In today’s fast-paced entertainment and sports world, IPLL applies a multi-discipline approach to advising our clients. We bring our “A” game, namely years of industry experience, pooled across multiple jurisdictions, and a full range of related practice and industry specialties for these industry. We have the breadth and depth of experience required to strategically address the myriad of legal considerations involved in the complex businesses of entertainment and sports law.
IPLL’s copyrights practice is committed to the core principle that our attorneys create value for their clients’ copyrightable works. Grounded in solid foundations in all venues of intellectual property, our counsel provide leadership in comprehending, protecting and monetizing the works of our authors and artists. A few areas of IPLL’s coverage are copyrightability, fair use, ownership, copyright collateral pledges, licensing, corporate copyright policy, copyrights in contracts and corporate partnerships, advertising
IPLL’s intellectual property practice area includes attorneys and legal assistants with multiple decades of IP experience who have distinguished themselves in the profession. Holding advanced degrees and bringing years of industry experience in cutting-edge scientific disciplines, our counsel have represented clients throughout the world in IP procurement, prosecution, registration, licensing, technology transfer and litigation. As counsel, we are partners with high technology, life sciences and media corporations to secure and
The matter Unclaimed Property Recovery Service, Inc. v. Kaplan No., 12-4030 (2d Cir., Aug. 20, 2013) presents an issue of whether the holder of a copyright in a litigation document may withdraw the authorization to use the document after the document has already been introduced into the litigation and make subsequent infringement claim for the use of the document in the litigation. The plaintiff in this case, Bernard Gelb and
In 2004, the Fourth Circuit revived a two prong test for a copyright claim involving architecture between two home builders in Charles W. Ross Builder, Inc. v. Olsen Fine Home Building, 2012 WL 5447871 (4th Cir. Nov. 8, 2012). Rick and Jennifer Rubin, who wished to build new home, had visited the plaintiff Ross’s model home and received a copy of a brochure, including the “Bainbridge” model allegedly copied by