PLG Blog

By now, many people have heard about Naruto v. Slater, otherwise known as the "monkey selfie" case. To most, the case is a punchline -- little more than an exemplar of postmodern absurdity as played out in a courtroom. Scratch below the surface, however, and you get something quite different.

While many website operators assume they do not have to police content created by their users for copyright infringement, courts are making it increasingly clear that this may not be the case when that content translates into physical product manufacturing.

VidAngel is the latest in a long line of services attempting to publicly perform copyrighted films without having to obtain licenses from the studios, and the hurdles they've faced to date are fairly representative of what anyone else thinking of getting into the same space can expect.

The Ninth Circuit has ruled that a defendant's failure to pay for the use of a plaintiff's ideas in a film does not constitute activity in furtherance of the defendant's free speech rights, and so cannot be made subject to a special motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP law.

In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court has held that the provision of the federal Lanham Act prohibiting the registration of "disparaging" trademarks "offends a bedrock First Amendment principle" -- that "[s]peech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend."

Ever wonder if your favorite celebrities actually love the products they're posting about on their Instagram accounts or if the posts are really a guerilla marketing campaign? Well, according to the Federal Trade Commission, consumers shouldn't have to guess.

On April 6, 2017, the 9th Circuit heard oral arguments in the appeal of Shame On You Productions, Inc. v. Elizabeth Banks, et. al for which an amicus brief in support of screenwriter/producer Dan Rosen (Shame On You Productions) was submitted to the 9th Circuit by Pierce Law Group LLP on behalf of the California Society of Entertainment Lawyers (CSEL).

Daniel v. Wayans demonstrates that harassment laws are applied quite differently in the entertainment industry as compared to other traditional industries, and that the Constitution's 1st amendment protects the creative process to such an extent that it will trump mere statutory employment laws when such laws may infringe upon those creative artistic rights.