Justia Entertainment & Sports Law Opinion Summaries

Grober invented a platform that stabilizes a camera for filming motion pictures from moving vehicles. Known in the entertainment industry as the Perfect Horizon, the technology won Grober an Academy Award in technical achievement. He received a patent, entitled “Autonomous Self Leveling, Self Correcting Stabilized Platform.” for the invention, designed to compensate for motion caused by waves, currents, wind, and other motion during land, air, and sea operations of a camera. Grober claimed infringement. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of defendants. The Federal Circuit vacated the claim construction and the grant of summary judgment and remanded. A patent is infringed if even a single claim is infringed and the district court misconstrued term “payload platform.” View "Grober v. Mako Prods., Inc." on Justia Law

This case required the Supreme Court to decide whether filmmakers receiving tax credits from the State of Iowa under the State's tax credit program could enjoin the State from releasing summaries of their films' final budgets to the public. The district court determined they could. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the budget summaries do not qualify as trade secrets under Iowa Code 22.7(3); (2) the budget summaries cannot be considered "reports to governmental agencies which, if released, would give advantage to competitors and serve no public purpose" under Iowa Code 22.7(6); and (3) the filmmakers failed to meet Iowa Code 22.8's requirements for injunctive relief by demonstrating disclosure would not be in the public interest and would substantially and irreparably injure any person or persons. Remanded. View "Iowa Film Prod. Servs. v. Iowa Dep't of Econ. Dev." on Justia Law

In 1986, the Association signed an agreement with Beulah Park governing racing operations; later, they amended to establish a regular process in which the Association periodically would grant or withhold consent to simulcast races to betting facilities outside of Ohio. In 1996, the Association executed a similar agreement with River Downs. Under the agreements, when Beulah Park and River Downs want to simulcast races to out-of-state betting facilities, they send a letter to the Association outlining the terms of the proposed simulcast and requesting authorization. After the Association withheld consent to 2006 requests, Beulah Park and River Downs filed a complaint with the Ohio Racing Commission. The Racing Commission ruled in favor of the race parks. The Association sued, arguing that the federal Interstate Horseracing Act, 15 U.S.C. 3004(a) preempted the Ohio law. The district court agreed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, stating that "To respect the state law is to slight the federal one." View "Horseman's Benevolent & Protective Ass'n v. DeWine" on Justia Law

In 2007, Plaintiff Helen Barton was injured while watching a high school football game in Barrow when a player ran out of bounds during a play and collided with her, breaking her leg. Plaintiff sued the North Slope Borough School District, alleging in part that the football field had not been designed or built with a proper "run-off" area along the sidelines and that spectators had improperly been allowed to stand in the run-off area during the game. Plaintiff retained expert landscape architect Juliet Vong who proposed to testify that she used a particular manual in designing sports fields "to help ensure the appropriate dimensions and design criteria are met for a given sport and level of play." The School District filed a motion in limine to exclude Vong's testimony because it did not provide an admissible expert opinion. The superior court agreed with the District and excluded Vong's report and testimony. At a jury trial in August 2010, the District was found not negligent. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the superior court should not have excluded Vong's testimony and that doing so was prejudicial to Plaintiff's case. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that although it was error to exclude Vong’s testimony, the error was harmless.View "Barton v. North Slope Borough School District" on Justia Law

In 2005, Forest Park formulated a concept for a television show called "Housecall," in which a doctor, after being expelled from the medical community for treating patients who could not pay, moved to Malibu, California, and became a concierge doctor to the rich and famous. Forest Park created character biographies, themes, and storylines, which it mailed to Sepiol, who worked for USA Network. Initial discussions failed. A little less than four years later, USA Network produced and aired a television show called "Royal Pains," in which a doctor, after being expelled from the medical community for treating patients who could not pay, became a concierge doctor to the rich and famous in the Hamptons. Forest Park sued USA Network for breach of contract. The district court held that the claim was preempted by the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.101, and dismissed. The Second Circuit reversed. Forest Park adequately alleged the breach of a contract that included an implied promise to pay; the claim is based on rights that are not the equivalent of those protected by the Copyright Act and is not preempted. View "Forest Park Pictures v. USA Network, Inc." on Justia Law

UMG filed suit against Veoh for direct and secondary copyright infringement where users of Veoh's service have in the past been able, without UMG's authorization, to download videos containing songs for which UMG owned a copyright. The district court granted summary judgment to Veoh after determining that it was protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. 512(c), "safe harbor" limiting service providers' liability for "infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider." The court affirmed the district court's determination on summary judgment that Veoh was entitled to section 512(c) safe harbor protection where Veoh met all the section 512(c) requirements. The district court also affirmed the district court's dismissal of the claims of secondary liability against the Investor Defendants. The court further affirmed the district court's determination that, in this case, attorney's fees could not be awarded under Rule 68. The court remanded for the district court to consider in the first instance whether Veoh was entitled to Rule 68 costs excluding attorney's fees.View "UMG Recordings, Inc., et al. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an exotic dancer, challenged the nudity ordinances of Van Buren Township under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff works for Garter Belt, an entity that operates a strip club and is currently enjoined from violating the Van Buren nudity ordinances, as a result of a prior suit, in which Garter Belt unsuccessfully challenged the ordinances. In light of the previous suit, the district court dismissed plaintiff's action on res judicata grounds, reasoning that her interests had been adequately represented by Garter Belt in the previous suit. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. For purposes of her dancing at the club operated by Garter Belt, plaintiff became bound by the injunction when she accepted her employment-like contractual arrangement with a corporation that was bound by a permanent injunction. If a party litigates against a corporation, and obtains injunctive relief, claim preclusion should protect the party against future litigation raising the same issue and seeking the same result.View "Ludwig v. Twp. of Van Buren" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were high school football players that earned scholarships to play for National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I football programs. Both suffered career-ending football injuries at college. Their athletic scholarships were good for one year. When injuries prevented them from playing football, their scholarships were not renewed. Plaintiffs challenge two NCAA regulations as having an anticompetitive effect, in violation of the Sherman Act. 15 U.S.C. 1: the cap on the number of scholarships given per team and the prohibition of multi-year scholarships. The district court dismissed, finding that plaintiffs failed to allege a relevant commercial market on which NCAA Bylaws had an anticompetitive effect. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. It was not clear whether plaintiffs believed that the Bylaws affect an overall market for degrees, which would impact scholarship athletes and non-athletes alike, or some market that only concerns athletes attempting to obtain education in exchange for athletic services. Plaintiffs claimed that they alleged that there was no practical alternative for students wishing to pursue an education in exchange for playing ability, but the complaint explained the lack of practical alternatives for colleges wanting to field teams outside of the NCAA framework, not the lack of alternatives for student-athletes. View "Agnew v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n" on Justia Law

In these parallel cases, separate petitions were filed requesting the district court to set a "reasonable" rate after ASCAP and BMI were unable to agree on licensing fees with DMX, a provider of background/foreground music. In both cases, the district court adopted DMX's proposals. The court held the Second Amended Final Judgment (AFJ2) permitted blanket licenses subject to carve-outs to account for direct licensing and the court rejected ASCAP's claim that a blanket license with an adjustable carve-out conflicted with the AJF2. The court concluded that the district court in both cases found that ASCAP and BMI did not sustain their burdens of proving that their proposals were reasonable; no legal error contributed to these findings and the findings supported by the record were not clearly erroneous; and in both instances, the district court had the authority to set a reasonable rate for DMX's licenses. Accordingly, the court held that the district court did not err in setting DMX's licensing rates with ASCAP and BMI and that the rates set by the district court were reasonable. View "Broadcast Music, Inc. v. DMX Inc.; American Society of Computers, Authors and Publishers v. THP Capstar Acquisition Corp." on Justia Law

In January 2012, the EPA promulgated an interim final rule (IFR) to permit manufacturers of heavy-duty diesel engines to pay nonconformance penalties (NCPs) in exchange for the right to sell noncompliant engines. Petitioners requested administrative stays of the IFR, protesting that the EPA lacked good cause within the meaning of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq. The court concluded that the EPA took this action without providing formal notice or an opportunity for comment, invoking the "good cause" exception provided in the APA. Because the court found that none of the statutory criteria for "good cause" were satisfied, the court vacated the IFR. View "Mack Trucks, Inc., et al. v. EPA" on Justia Law