appeals in the Flo & Eddie v. SiriusXM case in which the court held that New York common law does not recognize a right of public performance for sound recordings.


Bobby Schwartz | Irell & Manella LLP
Bobby Schwartz is a Litigation Partner of Irell & Manella and a nationally recognized leader in large-stakes disputes, particularly in the media and entertainment industry. Bobby has successfully represented some of the country’s most influential companies in matters of far-reaching significance in a range of subject areas. Most recently, he delivered a huge victory to CBS in a California class action lawsuit over the broadcaster’s airing of music recorded before 1972. Bobby is currently defending video game publisher Take-Two Interactive, which is facing a class action alleging violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act over its series of NBA 2K basketball video games. In 2016, he was named a “Power Lawyer” by The Hollywood Reporter, a “Leading IP Litigator” by the Daily Journal and ranked among the leading entertainment litigators by Chambers USA. In addition to his practice, Bobby serves on the Board of Directors of Bet Tzedek Legal Services.


Victor Jih | Irell & Manella LLP
Victor Jih is a Litigation Partner of Irell & Manella. He has significant experience in a broad selection of complex litigation matters, at both the trial and appellate levels. Victor’s areas of practice include entertainment, copyright and trademark, First Amendment, unfair competition, consumer privacy, class action defense, contract and other commercial disputes in forums across the nation. His major clients in recent years include computer software companies and hardware manufacturers, major motion picture studios, and other large companies in the Internet, entertainment and retail industries. Victor’s recent victories include defeating a putative class action filed against Hulu alleging violations of the Video Privacy Act, and defeating a consumer class action filed against Sega of America involving the Aliens: Colonial Marines video game. A long time avid debater, Victor also holds the position of debate coach at Brentwood School in Los Angeles. You may also recognize him as a contestant and winner of the 14th season of The Amazing Race, which he completed with his sister.

January 09, 2017

How President-elect Donald Trump’s Bullying Ways Might Impact Journalism and the Media Industry

Susan Seager

Speaker: Susan Seager  

Susan Seager, LACS Trustee, will discuss her study of Trump’s past as a libel bully and his potential impact on the First Amendment, media ownership, net neutrality and privacy on the Internet.


Media defense lawyers can learn much from Trump’s litigation strategies and weaknesses by examining Trump’s 30-year history of suits alleging libel and other speech-related claims. Seager recently authored a study of Trump’s speech-related lawsuits in her ABA article, “Donald K. Trump Is a Libel Bully But Also a Libel Loser.” The article became the subject of national news coverage in the New York Times and Washington Post and a skit on Comedy Central’s The Daily Show after the ABA tried to kill and censor Seager’s article by removing the words “bully” and “loser." The ABA later contended its edits were merely friendly suggestions and published Seager's article uncensored in the ABA’s Communications Lawyer Winter 2016 newsletter.


She also will comment upon Trump’s list of nominees for the Supreme Court and whether they have ruled on any First Amendment speech/press issues; the likelihood of Trump threatening or filing libel lawsuits as president; and whether Trump will use an appointment to the FCC to kill off the current consumer-friendly net neutrality rule, weaken media ownership rules and new privacy rules for internet service providers.


Susan E. Seager recently opened her own Los Angeles area solo practice as a media defense lawyer. She also writes as a part-time columnist for Law Newz and teaches media law as an adjunct professor of media law at the University of Southern California Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism. Before law school, she worked as a journalist for the Los Angeles Herald Examiner, LA Daily Journal, United Press International, and San Luis Obispo Telegram Tribune, and also worked as a free-lance photographer covering the LA band scene in the early 1980’s, briefly managing the LA band BPeople. She has extensive experience as a media defense litigator, working most recently as a vice president of litigation at Fox Entertainment Group in Century City, where she handled defamation, privacy, right of publicity, and copyright claims and litigation. Before her in-house assignment, she was at Davis Wright Tremaine in Los Angeles. Susan has published op-eds in the LA Times and LA Daily Journal and several articles for the ABA’s Communications Lawyer. Susan holds a law degree from Yale Law School.


December 12, 2016

A Review of Recent and Pending Supreme Court Cases Focusing on Copyright and Intellectual Property

Erwin Chemerinsky

Speaker: Erwin Chemerinsky  

Erwin Chemerinsky is the founding Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law, and Raymond Pryke Professor of First Amendment Law, at University of California, Irvine School of Law, with a joint appointment in Political Science.


Prior to assuming this position in 2008, he was the Alston and Bird Professor of Law and Political Science at Duke University from 2004-2008, and before that was a professor at the University of Southern California Law School from 1983-2004, including as the Sydney M. Irmas Professor of Public Interest Law, Legal Ethics, and Political Science. He also has taught at DePaul College of Law and UCLA Law School.


He is the author of ten books, including The Case Against the Supreme Court, published by Viking in 2014, and two books to be published by Yale University Press in 2017, Closing the Courthouse Doors: How the Supreme Court Made Your Rights Unenforceable and Renewing Free Speech on College Campuses (with Howard Gillman). He also is the author of more than 200 law review articles. He writes a weekly column for the Orange County Register, monthly columns for the ABA Journal and the Daily Journal, and frequent op-eds in newspapers across the country. In January 2014, National Jurist magazine named Dean Chemerinsky as the most influential person in legal education in the United States.


Chemerinsky holds a law degree from Harvard Law School and a bachelor’s degree from Northwestern University.

November 07, 2016

The gulf between the United States and European IP system.
Another event highlighting why understanding it matters to American copyright attorneys.

Daniel McClean

Speaker: Daniel McClean  

In the landmark case of Patrick Cariou v Richard Prince and Gagosian Gallery (2013), the US Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) expanded the doctrine of “fair use” holding that copyright law does not require that an artist’s secondary use of visual material comment on the original artist, work or popular culture.


The court’s decision in Cariou v Prince et al, underscores significant territorial differences between how copyright exemptions for visual artists are applied in the United States and in Europe. Lacking the flexible provisions of fair use, it seems almost inconceivable that a European court would have reached the same conclusion as the US court did here.


The decision injects a lack of certainty as to how copyright law in the United States may be applied to artworks individually elsewhere. The case also reveals an elitist privileging of artworks canonised by the “high” art system over “lower” unacknowledged works (here, works of photography), an elitism which runs counter to the self-proclaimed, value “neutral” structure of copyright law.


This presentation will discuss the implications of Cariou v Prince for both copyright law and freedom of artistic expression, highlighting the current gulf between the legal systems of the United States and Europe in dealing with copyright defenses. It will go further, using this gulf as a springboard to illustrate philosophical and cultural justifications underpinning copyright law in the different legal systems, something any intellectual property lawyer in the United States must understand to be fluent in cross-ocean transactions.


Daniel McClean is a consultant at the London based law firm, Howard Kennedy LLP, where he specialises in art and cultural property law. He advises leading international art world clients (including artists, advisors, collectors, estates, galleries, museums and national governments) on transactions and agreements involving artworks and on dispute resolution, including relating to ownership, authentication, export and sale. Daniel also regularly advises clients (particularly artists and photographers) on the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights and defending infringement claims.


In 2002, he commissioned and edited an anthology of inter-disciplinary essays, “Dear Images: Art, Copyright and Culture” (Ridinghouse/ICA London), on the relationship between art and copyright law.

October 10, 2016

The Stairway to Heaven Trial: How Did Led Zeppelin Win by Convincing a Jury Stairway Was Not Substantially Similar?

Peter Anderson

Speaker: Peter Anderson  

Led Zeppelin recently won a jury trial against claims the iconic guitar riff in “Stairway to Heaven” was copied from Spirit’s 1968 instrumental “Taurus.” Peter Anderson represented the surviving members of Led Zeppelin and Warner/Chappell and others in Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, tried to a jury in June 2016. He will address what recordings were provided to the jury and why, what was used to address the claimed musical similarity and difficulties faced in defending a 45-year-old copyright claim. Hopefully, he will help the members feel the drama in the courtroom when the jury asked to listen once more to both songs and then reached a verdict within minutes.


The trial featured Led Zeppelin members Jimmy Page and Robert Plant testifying as well as Michael Skidmore, the Trustee of the Randy Craig Wolfe Trust, named after Spirit songwriter Randy Wolfe. Witnesses included Spirit band members, musicologists and those offering testimony on whether Led Zeppelin might have heard “Taurus” before composing the song.


Page and Plant denied having access to “Taurus” despite performing at some of the same concerts that Spirit performed at. Profits from the song’s continued exploitation were at stake.


The jury decided in favor of Led Zeppelin and various subsidiaries of Warner Music. It decided that the plaintiff owned the copyright to “Taurus”, that Led Zeppelin members had access, which the court instructed meant they had a reasonable chance to have heard “Taurus”, but there was no substantial similarity in the extrinsic elements of “Taurus” and “Stairway.”


Mr. Anderson has extensive experience in litigating copyright infringement cases over the last 36 years, including representing the prevailing parties in Stewart v. Abend and Seltzer v. Green Day. He has been named a “Super Lawyer” for the last ten years, and is a graduate of UCLA and UCLA Law School.

September 19, 2016


Emilie Kennedy, Pillar Law Group  


A single plaintiff has been responsible in the past five years for nearly half the copyright lawsuits filed in the United States.


Is it a major movie studio that aggressively enforces its rights? Maybe a record company going after teenage downloaders? A software company angry others are installing copies without paying?


No, the nation’s most prolific copyright plaintiff is a small producer of adult films called Malibu Media, LLC.


It has filed over 5,000 lawsuits since 2012 against individuals for “sharing” its works over the BitTorrent network without permission. The lawsuits have largely succeeded, resulting in favorable settlements or judgments for Malibu, bringing a tidy profit from its litigation campaign. But its aggressiveness also has been highly controversial, causing proponents claiming to defend internet freedom to deride Malibu as a “copyright troll” bent on extorting settlements from parties who would rather pay up than expose themselves to public scorn from allegations they are sharing pornography over the internet.


Emilie Kennedy, an associate at Pillar Law Group APLC in Beverly Hills, and Malibu Media’s long-time outside counsel, will explain how Malibu’s anti-piracy campaign functions, how courts have dealt with this flood of lawsuits, what new copyright law has been made in the process, and will take on Malibu’s critics. Leading the discussion with Ms. Kennedy will be Ben Sheffner, Vice President, Legal Affairs at the Motion Picture Association of America.


Emilie Kennedy is an attorney with Pillar Law Group, APLC and has focused her legal career on protecting the content of movie studios, record labels, music publishers and songwriters. Her work is inspired, in large part, by her prior experience serving as Vice President, Business Affairs for a nationally recognized independent record label. She holds a B.A. from the University of Vermont, a Master’s in Music Business from the University of Miami and a J.D. from Florida International University and is a member of the Florida bar. During law school, she spent a summer studying copyright law at the University of Cambridge, in Cambridge, England and as a law clerk for the United States Copyright Office, Office of the General Counsel. Recently, she was awarded “Rising Star” by Florida Super Lawyers for Intellectual Property Litigation.

June 13, 2016


David Halberstadter, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP and Jeremiah Reynolds, Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert LLP with special guest Mark Boal, Academy Award winning screenwriter and producer of The Hurt Locker, Zero Dark Thirty and In The Valley of Elah  


This February, the 9th Circuit issued its long-awaited decision in Sarver v. Chartier - and in the process may have forever changed the market for “life story” rights. Affirming the anti-SLAPP victory in favor of the filmmakers of Best Picture-winner The Hurt Locker (including Summit Entertainment, director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal), the Court rejected a claim by Army Master Sergeant Jeffrey Sarver that he was entitled to compensation for the film’s alleged dramatization of his service in Iraq. At this year’s Annual Members-Only meeting, top LA entertainment litigators, David Halberstadter, who represented Summit Entertainment, and Jeremiah Reynolds, who represented Bigelow and Boal, will discuss the case in depth, and what it means for the future of right of publicity claims arising from dramatic works. They will also explore the creative process of transforming interviews of real people into fictional works, the often-asserted claim of “defamation by fiction,” the First Amendment protections available to motion pictures and television productions based on stories that have been “ripped from the headlines,” and where the decision leaves the use of celebrity images in video games and California’s “transformative use” test. And to make the event truly special, Mark Boal, Academy Award winning screenwriter and producer of The Hurt Locker, Zero Dark Thirty and In The Valley of Elah, will be on hand to describe his experiences writing the The Hurt Locker, answer questions, and present his perspective on this groundbreaking case.


David Halberstadter is deputy general counsel for Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP’s four California offices, representing traditional, institutional entertainment industry clients as well as new media companies in litigation relating to all aspects of motion picture, television and new media conception, development, finance, production and distribution. David both prosecutes and defends litigation on behalf of motion picture studios and production companies, television networks and producers, and Internet/new media companies on a wide variety of issues, including: copyright infringement, fair use, parody and termination; trademark infringement and unfair competition; defamation, rights of publicity, rights of privacy and the First Amendment; rights acquisitions and transfers; contract disputes between producers and talent; and production, financing, distribution and licensing matters. Jeremiah Reynolds is a partner at Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert LLP where he specializes in entertainment-related disputes and complex business litigation. He has represented Justin Bieber, Michael Keaton, Sharon and Ozzy Osbourne, Kathryn Bigelow, Mark Boal, Robert Duvall, Kate Hudson, Reggie Bush, the Kardashian Family, Tom Hanks, Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs, among others. Recent honors include recognition by Variety in its Legal Impact Report for 2015 as one of the leading lawyers in the entertainment business, in addition to selection by Law360 as a Rising Star of 2015.


Notice of Action: At this Annual Meeting, members will also be asked to vote to approve the following slate of Officers and Trustees for the 2016-17 term: OFFICERS - Cathy Paul (President-Elect), James Gladstone (Vice President), Aaron Moss (Secretary), and Catherine Bridge (Treasurer); TRUSTEES-AT-LARGE - Valerie Barreiro, Janene Bassett, Laura Dawson, Michael Garfinkel, Susan Seager, Ben Sheffner, Joel Tantalo, Joel Weiner and Jason Zelin. (Current President James Lichtman and President-Elect Gary Bostwick will automatically assume the roles of Immediate Past President and President, respectively, at the commencement of the 2016-17 term.)

May 09, 2016


Eric Greenspan, Myman Greenspan Fineman Fox Rosenberg & Light, LLP & Jonas Kant, Sony/ATV Music Publishing  


In just the past few years, the way music is consumed, licensed and distributed has changed dramatically. Digital sales have overtaken physical formats, and now streaming is growing exponentially faster than downloads. From iTunes to Spotify, to music television and motions pictures, copyright practitioners need to know how the music industry is evolving and the current issues that arise. Guiding you through the quagmire are two industry experts, Eric Greenspan, recognized as one of the “Five Music Attorneys To Know” and Jonas Kant, a senior executive at Sony/ATV Music Publishing. Topics will include negotiation, deal structure, and royalties for music use on television and radio, in feature films, streaming, and subscription services, as well as upheaval in the organizations that collect and distribute royalties, the complexities of co-owned works, and the future of music publishing and delivery.


Eric Greenspan, chairman of the music department at Myman Greenspan Fineman Fox Rosenberg & Light, LLP, has represented clients such as Red Hot Chili Peppers, Slash, Christina Aguilera, Guns N Roses, the Grateful Dead, Justin Bieber, and John Legend. Among his many accolades, Eric was featured in Billboard’s Top Music Lawyers in America and Hollywood Reporter’s Power Lawyers Top 100. Jonas Kant is the Senior Vice President of Business and Legal Affairs of Sony/ATV Music Publishing, the world’s largest music publisher. A 15 year veteran of the company, Jonas oversees all aspects of the company’s West Coast business and legal matters (copyright acquisition, songwriter, co-publishing, administration, major film and television licenses, new technology, joint venture agreements) and regularly advises the company’s Chairman, Presidents, and foreign affiliates.

April 11, 2016


Greg Olsen, Clifford Chance LLP & Ted Shapiro, Wiggin LLP  


There is significant change on the European horizon that no copyright lawyer can ignore. The stakes are huge: the European Commission is pursuing potentially far reaching copyright reform as a key ambition within its digital single market (DSM) initiative; legislation on content portability is pending; and the European Commission’s antitrust directorate is pursuing enforcement action against the major Hollywood studios and Sky challenging the terms of certain territorially exclusive copyright licenses. Greg Olsen, a partner at ‎Clifford Chance in London, Ted Shapiro, a partner at Wiggin LLP in Brussels, are deeply involved in the above matters; they will provide their insights on the issues at stake and a roadmap that all IP practitioners – those with primarily domestic and international practices alike – must have to navigate this changing and complex European terrain.


Greg Olsen specializes in EU and UK competition law and violations such as cartels and abuse of market power. He handles regulatory investigations in a diverse range of industries including media and consumer goods. Greg is a committee member and past Chair of the Law Society’s Competition Law Section, has been identified as a leading individual in Legal 500 UK for EU and competition, and has written and spoken extensively on EU competition issues. Ted Shapiro heads Wiggin’s Brussels office. He is a recognized expert in international and European copyright law assisting clients on issues related to policy, litigation, compliance and commercial matters. He joined Wiggin in January 2013 from the Motion Picture Association in Brussels, where he was the General Counsel for Europe. Ted is the co-editor of the book Copyright in the Information Society: A Guide to National Implementation of the European Directive, and he has written numerous articles on copyright issues including on recent judgments of the Court of Justice of the EU.

March 14, 2016


Ron Coleman, Archer & Greiner, P.C.  

Just months ago, a little-known dance rock band from Portland, Oregon grabbed the spotlight from the Washington Redskins trademark battle by winning a key federal appellate court decision striking down as unconstitutional the Lanham Act ban on so-called “disparaging” trademarks. The en banc decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in In re Simon Shiao Tam allows the Asian-American band members to register the band’s name – “The Slants” – after the name was initially rejected by the PTO as racially disparaging. Ron Coleman, lead counsel for The Slants, will discuss the preparation of the PTO application to register the trademark, the PTO’s actions and subsequent TTAB appeal, the initial Federal Circuit appeal and panel decision, the Court’s sua sponte vacatur, and the band’s second-round victory that will shape the law for years to come and may lead to the reinstatement of the canceled Redskins trademark.


Ron Coleman is a partner in Archer & Greiner, P.C.’s New York City and Hackensack, New Jersey offices. Ron’s leading-edge involvement in trademark law and policy has been Ron’s own “trademark” for decades. A leader in social media for lawyers, his blog about copyright, trademark and free speech, LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®, has since its inception in 2005 become one of the most influential publications in IP law. Ron has represented some of the world’s leading luxury brands in trademark enforcement, litigation, and legislative efforts. He has successfully represented internet businesses facing trademark-based designed to stifle competition or legitimate criticism, and has handled cases throughout the country that have helped shape the law at the intersection of free speech, intellectual property and the internet. Ron has been recognized by the World Trademark Review WTR 1000 and SuperLawyers, and has appeared as a featured speaker on trademark and related issues at INTA, the AIPLA, the Copyright Society of the USA, and many other bar associations and institutes.

February 08, 2016


James Weinberger, Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C.  

After several years of litigation, in September 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in DC Comics v. Towle, finding that Batman’s iconic Batmobile was subject to protection under copyright as a character. While a few prior federal court decisions suggested that an inanimate object could qualify for character protection, no court had ever gone so far to make that determination outright. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit laid out a clear, three-part test for determining whether a character – even one lacking “sentient attributes” or the ability to speak – is protected by copyright, synthesizing decades of sometimes conflicting precedent. James Weinberger, who was lead counsel for DC Comics on the appeal, will join us to discuss the case, some of the challenges that arose during appellate briefing and oral argument, as well as the decision and its potential impact in the industry.


James Weinberger is a partner in the litigation group of New York IP boutique Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C., focusing on litigation in the areas of copyright, trademark and trade dress infringement. Recognized by Chambers, Legal 500, Managing Intellectual Property IP Stars and New York SuperLawyers in the areas of copyright and trademark law, James regularly counsels and advises clients across a broad range of industries, including apparel, beverages, cosmetics, film, finance, music, pharmaceuticals, publishing and software on matters relating to intellectual property rights. James has acted in dozens of cases for well-known brands and properties throughout the United States federal courts, as well as lectured on copyright and trademark law for the International Trademark Association, Practicing Law Institute, the Managing Intellectual Property China-International IP Forum and at Columbia Law School.

January 11, 2016


Judy Jennison, Perkins Coie LLP  

Whether you love it or hate it, social media is changing the way many people share information. Today’s platforms allow easy use of content in unanticipated ways, with unexpected legal consequences. Judy will give us a crash course in some of the hottest social media trends and lead a discussion on their copyright implications.


Judy is an IP litigation partner with Perkins Coie in Seattle, where her practice focuses on technology and Internet related IP disputes. Her primary area of expertise is in the application of copyright law to software and new technologies. She was lead counsel for the successful search engine defendant in the landmark fair use case Kelly v. Arriba Soft – the first case to address the issue of graphic search engine use of images on the web. She has participated in a number of other leading copyright cases, including Nintendo v. Galoob, Adobe v. Southern Software and MGM v. Grokster. Recruited by Microsoft in 2004, she spent eight years leading its Copyright and Trade Secret Group before returning to Perkins Coie in 2012.


December 14, 2015


Professor Doug Lichtman, UCLA School of Law  

For our final meeting of the calendar year, UCLA Law Professor Doug Lichtman will once again lead us through a review of the year's biggest copyright law moments. We will look not only at the key cases, including a few that might have slipped under the radar, but also at some of the events, product launches, and decisions that might well reverberate with equal force in the years ahead.


Professor Lichtman joined the UCLA faculty in 2007, having previously spent ten years teaching and writing at the University of Chicago. His areas of specialty are copyright and patent law, though he also covers a variety of more general legal issues pertaining to technology firms and the Internet. Lichtman’s academic work has been featured in journals including the Journal of Law & Economics, the Yale Law Journal, and the Harvard Business Review. He also writes for mainstream publications like the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. In addition to his academic pursuits, Mr. Lichtman maintains an active consulting practice, advising Fortune 100 clients on patent and copyright strategy. Mr. Lichtman has undergraduate degrees in electrical engineering and computer science from Duke University, and a JD from Yale Law School. He can be reached via email at

November 09, 2015


Mark Rifkin, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz  

Happy Birthday to You is one of the world’s most famous songs. Many are surprised to learn that the beloved anthem we all sing over cake and candles has long been subject to a claim of copyright. Mark Rifkin, the lead lawyer for group of independent filmmakers and singers who sought to end that claim, will join us to discuss the landmark summary judgment decision in Good Morning to You Productions v. Warner/Chappell Music. He will take a close look at Judge King’s ruling putting the song in the public domain, provide a behind-the-scenes look at the case, explain the fascinating historical evidence that came to light, and explore the decision’s implications for future copyright disputes.


Mark Rifkin is a New York partner of the national law firm Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz. Over thirty years, Mr. Rifkin has tried many complex commercial actions in federal and state courts across the country. He has successfully argued dozens of appeals in many federal appellate courts and in the highest appellate courts in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. Mr. Rifkin has been a New York Super Lawyer® since 2010. In 2014, Mr. Rifkin was named a “Titan of the Plaintiff’s Bar” by Law360®. Mr. Rifkin appears regularly in the media and lectures frequently to business and professional organizations on a variety of shareholder, intellectual property, and commercial matters.

October 12, 2015


Marsha A. Houston and Christopher O. Rivas Reed Smith LLP  

When movie and television studio Relativity Media filed for Chapter 11 protection in July, it left a large number of broadcasters, distributors and financiers struggling to understand what could happen to the movies, shows, and other existing projects they had with the company. One particularly difficult question is just how Relativity’s bankruptcy, and those of companies like Columbia, Trump Entertainment and Blockbuster, could impact hugely valuable IP rights that they license to and from other parties. In our October event, Marsha Houston and Christopher Rivas will address the copyright, trademark and other license issues that frequently arise in deals with distressed or insolvent parties, recent developments in bankruptcy law that may affect copyright and trademark owners for years to come, and what entertainment lawyers must know to protect their clients in this complex area.


Ms. Houston is a partner at Reed Smith LLP and has extensive experience in creditors’ rights matters and the protection of intellectual property rights. She represents entertainment companies, lenders, trustees, creditors, investors, and other clients seeking to protect and enforce their copyright, trademark and license rights in bankruptcy cases and in negotiations with companies that are on the verge of bankruptcy. Her recent representative entertainment cases include: Columbia House (Filmed Entertainment, Inc.); Aramid Entertainment Fund Limited; ThinkFilm, LLC; KSL Media, Inc.; Blockbuster, Inc.; Movie Gallery, Inc.; and Axium International, Inc. Mr. Rivas is an associate at Reed Smith LLP and has broad experience representing creditors in bankruptcy litigation and workout negotiations. He was named a "Rising Star" by Los Angeles Magazine in 2008.

September 21, 2015


Howard King King, Holmes, Paterno & Soriano  

Our first meeting of the 2015-16 term features esteemed litgator Howard King, who represented Robin Thicke, Pharrell Williams and T.I. in one of the most notable copyright cases decided in the last year, presenting an (admittedly biased) post-mortem on what happened at trial and how it could impact future copyright litigation and practice. Among other things, Mr. King will address what the jury saw - and didn’t see - before deciding that the defendant’s song “Blurred Lines” infringed the Marvin Gaye composition “Got To Give It Up”; the difficulties of instructing a jury in a music copyright case; the use and misuse of expert witnesses and demonstrative exhibits; the unique challenges of litigating pre 1978 composition copyrights; the need for a clearer legal standard to guide in distinguishing between artistic inspiration and copying; and what is likely to happen in the case on appeal.


Mr. King is managing partner of King, Holmes, Paterno & Soriano and has broad experience representing individuals and companies in all facets of corporate, real estate, music and entertainment law, as well as complex business, real estate, banking, finance, copyright and trademark litigation. He has been named as one of The Hollywood Reporter’s “Power 100 Lawyers in Entertainment,” has been designated a “Super Lawyer” by Super Lawyers magazine, and has been included in the Los Angeles Daily Journal’s list of “California’s Top Entertainment Lawyers.” He received his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of California, Los Angeles.

June 10, 2015


Please join us for a special evening with Jon Landau, Academy Award winning producer of Titanic and Avatar, and Matt Belloni, executive editor of The Hollywood Reporter. Mr. Landau will share his personal experience defending and prevailing in the series of Avatar lawsuits, and will participate in a question and answer session moderated by Mr. Belloni.


Avatar, the highest grossing film of all time, has been the subject of numerous high profile copyright and breach of implied contract claims asserted against the producer and distributor of the film. Mr. Landau will discuss the issues raised in these cases, including substantial similarity and independent creation, from the unique perspective he gained while defending these lawsuits.

May 13, 2015

Getting Sirius About Public Performance Rights: the Epic Battle Over Pre-1972 Sound Recordings

Tyler T. Ochoa, Professor of Law, Santa Clara University

At this month’s meeting, Professor Ochoa will discuss the ramifications of several recent state and federal court decisions recognizing a right against unauthorized public performance under state law for sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972. If these rulings stand, they will have a significant impact — not only on the music industry — but on film and television studios that produce and distribute content containing pre-1972 sound recordings.


Professor Ochoa joined the Santa Clara University School of Law faculty in 2003, where he served as Academic Director of the High Technology Law Institute for the 2005-2006 academic year. He is a recognized expert in copyright law and rights of publicity. Professor Ochoa was awarded his law degree, with distinction, from Stanford University, where he also received his undergraduate degree, with distinction.

April 08, 2015

The “Glee Club” Litigation

David Stone, Partner, Simmons & Simmons LLP
Simon Malynicz, Three New Square

Comic Enterprises Ltd v Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation: What happens when the popular, long-running US television series, “Glee,” airs in the UK, where a British comic who owns a series of two UK-registered figurative trade marks that feature the words “The Glee Club,” happens to also own comedy clubs with that name? The solicitor and barrister representing Fox will take us through the ensuing litigation, the preliminary ruling and where the case goes from here as we present our annual Axel aus der Muhlen International Lecture.

David Stone, Partner, Simmons & Simmons, LLP: David specializes in intellectual property matters, with particular expertise in trademarks, copyright and registered and unregistered designs. David works with large and small clients in a diverse range of industries. A solicitor advocate, David also has the benefit of in house experience, having represented The Coca-Cola Company as Trade Mark Counsel for Western Europe in 2003-2005. David led the team that won the EU Trade Mark and Design Team of the Year at the MIP Awards 2013. In November 2012, David was recognized as the (London) Times Lawyer of the Week. David is a graduate of the universities of Sydney, Oxford and Cambridge.


Simon Malynicz, Three New Square: Simon’s practice covers trademarks, passing off, designs, copyright, IT/computer software, media/entertainment, confidential information and patents. He also handles commercial cases with an intellectual property element. He appears regularly before all the relevant tribunals including the High Court, Court of Appeal, Patents Court, Patents County Court, and UK Intellectual Property Office. Simon holds a B.A. (Sydney), M.A. (New School, NY) and LLB (Lond.)

March 11, 2015

How’s Fair Use “Trending” Online, and Other Copyright “Buzz” in the Interactive Internet

Kelly Klaus
Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP

Interactive social web sites are proliferating—from BuzzFeed to Instagram to Tumblr to many others. These and other emerging sites are wildly popular, in so small part because they make widespread use of audiovisual and other copyrighted content. The latest generation of internet sites employ a diverse range of postings, including “gifs,” “listicles” and more. How does copyright law apply to such postings when they make use of third-party content? How do the postings implicate the exclusive rights of copyright under Section 106? If there is infringement, is it direct or secondary? And how might the fair use defense apply in this context? This program will explore a variety of copyright issues in this rapidly evolving space.


Kelly Klaus is a litigator with Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP. He specializes in copyright and related IP issues. The Daily Journal has named Kelly one of the leading intellectual property lawyers in California. Kelly has represented all of the major motion picture studios and recorded music companies in copyright and related entertainment litigation. Last year, he also represented the NCAA in the O’Bannon antitrust litigation, and Activision in former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega’s right of publicity action. Kelly graduated from UCLA and Stanford Law School. He joined Munger Tolles after clerking for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on the Supreme Court.

February 11, 2015

College Football Players Tackle the Right of Publicity: O’Bannon v. NCAA and Beyond
Nathan Siegel
Levine Sullivan Koch and Schulz

In O’Bannon, college athletes contend that they have a right of publicity that requires they be compensated whenever their name or image appears in a live broadcast, or re-broadcast, of any game in which they play. Having prevailed at trial against the NCAA, the same class of athletes is now taking aim at television networks, asserting in Marshall v. ESPN that television networks must negotiate with and pay them directly. The media argues that such an outcome would be a dramatic and unconstitutional shift in the definition of publicity rights that would interfere with the media’s ability to air matters of public interest. Many observers believe the dispute could eventually land in the Supreme Court and prompt it to re-visit the modern publicity tort for the first time in four decades.


Nathan Siegel represents the media amici in O’Bannon and one of the defendants in Marshall. Nathan is a partner at Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz LLP and represents media clients in First Amendment, intellectual property, and entertainment law cases in trial and appellate courts throughout every region of the country. His diverse practice has included successfully defending ESPN in defamation suits brought by major sports personalities, representing reality television programs such as Dog the Bounty Hunter and Wife Swap in the defense of right of publicity lawsuits, advising The Guardian concerning its reporting about documents released by WikiLeaks, and successfully defending news organizations in novel lawsuits testing the limits of copyright law doctrines such as fair use and equitable estoppel. Nathan also provides pre-broadcast and pre-publication counseling to a wide range of print and web publishers, television networks, and film producers.


Nathan received his law degree from Yale Law School and his undergraduate degree from Duke University.

January 14, 2015

Copyright Law and the First Amendment
Erwin Chemerinsky
Dean of the School of Law, UC Irvine

We will open the new calendar year with a provocative presentation from Erwin Chemerinsky, the Dean of the UC Irvine School of Law. The assumption of copyright law always has been that granting copyright protection will lead to more speech than that which is lost by the restrictions on expression caused by copyright law. But is that true? And should copyright law continue to be based on this assumption?


Erwin Chemerinsky is the founding Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law, and Raymond Pryke Professor of First Amendment Law, at the University of California, Irvine School of Law, with a joint appointment in Political Science. Previously, he taught at Duke Law School for four years, during which he won the Duke University Scholar-Teacher of the Year Award in 2006. Before that, he taught for 21 years at the University of Southern California School of Law. Chemerinsky has also taught at UCLA School of Law and DePaul University College of Law.


His areas of expertise are constitutional law, federal practice, civil rights and civil liberties, and appellate litigation. He is the author of eight books, most recently The Case Against the Supreme Court, to be published by Viking in September 2014, and more than 200 articles in top law reviews. He frequently argues cases before the nation’s highest courts, including the United States Supreme Court, and also serves as a commentator on legal issues for national and local media. He writes a weekly column for the Orange County Register, monthly columns for the ABA Journal and the Daily Journal, and frequent op-eds in newspapers across the country. In January 2014, National Jurist magazine named Dean Chemerinsky as the most influential person in legal education in the United States.


Chemerinsky holds a law degree from Harvard Law School and a bachelor’s degree from Northwestern University.


December 10, 2014

Annual Year in Review - “Not Just Cases”
Doug Lichtman, Professor of Law, UCLA Law School

For our final meeting of the calendar year, UCLA Law Professor Doug Lichtman will lead us through a review of the year's biggest copyright law moments. We will look not only at the key cases, including a few that might have slipped under the radar, but also some of the big decisions that might reverberate with equal force, including CBS's launch of a surprisingly complete online presence, and Taylor Swift's recent decision to pull her music from Spotify.


Doug Lichtman is a tenured professor of law at UCLA. He joined the faculty in 2007, having previously spent ten years teaching and writing at the University of Chicago. His areas of specialty are patent and copyright law, though he also covers a variety of more general legal issues pertaining to technology firms and the Internet. Lichtman's academic work has been featured in journals including the Journal of Law & Economics, the Yale Law Journal, and the Harvard Business Review. He also writes for mainstream publications like the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. In addition to his academic pursuits, Mr. Lichtman maintains an active consulting practice, advising Fortune 100 clients on patent and copyright strategy. Mr. Lichtman has undergraduate degrees in electrical engineering and computer science from Duke University, and a JD from Yale Law School. He can be reached via email at

November 12, 2014

Getting Creative About Protecting Content: The Future of Anti-Piracy
Ruth Vitale, Executive Director, CreativeFuture


The changing viewing habits of audiences present both challenges and opportunities for today’s artists and filmmakers. The creative industries are finding new ways to provide audiences with high-quality, reliable, and convenient access to creative works. At the same time, the for-profit theft of creative works continues to be a large and growing problem. Ruth Vitale, Executive Director of CreativeFuture, will talk about the challenges of protecting content in today’s ever-evolving global media marketplace. She will address ways that the creative community can speak out about the cultural and economic value of what we do – and can stand up for the fundamental rights of artists and creators to be compensated for their work.


Ruth has unique first-hand experience with the grave impact of the piracy of copyrighted works, and of the importance of vigorous content protection. She been at the forefront of independent film production and distribution for more than three decades, including as Founder and Co-President of Paramount Classics and as President of Fine Line Features. Ruth also served as President of UBU Productions’ feature film division, as Senior Vice President of Production for United Artists, and as President of Production for Vestron Pictures. Most recently, Ruth was President of First Look Pictures and the owner of The Film Collective, a consultancy business that helps financiers and companies with the strategic planning for their films in the worldwide marketplace from development and production through distribution. Her films have won three Oscars and received 16 nominations as well as 18 Golden Globe nominations and two wins.


October 08, 2014

Congress Considers Copyright: Thoughts and Observations About Current Copyright Law and the House Review
A discussion featuring Bob Goodlatte, United States House of Representatives, Virginia, 6th District


Bob Goodlatte represents the Sixth Congressional District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives.


In the 113th Congress, he was elected as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over issues like patents, copyright, trademark law, antitrust matters, and the Internet. In addition to serving in this role, he is the Co-Chairman of the bipartisan Congressional Internet Caucus and the Congressional International Creativity and Theft-Prevention Caucus as well as Chairman of the House Republican Technology Working Group.


Chairman Goodlatte has long been a leader in Congress on a number of intellectual property and technology issues, including encryption, piracy prevention, anti-counterfeiting, online service provider copyright liability, high speed data access, privacy, digital signatures, the Internet tax moratorium, Internet gambling, copyright term extension, patent reform, cyber-squatting, class action reform, and spam and spyware prevention.


Chairman Goodlatte is the sponsor of the Innovation Act, which takes steps to combat the ever increasing problem of abusive patent litigation. The Innovation Act passed the House of Representatives in December 2013 by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 325-91. He also introduced the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act, which would ban taxes on Internet access. This legislation passed by voice vote in the House in July.


Chairman Goodlatte is a graduate of the Washington and Lee University School of Law, and his undergraduate degree in Government was earned at Bates College in Lewiston, Maine.


Chairman Goodlatte and his wife, Maryellen, reside in Roanoke and have two adult children.

September 10, 2014

Controversy Over "The Innocence of Muslims": Breaking Down Garcia v. Google, This Year's Most Controversial Copyright Case and Its Wide-Ranging Implications

On April 14, four members of the Los Angeles Copyright Society, with able assistance from a recent USC graduate, filed an amicus brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on behalf of International Documentary Association, Film Independent, Fredrik Gertten, and Morgan Spurlock in Support of Google, Inc. and Youtube, LLC’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc or, Alternatively, Rehearing.

Gary Bostwick, principal draftsman of the brief, will provide an interactive inside look at the drafting of the brief, with the cooperation of two of the other draftsmen, Jack Lerner and Lincoln Bandlow.

Rom Bar-Nissim, the recently graduated and able former student of Jack Lerner hopefully will also be present to contribute.

The controversy centered around the “Innocence of Muslims”, a film reported to have been the spark setting off flaming rage resulting in riots and the death of a U. S. Ambassador.

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski set the stage in his opening sentence of the 2-1 Ninth Circuit Opinion like this:

“While answering a casting call for a low-budget amateur film doesn’t often lead to stardom, it also rarely turns an aspiring actress into the subject of a fatwa. But that’s exactly what happened to Cindy Lee Garcia when she agreed to act in a film with the working title “Desert Warrior.”

Defendants took down the film.

The presentation will seek to involve the audience in the thinking, research and drafting process of preparing the amicus brief, thereby touching upon the major issues raised and benefitting from the audience’s views of the case. The issues causing the most fire and fervor are distilled one paragraph of the Opinion.

June 11, 2014

Copyright in the Nation's Capital

Featuring Maria A. Pallante, Register of Copyrights of the United States and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office

Maria A. Pallante is Register of Copyrights of the United States and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office, a position she has held since June 1, 2011. Among other duties, Ms. Pallante oversees the legal and administrative aspects of the copyright system, including registration and recordation, and carries out a variety of domestic and international policy activities prescribed by law, including providing expert and impartial advice to Congress and executive branch agencies.

Ms. Pallante was previously in private practice in New York, and earned her J.D. in 1990 from the George Washington University. In the past year, she encouraged Congress to review and update the Copyright Act for the 21st century, and delivered three major lectures on related themes: The Next Great Copyright Act (Columbia University Law School); The Curious Case of Copyright Formalities (Berkeley Center for Law and Technology); and The Next Generation Copyright Office: What it Means and Why it Matters (Copyright Society of the USA).

May 14, 2014

Raging Bull: As Time Goes By

Featuring Glen L. Kulik and Mark A. Perry

The Supreme Court is poised to resolve whether the equitable defense of laches is available in a copyright infringement lawsuit. On January 21, 2014, the Court heard argument in the case of Petrella v. MGM, in which the authors daughter asserts rights to the screenplay for the acclaimed film Raging Bull. The Ninth Circuit held that she waited too long to bring suit, creating a conflict with a Fourth Circuit decision suggesting that laches is not an available defense under the Copyright Act. The Supreme Court will soon decide whether and in what circumstances a copyright defendant may assert laches, and whether or not Ms. Petrellas claim is barred. Two of the attorneys intimately involved in the case  Glen Kulik, who argued the case for Ms. Petrella in the Ninth Circuit, and Mark Perry, who argued the case for MGM and Fox in the Supreme Court  will discuss the background of the case and its potential ramifications for copyright litigation.

April 09, 2014

Going Foreign: Copyright and the Growth of Overseas Business for U.S. Entertainment Companies


The growth in revenues for many studios and other entertainment companies is coming increasingly from international markets. This presentation will explore some of the international and foreign copyright issues that can impact distribution and production occurring overseas. Our speakers are highly experienced in international copyright, as well as entertaining, and we are fortunate to have them present this years Axel aus der Muhlen Lecture.

March 12, 2014

Recent Developments in Fashion Law

Featuring Sherry Jetter

The Fashion Industry is an ever evolving world of imagination, innovation, creativity and trends. Yet, with its ingenuity, the fashion industry is often said to be sustained by inspiration from the works of others. So, where does inspiration end and copyright infringement begin? This discussion will explore the challenges of copyright protection for designs and fashion-related works, review some news-making incidents at the intersection of fashion and copyright law and provide insight into recent cases involving fashion and their potential implications for copyright in general.

February 12, 2014


Featuring Professor Jay Dougherty, Loyola Law School

Professor Dougherty will discuss interesting and important copyright and related developments from courts decisions in 2013, particularly those that have not yet been the topic of previous dinner presentations. From Sherlock developments to lip dubs, red flags, old records rock concert sets and classic pop tunes, Rasta appropriation, stick figures, the Batmobile, wanted photos, terminations, electronic transfers of copyright, the exciting concept of laches and more& The year that was is never more fun than in the world of copyright, its denizens and their neighbors!

January 07, 2014

CAMBRIDGE v. BECKER (The Georgia State University Case):

The Most Important Educational Copyright Case In A Generation
Featuring TONY ASKEW AND STEVE SCHAETZEL, Meunier Carlin & Curfman, LLC

The ability to make fair use of materials in the educational context is fundamental; the doctrine enjoys a special place in terms of scholarship, research, criticism, comment and teaching. As a result, the educational environment constitutes a leading edge for consideration of fair use issues. In a case just argued before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, such fair use issues took center stage as three publishers appealed an District Court decision largely upholding the E-reserves policy of the University System of Georgia as implemented by Georgia State University. The ultimate ruling in this case will have ramifications for rights holders and users across the United States, both inside and outside of the educational environment.

Tony Askew and Steve Schaetzel represented the University System of Georgia in this now multi-year litigation. They will provide a recap of the Georgia State case, offer insights as to how recent leading decisions such as Google Books and Hathitrust influence the Georgia State case and current thinking in fair use, and they will explore the ramifications that this case could have for practitioners across the entire spectrum of copyright.


December 11, 2013


Featuring Daniel Petrocelli, OMelveny & Myers

The Los Angeles Copyright Society is proud to present an in-depth look at the copyright battle of the century, by one of todays top trial lawyers.

On November 21 of this year, the 9th Circuit effectively ended decades of litigation over who owns the copyrights relating to Superman. It affirmed summary judgment in favor of DC Comics parent company Warner Bros., holding that a 2003 termination notice filed by the nephew of Superman co-creator Joe Shuster was invalid due to a 1992 agreement between Shusters heirs and DC. This decision was the latest in a string of dramatic legal developments, including a 9th Circuit ruling last January dismissing similar claims by the heirs of Shusters co-creator Jerry Siegel, and seems finally to establish Warner Bros. as the sole owner of Superman.

Dan Petrocelli of OMelveny & Myers has represented Warner Bros. in these cases and will provide a first-hand account of this important litigation. He will address the various trial and appellate decisions and what they mean for copyright practitioners in a market hungry to adapt comic books and other preexisting works into movies, television shows and digital content.

November 13, 2013


Featuring Paul M. Smith & Doug Lichtman

Some of the most cutting-edge and controversial new issues of copyright law have been raised by the creation of the Aereo service and its imitator FilmOn X. These services receive broadcast television signals and retransmit them to users on request over the Internet. When an order is placed, they say they use a separate mini-antenna for each user and create a separate copy for that user on the server before transmitting. Equally cutting-edge and somewhat related issues have been raised by the Dish Network's "Prime Time Anytime" service, which records prime-time network programming to a subscriber's DVR and allows later viewing with the commercials automatically skipped.

October 09, 2013

What Will the Next Copyright Act Look Like?

Featuring Fred von Lohmann (Legal Director, Copyright | Google Inc.)

The Copyright Act of 1976 is beginning to show its age, despite updates like 19982s Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Both the Register of Copyright and the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee have begun the discussion about what The Next Great Copyright Act should look like. It seems clear that the digital online environment will be at the center of the upcoming statutory overhaul of the Act. How do we craft a Copyright Act that is forward-looking, that encourages both creativity and innovation, and that meets the needs of millions of new creators who depend on the Internet for both inspiration and distribution?

September 11, 2013


Kelli L. Sager of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP speaks on Hart v. Electronic Arts, Third Circuit, Keller v. Electronic Arts, et al., Ninth Circuit and James Brown v. Electronic Arts, Ninth Circuit decisions all decided recently relating to the right of publicity, Lanham Act claims and First Amendment defenses and SLAPP motions in connection with entertainment products.

September 11, 2013

September LACS Meeting: Guest TBA

September LACS Meeting: Guest TBA

June 04, 2013

Copyright at a Crossroads: The View from Washington

Senator Christopher Dodd Chairman MPAA

May 08, 2013


Jonathan Kirsch, author and publishing attorney, is the lead intellectual property counsel on Les Klinger’s legal team. Klinger is a prominent Los Angeles attorney, expert on the Sherlock Holmes Canon, and author of numerous works about Sherlock Holmes.He is also the plaintiff in a newly-filed civil action now pending in U.S. District Court in Northern Illinois against the Conan Doyle Estate. He will reprise the leading cases on character protection and discuss the origins and status of Klinger v. Conan Doyle Estate, LLC, a saga with all the twists and turns of a Sherlock Holmes story but one that stands on the cutting edge of character protection under copyright and trademark law.

April 10, 2013

Aaron Moss and Ken Basin: Termination Salvation: Do Artists Who Use Loan-Out Corporations Say Hasta La Vista to Their Termination Rights?

On January 1, 2013, the first generation of copyright transfers made under the 1976 Copyright Act became eligible for statutory termination, enabling creators of copyrighted properties and their heirs to unwind their own transactions and reacquire potentially valuable rights to long-since transferred works. As recent headlines involving marquee properties such as James Camerons The Terminator and the Village Peoples Y.M.C.A. have made clear, the implications for successful, enduring franchises created after 1978 could be dramatic.

March 13, 2013

Simon J. Frankel: A Night at the Museum: IP Battles in the World of Fine Art

February 13, 2013

Casey Chisick

It’s Crazy in Canada: A Copyright Blizzard

January 09, 2013

Jennifer Rothman

Copyright Year in Review: Looking Back at 2012 and What to Look For in 2013


December 12, 2012

Vans Stevenson

Battlefield Conditions?: A State-of-the-Nation Report on the Right of Publicity

November 14, 2012

Kal Raustiala

The Knockoff Economy

September 12, 2012

David Nimmer

Fashion Weak? Copyright and the Fall Line

June 13, 2012

Howard Berman

The View of Circle C from DC

May 09, 2012

Rick Cotton

The New Consensus on Digital Theft and Counterfeiting

April 11, 2012

Jan Bernd Nordemann

Axel aus der Muhlen lecture on International Law: See You in the EU - Finding Common Ground in European Copyright Law

March 14, 2012

Robyn Crowther

Hope and Obey: A Copyright Fairey Tale

February 08, 2012

Robert Corn-Revere

From Seven Dirty Words to Fleeting Expletives and Wardrobe Malfunctions – Where Are We Now?

January 11, 2012

Barton Beebe

An Empirical Study of Fair Use Cases, 1978-2011 – And What It Means for Copyright Practitioners


December 14, 2011

Betsy Rosenblatt

2011 Year in Review: Recent Developments in Copyright and Media Law

November 09, 2011

Robert Levine

This is Not My Beautiful House!: How Can We Have An Information Economy If All Content is Free?

October 12, 2011

Kelly Klaus

We'll Just Have To 504© About That: The Limewire Case And Statutory Damages In Mass Infringement Cases

September 14, 2011

Jonathan Zavin and David Grossman

Kung-Fu Panda Fighting: The Kung-Fu Panda Case, Terence Dunn v. Dreamworks Animation

June 08, 2011

Lawrence Lessig

A Copyright System for the 21st Century: One That Would Work

May 11, 2011

Mira T. Sundara Rajan

Axel aus der Muhlen Memorial Lecture on International Law: The Story of the Moral: The Case for Bringing International Moral Rights to the U.S.

April 13, 2011

Gail Migdal Title and Joel R. Weiner

The Future of Idea Submission Claims and the Copyright Preemption Doctrine: Montz v. Pilgrim Films (discussing the Grosso and Montz cases).

March 09, 2011

Laura Handman

Farewell Frequent Flyer Filings: The Legislative Response to Libel Tourism

February 09, 2011

Edward H. Rosenthal and Maura J. Wogan

Catcher in the Wry: Parody, Fair Use, and Injunctions in the World of Literature

January 12, 2011

Aaron Moss and Lincoln Bandlow

First Sale Fail: Supreme Court Deadlocks in Omega v. Costco; Now What?


December 08, 2010

Bob Clarida and Thomas Kjellberg

Current Developments in Copyright

November 10, 2010

Bart Williams

Don Johnson Productions v. Rysher Entertainment: New Risks at the Intersection of Copyright and Profit Participation

October 13, 2010

Judge Alex Kozinski and Louis Petrich

A View From the Bridge: Navigating Through Recent Copyright, Right of Publicity and Trademark Rulings in the Ninth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court

September 14, 2010

Cliff Sloan and Michael Kwun

Viacom Dios: What the District Court's Dismissal Of Viacom's Lawsuit Against YouTube Means And What Happens Next

June 09, 2010

Prof. Doug Lichtman

Shoot the Messenger

May 12, 2010

Keith Ashby and Peter McInerney

Axel aus der Muhlen Memorial Lecture on International Law: Are You Okay in the UK? An Update on Online Piracy, Formats, Privacy and Defamation Law Across the Pond

April 14, 2010

Lee Phillips and Eric Custer

Music Rights Terminators: They'll Be Back

March 10, 2010

James Juo and Scott Hansen

Three Ways to Skin a Copycat: How Design Patents Overlap with Copyright and Trade Dress

February 10, 2010

Erika Solti Shaeffer, Slyvie Maracci and Elena Muravina

Copyright Issues in International Productions: a panel discussion

January 13, 2010

Thomas Burke

Whether a Rolling Stone Will Gather No Loss: A Rock N' Roll Tribute Meets a Right of Publicity Class Action


December 09, 2009

Bob Clarida and Tom Kjellberg

Current Developments In Copyright

November 11, 2009

Ian Ballon

Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick: A View From The Trenches

October 13, 2009

Kal Raustiala

Knockoffs and Fashion Victims: Why We Don't Need a Design Piracy Protection Act

September 09, 2009

Robert Rotstein

Is Amazon Watching?: The First Sale Doctrine In the Age of eBooks and Movie Downloads

June 03, 2009

John Schulman and Jeremy Williams

Holding On And Letting Go

May 13, 2009

Monique Wadsted

Copyright Protection On The Internet – A European Challenge: The Struggle Against The PirateBay or How Sweden Became An Internet Piracy Haven

April 01, 2009

Tony Falzone

April Fools! Plaintiff Wins Fair Use Trial, But Defendant Is Publishing A New Manuscript Anyway!: Recent Developments In Fair Use And Free Expression

March 11, 2009

Louis Petrich

Inspector Clouseau, Clark Kent and Lassie Walk Into A Courtroom: Terminating Copyright Transfers – Recent Case Law Developments

February 11, 2009

Janis C. Nelson and Prof. Carrie Menkel-Meadow

Trouble in River City: Ethics in Entertainment Practice. A Conversation with Janis C. Nelson, Esq. and Prof. Carrie Menkel-Meadow

January 14, 2009

Jay Dougherty

Copyright (and Media too) Year In Review


December 03, 2008

Michael S. Elkin

Io v. Veoh: Application of DMCA Safe Harbors to UGC Sites

November 06, 2008

Alan Braverman

Living in a World of User Digital Distribution: The UGC Principles – a Case Study

September 10, 2008

David Aronoff

Exploding the Inverse Ratio Rule

May 07, 2008

Simon Frankel

Control Of Public Domain Images And Other Intersections of Copyright And Contract

April 02, 2008

Larry Steinberg

Has The Worm Turned: Personal Managers and Procuring Employment – Recent Developments Under The Talent Agency Act

March 05, 2008

William Patry

Copyright Or Copywrong: The Top Ten Worst Copyright Decisions


December 05, 2007

Professor Neil Netanel

Copyright Developments: What Happened in 2007 and What to Expect in 2008

November 07, 2007

Ron Gertz

It's (Not) The Same Old Song: Music Rights In A Digital Age

October 03, 2007

Richard Owens

Copyright & Technology: Legal, Political and Market Challenges. A View From WIPO

September 11, 2007

Jeff Mausner, Andrew Bridges & Jay Spillane

Recent Important Cases Involving Secondary Liability, Fair Use, The DMCA and Right of Publicity: Perfect 10 v. Google, Visa and CCBill

June 06, 2007

Fred von Lohmann

Developing Dolphin-Safe DMCA Takedowns: Responsibly Policing User-Generated Content

May 02, 2007

Charles Alexander & Carolyn Dalton

3rd Axel aus der Mühlen Memorial Lecture On International Law Copyright Reform Australian Style: Recent Developments and Emerging Copyright Reform Issues Down Under

April 04, 2007

Anthony Falzone & Michael Donaldson

Creative Coverage: Documentary Film Makers Get New "Fair Use Insurance" – How Much Do They Need It?

March 07, 2007

Judith Finell

Scandalous Notes: Applying The New Musical Reality To Film And Television Music

February 07, 2007

Dale Cendali

The Dilution Solution? Implications of Recent Amendments to the Trademark Statute

January 10, 2007

Professor Neil Netanel

2006 – Copyright Year in Review

January 09, 2007

Jonathan Zavin

Injunctive Relief in Copyright Cases: Not So Fast


December 06, 2006

Neville Johnson, Gerald Weiner

The Music Download Class Action Suits

November 01, 2006

Glen Kulik & Lou Petrich

Plenty More Plaintiffs Pursuing Purloined Pitches?: The Status And Future Of Idea Submission Law Post-Grosso

October 04, 2006

Gary Bostwick

The Book Review And The Fair-Used Photo: A Case Study In Trying Section 107 To A Jury

September 13, 2006

Bonnie Eskenazi

Termination of Transfers after the Winnie The Pooh Case

June 07, 2006

William Patry

A Conversation with William Patry about Fair Use

May 03, 2006

Carole Handler & Jimmy Nguyen

The Medium is the Message: How New Media Technologies Will Transform Copyright Protection and Limits

April 05, 2006

Christoph Wagner and Winston Maxwell

2nd Axel aus der Mühlen Memorial Lecture On International Law Recent Copyright Law Developments in France and Germany

March 11, 2006

L.A.C.S. Conference at La Costa Resort

Speaker and Recipient of Lifetime Achievement Award, Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights. Other speakers: David O. Carson, David Nimmer, Jeff Mausner, Robert Clarida, Lionel S. Sobel, Stacey Byrnes, Mark Roesler, Prof. J. Dougherty and Susan Aslan

February 08, 2006

Professor David Kohler

Sending Central Hudson Down The River: What Abandoning The "Commercial Speech" Test Would Mean For Advertising And Right Of Publicity Law

January 11, 2006

Robert Schwartz and Josh Wattles

Grokster: The Case, The Holding, The Future


December 07, 2005

Lou Petrich and Robert H.Rotstein

The Use of Marks in Movies and the Impact of Parody

November 02, 2005

Elliot Brown

Crystals, Pixels and Light: The Curious Case of Mannion v. Coors

September 14, 2005

Ron Gertz

Music Machinations: The Changing Landscape Of The Statutory Licenses for Musical Works and Sound Recordings

May 04, 2005

David Nimmer

Codifying Copyright Comprehensibly

April 13, 2005

Lawrence Heller & Eric Stockel

That, and $15 Million, Will Get You a Jar of Coffee: A Discussion of the Recent Nestle Right of Publicity Case

March 02, 2005

Glen A. Bloom

1st Axel aus der Mühlen Memorial Lecture On International Law: Recent Developments in Canadian Copyright Law and the On-Going Shifts in the Canada/US IP law divide

February 02, 2005

Jay Dougherty

Your Karma Ran Over My Dogma: Issues in Copyright Protection for Yoga Sequences, Sports Plays and Choreography

January 12, 2005

Jo-Ellen Dimitrius, Ph.D.

Jury Selection In Intellectual Property / Privacy / Publicity Cases


December 01, 2004

David Lyle & David Shall

All About Formats

November 03, 2004

Robert H. Rotstein

Digital Video Recorders and the Law of Copyright

October 06, 2004

Lou Petrich and Lincoln Bandlow.

Recent cases involving Copyright and the Right of Privacy: Bochco and Gates

September 06, 2004

Michael D. Lewis

Legal Issues Concerning Creation and Licensing of Content Distributed On-Line and Wirelessly

May 05, 2004

Richard B. Kendall

Format Rights

April 14, 2004

Professor Eugene Volokh

Freedom of Speech and Intellectual Property: A Survey of Some Important Remaining Questions

March 03, 2004

Bruce Keller

Trademark, Copyright And Other Challenges To Props/ Background Scenery in Film

February 04, 2004

Adrian Barr-Smith

Recent UK and European Developments in Copyright and Neighboring Rights

January 07, 2004

David Halberstadter & Harrison Dossick

Professional Responsibilities of Outside and Corporate Counsel in the Entertainment Industry


December 03, 2003

George Borkowski and Michael Page

The Grokster/Kaaza/Aimster litigation

November 05, 2003

Fred Meeker

The Enforceability of Shrinkwrap/Clickwrap Agreements

October 01, 2003

Douglas E. Mirell

Worming Around the First Amendment: An Overview of Recent Developments in Publicity Rights Litigation

September 10, 2003

Bruce E. H. Johnson & Kelli Sager

The Nike v. Kasky Case

June 04, 2003

Marybeth Peters, US Register of Copyrights

What Can you Legally Use Without Paying For It?

May 07, 2003

David Nimmer

Plagiarism Revisited: Current issues relating to plagiarism such as passing off, reverse passing off, and violation of the claimed right of attribution

April 10, 2003

Dale Cendali

Copyright & Trademark: The Year in Review

March 05, 2003

Stéphane Lieser

Moral Rights 10+ Years After The Asphalt Jungle Case: Still a jungle?

February 05, 2003

Grace Reiner

Copyright Ownership and Separated Rights


November 06, 2002

Peter Jaszi

Eldred v. Ashcroft: The Challenge to the 20-Year Copyright Extension

October 02, 2002

Russell Frackman

Trademark and the First Amendment: Fred and Ginger dance into the Ninth Circuit

September 04, 2002

Dean Marks

Washington and Hollywood: Proposed copyright legislation and its potential effects on the entertainment industry

May 01, 2002

Jeffrey Kravitz

Do you Believe in Magic?: IP Protection for Magic and Illusions

April 03, 2002

Stephen F. Rohde

Kidnapping the Son of Sam Law: A Victory for the First Amendment or a Defeat for Victims' Rights?

March 06, 2002

Jared Jussim

The European Civil Law (A Different Legal Tradition): How & Why It Differs from Common Law

February 06, 2002

Gary Bostwick

Use of the anti-SLAPP Statute in Media Litigation

January 09, 2002

Barbara Beebe

Creative Accounting in the Entertainment Industry: How to Follow the Money


December 05, 2001

Robert Thorne

P.T. Barnum Redux: Tales in Building a Billion Dollar Brand.

November 07, 2001

Lionel Sobel

Royalties from Abroad

October 03, 2001

Joel McCabe Smith

Silver Screen Stars, Stooges and Surfers: California's Right of Publicity Law in the aftermath of Hoffman, Saderup and Abercrombie

September 05, 2001

Henry J. Tashman

Statutory Damages in Copyright Cases: Constitutionality and Application by the Courts and Juries

May 02, 2001

Zazi Pope

Copycat Crime Litigation and the First Amendment: A Review of the Natural Born Killers Case

April 04, 2001

Carole Handler

When Intellectual Property Rights Restrict Competition — The interface of antitrust, trademark and copyright law

March 07, 2001

Donald S. Passman

Music Update: Challenges in the Digital Age"

February 07, 2001

Robert Rotstein

Copyright, Trademark and the Scope of the Fair use Parody Defense: Columbia Pictures v. TeeVeeToons

January 03, 2001

Russell J. Frackman

A&M Records vs. Napster: Or How I Spent My Summer Vacation


December 06, 2000

Siva Vaidhyanathan, Ph.D., Professor, NYU

The End of Copyright: Technology and the Threat to the Information Commons

November 01, 2000

Joe Eisenberg

What Every Good Entertainment Lawyer Needs to Know about Bankruptcy

October 04, 2000

Jon A. Baumgarten

Cease and DeCSS'd: The DVD Encryption Case in the Broader Context of New Technology and the Protection of Motion Picture Copyrights

September 06, 2000

Ian C. Ballon

Fair Use in Cyberspace

May 03, 2000

Lon Sobel

Recent Developments in the Law of Entertainment Lawyering: Cautionary Tales about Letter-Writing (Cease-and-Desist, Opinion, Settlement Confirmation, and Conflict Waiver), Sanctions, Fees Malpractice, Lawyers as Private Investigators, and Messing with Don Engel

April 05, 2000

Joseph M. Beck

The cases of Estate of Martin Luther King Jr. v. CBS and Rosa Parks v. LaFace: Civil Rights heroes, Copyright, Fair Use, The First Amendment and "Symbolic Conflicts"

March 01, 2000

Ed Labowitz, Stephanie Lieser

Moral Rights – An International Perspective

February 02, 2000

Rex Heinke

Los Angeles Times and Washington Post v. Free Republic: Fair Use and Freedom of Speech

January 05, 2000

Ron Gertz

Music Rights in the Digital Age – They Aren't What You Think They Are


December 01, 1999

Kathryn A. Young

Using Trademarks in Film: Is it Worth the Risk?

November 03, 1999

Mark Flagel and Dan Shecter

Why Worry About Patents? (After all My Client has Never Been Injured by a Stealth Bomber)

October 06, 1999

Steven Pena

Creation of Entertainment Content for the Internet

September 08, 1999

Jeremy Williams

Of Laws and Sausage: The Right of Publicity in Sacramento


December 02, 1998

David Dunn

Recent Developments in Fair Use and Copyright Issues: Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group, Inc.

November 04, 1998

Roger L. Mayer

The Legal and Practical Consequences of Film Preservation (or the Lack Thereof!)

October 07, 1998

Kelli L. Sager

Recent Developments in Misappropriation and Right of Publicity Law

September 09, 1998

Professor Eugene Volokh

Copyright Law and the First Amendment's Procedural Rules

April 01, 1998

Juliette Youngblood

The Spider In The Web: The Top 10 Ways To Get Stung With A Website


October 08, 1997

Harvey E. Harrison

A Declaration of Independence – The Call for Legislative Abolition of Most Exclusivity Provisions in Employment Agreements in the Entertainment Industry

April 02, 1997

Robert Lind

Copyright Protection for Creations of Nonhumans: Celestial Beings, Chimpanzees and Computers.




Vice President
Greenberg Glusker

The Walt Disney Company

Tantalo & Adler LLP

USC Gould School of Law

21st Century Fox

Cowan, Debaets, Abrahams & Sheppard

Munger Tolles & Olson

Sony Pictures Entertainment

Motion Picture Association of America


Jenner & Block

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

Immediate Past President:
Bostwick Law