« December 2010 | Main | February 2011 »

January 2011 Archives

January 6, 2011

Job Posting - Media Law Resource Center

Media Law Resource Center (MLRC) is looking for an attorney with no less than four years experience for a full-time position as Staff Attorney. MLRC is seeking someone with in-depth knowledge of digital publishing technologies and of the law and legal issues that relate to content distribution in a digital environment. A key element of the portfolio for this new Staff Attorney will be outreach to digital organizations and entities, as well as proposing and helping to coordinate programs and publications for MLRC on digital issues. The Staff Attorney will have substantial responsibility for the organization and production of at least one annual two-day conference on digital issues. The Staff Attorney will be expected to write for MLRC publications on digital issues on an ongoing and regular basis.

This Staff Attorney also will be responsible for the practical development and maintenance of MLRC's digital and IT operations, and overseeing the MLRC website as well as working with others at MLRC on MLRC's 50-State Surveys, MediaLawDaily, MediaLawLetter, MLRC Bulletin, and other ongoing MLRC conferences, projects and publications.

The overall mix of work for the Staff Attorney will be varied and will cover a range of media law and practice matters.
Salary will be at a modest not-for-profit level, and dependent upon the level of experience of the attorney chosen. Candidates must be in or willing to relocate to the New York City area.

MLRC has a small staff, which offers each lawyer the opportunity for substantial responsibility for many aspects of MLRC programs and member services. MLRC members are interesting and intellectually challenging. MLRC publications are well regarded. New programs, publications and projects are constantly under consideration and development. The MLRC Staff Attorney should have excellent research and writing skills, as well as the ability and desire to work with a wide range of individuals and to manage the demands of a number of on-going projects.
Interested individuals should contact:

Sandra Baron, Executive Director
E-mail: mlrc@medialaw.org
Website: www.medialaw.org MLRC.informz.net/z/cjUucD9taT0xMTc2NTYwJnA9MSZ1PTEwMTA4NTc2NDkmbGk9NDg5MTcwNQ/index.html>

January 7, 2011

Spider-Man Can't Turn Off the Critics

By Bennett Liebman

On December 28, 2010, New York Post reporter Michael Riedel (Riedel had previously been very critical of the production of the musical. See "And Spider-Man's Latest Troubles Are ..." New York Magazine, December 29, 21010 http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/12/and_spider-Tman_latest_troubles.html; Michael Riedel, "Bono, You too Should Care," New York Post, December 24, 2010) was denied his seat for the preview to the Broadway musical "Spider-Man: Turn off the Dark."

As described by Riedel:
As I was making my way down the aisle, a security guard approached and said, "Sir, may I see your ticket?"
I was wary, but showed it to him anyway.
"You can't sit here, sir," he said.
Suspecting that I was about to be thrown out of the theater on my ear (can't imagine why!), I stood my ground. "That seat is empty, and it's mine," I said as I scrambled over several sets of knees.
A few minutes later, the guard returned, this time with a house manager.
"I'm going to have to move you, sir," the manager said.
When I asked why, he said -- and I quote -- "For safety issues."
It really doesn't get any better than this, I thought. I didn't budge. The house manager reiterated: "I have another seat for you, sir, but I must move you for safety reasons." (Italics mine.)
I took out my notebook, identified myself as a reporter and asked why my seat in row D -- D for death, I guess -- wasn't safe. The color drained from the manager's face and, after conferring with the security guard, he said: "Sir, this seat has been sold twice. I have another seat for you, and I will give you a full refund."
Things were getting fishier by the minute, but I wasn't going to move.
"Sir, we cannot start the show until you move," the manager said. "If you do not, I will have to call the police..."
As the manager escorted me to the balcony, I said, "Look, are you banishing me to the balcony because I'm Michael Riedel of the New York Post?"
"I did not know who you were, sir, until you told me," he said.
My ego deflated, I plopped down into my new seat -- a lousy one, up in the rafters, against the wall. I fired a few more questions at the manager, but he bolted. I don't know if he was telling the truth about the seat being sold twice -- the view from my new seat was so bad, I couldn't see my old seat or half of the flying stunts.
But apparently D116, my original seat, was the only "dangerous" one since nobody else in the aisle was given the heave-ho.
I have yet to get to the bottom of this mystery. The press agent for "Spider-Man" says the producers weren't aware of it, though when they heard about it, they laughed.
I couldn't find the house manager after the show. And I'm still waiting for my promised refund. (Michael Riedel, "'Spidey' Stole My Seat!" New York Post, December 29, 2010. See http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/theater/spidey_stole_my_seat_Qm9hCJM2Hqh4I8Mr6ojsHP).

The short question is can they do that? Can Mr. Riedel be excluded from Spider-man?

The short answer is that if Mr. Riedel has a ticket, they can't exclude him due to a state statute passed in 1941. That statute basically reversed - for the Broadway stage - a longstanding precedent established by the New York State Court of Appeals. In that 1916 decision, dealing with a fact pattern similar to that of the Riedel case, the Court of Appeals upheld the right of a theater owner to exclude a newspaper critic from its theater. ( Woollcott v. Shubert, 217 N.Y. 212 (1916).). Michael Riedel can probably thank the Shubert Brothers for their persistence in trying to block criticism of their shows. They largely made this an issue that warranted legislative attention.

Alexander Woollcott and the Shuberts

In the 1916 case, the theater owners were the Shubert Brothers, and the critic was Alexander Woollcott, at the time the theater critic for The New York Times. (Woollcott eventually became a famous media personality, and his personality was parodied in the play "The Man Who Came to Dinner" written by George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart in 1939.). On March 17, 1915, the Shuberts opened the show, "Taking Chances." Woollcott's review, which did not have a byline, appeared on March 18. He found that the play was "not vastly amusing." ("Lou-Tellegen in a German Farce," New York Times, March 18, 1915.). He added, "Not much energy and ingenuity was left for the reconstruction of a good play. It must be said that the resulting product is quite absurd and little more than that." (Id.). Based on this review, the Shuberts determined to ban Woollcott from attendance at Shubert theaters.

Woollcott's review was hardly the only negative review of "Taking Chances." The play drew six mixed reviews and eight pans. Its only positive review was from the Shubert controlled New York Review. (Foster Hirsch, The Boys from Syracuse, First Cooper Square Press (1998 ) Pg. 107. See also "Reviewing a Play Under Injunction," New York Times, April 4, 1915.).

On April 1, 1915, Woollcott presented orchestra tickets to see a Shubert play but was denied admission. Woollcott and the Times sued under the State's Civil Right Act and soon received an injunction enabling Mr. Woollcott to admission at the Shubert theaters. (Id., "Reviewing a Play Under Injunction."). The exclusion of Woollcott soon became a major national issue, with much of the press lined up against the Shuberts. (The Boys from Syracuse, supra note 7 at Pg. 108.).

The focus of the litigation was New York State's Civil Right Act. (Civil Rights Law § 40.). This law had been passed in 1895 and was one of a number of state laws that had been passed in reaction to the Supreme Court decision in the Civil Rights Cases. (109 US 3 (1883).). The Supreme Court had restricted the federal Civil Rights Act of 1875 from applying to private actors. The New York law - then popularly known as the Malby Law after its sponsor Assemblyman and Former Assembly Speaker George Malby of St Lawrence County - had been largely designed to provide civil rights to blacks. (Ch. 1042, L. 1895.). It provided for civil recoveries in the event that to "all citizens of every race, creed or color" (Id. §2.) who were not provided full and equal accommodations at certain establishments including inns, restaurants, hotels, music halls and theaters. (Id. §1.). The legislation had been decried by The New York Times as a bill that "should have been entitled 'an act to enable negroes to blackmail the keepers of restaurants and hotels.'" (Editorial, New York Times, June 19, 1895. For another New York Times article in opposition to the Malby Law see "Equality By Legislation, New York Times, June 30, 1895.).

In 1913, the Civil Rights Law was expanded to include hotels "for the accommodation of those seeking health education or rest." (Ch. 285, L. 1913.). Additionally, the law prevented places of public accommodation from publishing or printing advertisements or communications that they intended to discriminate in violation of the Civil Rights Law. This law - the Levy-Wagner Law - was largely designed to prevent discrimination against Jews at resort hotels. (See Jeffrey Gurock, "The 1913 New York State Civil Rights Act, "1 Association for Jewish Studies Review, 93 (1976).).

In amending the Civil Rights Act of 1895, the 1913 legislation changed the beginning lines of the statute to read, "All persons within the jurisdiction of this state shall be entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages and privileges of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement, subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law and applicable alike to all persons. No person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any such place, shall directly or indirectly refuse, withhold from or deny to any person any of the accommodations, advantages or privileges thereof..."

That overall language change was the basis of the Times/Woollcott argument that the public enjoyed an overall right to enter places of public accommodations specified in the Civil Rights Law. (The Court of Appeals had ruled in Grannan v. Westchester Racing Association, 153 N. Y. 449 (1897) after the initial passage of the Malby Law that there was no general right of individuals to enter a place of public accommodation. The plaintiffs needed to find that the statute had been amended so that Grannan would no longer apply.).

At the trial level, the judge ruled for Woollcott and the Times. The judge found that New York Civil Rights act provided the plaintiff with a broad right of general access to the places, such as theaters that were specifically enumerated in the statute. (Woolcott [sic]v. Shubert, 90 Misc. 474 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County 1915).).

On appeal, however, the courts ruled for the Shuberts. The appellate division (Woollcott v. Shubert, 171 A.D. 901, (1st Dep't 1915).), followed by the unanimous Court of Appeals ( See note 3 supra. Voting for the Shuberts in the case was Judge Cardozo, who had previously served as an attorney for the Shuberts. Andrew L. Kaufman, Cardozo, Harvard University Press, 1998, Pg. 101.), found that the Civil Rights Law did not provide for general public access to places of public accommodation. Instead, it only banned discrimination "expressly qualified by the subsequent words 'on account of race, creed or color.'" (Id. at 220.). Thus, only if Woollcott had been denied admission based on his race, creed, or color would the Civil Rights Law apply.

The plaintiffs further argued that the legislative debates involving the 1913 law established the intent to abrogate the common law. The Court of Appeals, however, found, "It is established law, however, that the statements and opinions of legislators uttered in the debates are not competent aids to the court in ascertaining the meaning of statutes." (Id. at 221.). Since Woollcott had not been discriminated against based on his race, creed, or color, the theater owner retained its common law right to exclude him at will.

The 1941 Statute

The Woollcott decision remained in place until 1941when the legislature enacted a new addition to the Civil Rights Law. (Ch. 893, L. 1941.) That bill added a new section to the Civil Rights Law (Civil Rights Law §40-b.) which was designed to repeal the Woollcott decision. The provision, which has remained unchanged since its enactment reads:

"No person, agency, bureau, corporation or association, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place of public entertainment and amusement as hereinafter defined shall refuse to admit to any public performance held at such place any person over the age of twenty-one years who presents a ticket of admission to the performance a reasonable time before the commencement thereof, or shall eject or demand the departure of any such person from such place during the course of the performance, whether or not accompanied by an offer to refund the purchase price or value of the ticket of admission presented by such person; but nothing in this section contained shall be construed to prevent the refusal of admission to or the ejection of any person whose conduct or speech thereat or therein is abusive or offensive or of any person engaged in any activity which may tend to a breach of the peace.

The places of public entertainment and amusement within the meaning of this section shall be legitimate theatres, burlesque theatres, music halls, opera houses, concert halls and circuses." [Emphasis added].

Thus, if a critic, or any other person, holds a ticket to a show, he or she cannot be ejected or excluded from the performance. That holds true even if the potential attendee receives a refund of the purchase price of the ticket. Only if the attendee is abusive, offensive or engaged in any activity which may breach the peace can the attendee be excluded or ejected.

The law does not apply to all conceivable places of public entertainment. Movie theaters are not covered. (Impastato v. Hellman Enters., 147 A.D.2d 788, 790 (3d Dep't 1989).). Sporting events are not covered, (Mandel v. Brooklyn Nat'l League Baseball Club, 179 Misc. 27 (Sup. Ct., Bronx Co., 1942).), but it certainly applies to Broadway theaters, and to Spider-man.

The constitutionality of the law was quickly tested after its enactment in 1941, and again it involved the Shuberts. The Shuberts in Manhattan denied admission to a patron named Robert Christie from Schenectady County who held a ticket for the Broadway show "Panama Hattie." Christie sued the Shuberts for $500 under the amendment to civil rights law. (Associated Press, "Laws Protecting Critics of Plays Argued in Court, "New York Times, September 21, 1941.). Longtime Shubert lawyer William Klein, as part of this test case, argued that it was important for theater owners to be able to exclude critics because "95 percent of readers of critical reviews are influenced by criticisms." (Id., Klein's long-time association with the Shuberts is highlighted in The Boys from Syracuse, supra note 7 at Pg. 125.). The Shuberts argued that the classification of the law, by excluding motion picture theaters, was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

The trial court disagreed with the Shuberts. It found that the statute was a valid exercise of the police power and that it was not possible to find that the exclusion of the motion picture theaters made the statute "arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable." (Associated Press, "Rules for Theatre 'Safe for Critics,'" New York Times, December 13, 1941.).

On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's decision. It stated, "The New York statute is constitutional and sustains plaintiff's right to recover unless the exclusion of motion picture theatres makes it discriminatory." (Christie v. 46th St. Theatre Corp., 265 A.D. 255, 258 (3rd Dept., 1942); "Law Compelling Theatres to Admit Any One With Ticket Upheld by Court," New York Times, December 30, 1942.). It too was unable to find an equal protection violation because classifications are legislative matters. The fact that there are thousands of movie theaters while less than 50 Broadway theaters provided a reasonable justification for the enactment. (Id.)

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision without an opinion (Christie v. 46th St. Theatre Corp., 292 N.Y. 520 (1944).), and the Supreme Court did not grant certiorari. (323 U.S. 210 (1944). See also "Theatre Ticket Law Is Up to High Court with New York Seeking Its Affirmation," New York Times, October 9, 1944.).

Accordingly, New York has a statute which "codifies the right of reasonable access for only the small group of patrons who attend places of 'public entertainment and amusement.'" (Steven Sutherland, "Patron's Right of Access to Premises Generally Open to the Public," 1983 U. Ill. L. Rev. 533, 544 (1983).). In response to the Shuberts' desire over the years to exclude critics, the New York State legislature has had in place, for nearly 70 years, a law that would protect Michael Riedel from being ejected from Spider-man. The producers of the show cannot reject Mr. Riedel's ticket or turn off Mr. Riedel's light.

January 10, 2011

J.K Rowling Succeeds in Copyright Infringement Case

By Barry Werbin

On Jan. 6, Judge Shira Scheindlin rejected a copyright suit brought by Paul Gregory Allen, as Trustee for the Estate of Adrian Jacobs, against Scholastic, alleging that J.K. Rowling's 4th Harry Potter novel, published in 2000, copied parts of a 1987 book about a character named Willy the Wizard, which was published in the UK in 1987. The court found that no reasonable trier of fact could find any substantial similarities between the works at a copyright level.

What is particularly interesting from an infringement litigation perspective is that the court, after reading the books and engaging in a "detailed examination of the works themselves," granted Scholastic's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) at the outset of the case before any factual discovery record was developed. On this point, Judge Scheindlin noted that: "'When a court is called upon to consider whether the works are substantially similar, no discovery or fact-finding is typically necessary, because what is required is only a visual comparison of the works.' Thus, while the question of substantial similarity often presents a close issue of fact that must be resolved by a jury, district courts may determine non-infringement as a matter of law 'either because the similarity between two works concerns only non-copyrightable elements of the plaintiffs work, or because no reasonable jury, properly instructed, could find that the two works are substantially similar.'"

The court emphasized that the contrast between the "total concept and feel" of the two works - a test particularly appropriate given that the two works targeted children - was "so stark that any serious comparison of the two strains credulity." Just one example was the comparative lengths of the two works - 734 and 16 pages, respectively. Significant differences also were found in the works' "structure, mood, details and characterization" and other general similarities were expected under the scenes a faire doctrine.

UMG v. Augusto

By Barry Werbin

In another case testing the bounds of the first sale doctrine, on Jan. 4, 2011, the Ninth Circuit upheld a district court's decision that a record label's printing of a restrictive stamp on promotional CDs that the CDs could not be re-distributed did not create a license agreement, such that promotional CDs can be resold under the first sale doctrine without further permission from the record label. The decision in the case, UMG vs. Augusto, can be accessed here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/01/04/08-55998pdf.

The case was filed in 2007, when Universal Music Group (UMG) sued a California resident, Troy Augusto, who sold promotional CDs on eBay. Promotional CDs are given away by record labels to "music industry insiders" to provide publicity and exposure for upcoming commercial releases of new CDs. In 2008, a district court ruled against UMG on the ground that the promo CDs were gifts under federal law and that the terms under which the CDs were furnished were consistent with ownership, not a license. Augusto, who was not a music industry "insider," acquired promo CDs from music shops and online auctions, then resold them on eBay, advertising them as "rare collectibles not available in stores."

The Ninth Circuit held in pertinent part: "Because the record here is devoid of any indication that the recipients agreed to a license, there is no evidence to support a conclusion that licenses were established under the terms of the promotional statement. Accordingly, we conclude that UMG's transfer of possession to the recipients, without meaningful control or even knowledge of the status of the CDs after shipment, accomplished a transfer of title." The court noted that "nothing on the packaging of the Promo CDs or in the licensing label requires that the recipient return the Promo CDs to UMG" and "UMG receives no recurring benefit from the recipients' continued possession."

Further supporting the concept of a "gift" is The Postal Reorganization Act, which prohibits "the mailing of unordered merchandise" without "the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient." The court found that under this statute, such unsolicited materials "may be treated as a gift by the recipient, who shall have the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without obligation whatsoever to the sender." UMG, however, argued that The Postal Reorganization Act applied only to "consumers", and record industry insiders were not "consumers." Nevertheless, in what appears to be a novel interpretation, the court deemed such insiders as the equivalent of "consumers", because "music industry insiders consume the Promo CD just as any other purchaser would, by listening to it. The reason these insiders are selected to receive the Promo CD is because they are not just consumers, they are consumers with influence."

Significantly, just a few months earlier, the Ninth Circuit went in the opposite direction when it decided the long awaited Vernor v . Autodesk case, in which it held that various "license" terms accompanying software - in that case the popular AutoCAD program - which restricted its transfer or lease, did not convey "ownership" of the particular copy of the software purchased by an end user. As only the "owner" of a particular "copy" of a copyrighted work may resell it under the first sale doctrine, one who only possesses but does not own a particular copy of software cannot resell or further distribute it without violating the rights of the copyright owner.
Without mentioning the Vernor case, the UMG Court contrasted cases involving computer software: "Unlike the use of software, which necessitates a license because software must be copied onto a computer to function, music CDs are not normally subject to licensing. Therefore, the benefits of a license for software do not exist under these facts."

January 16, 2011

AP/Shepard Fairey Settlement Agreement

AP Press Release

AP and Shepard Fairey announce agreement in Obama poster case

The Associated Press, Shepard Fairey and Mr. Fairey's companies Obey Giant Art, Inc., Obey Giant LLC, and Studio Number One, Inc., have agreed in principle to settle their pending copyright infringement lawsuit over rights in the Obama Hope poster and related merchandise.

Mr. Fairey used an AP portrait photograph of Mr. Obama in making the Hope poster. Mr. Fairey did not license the photograph from the AP before using it. The AP contended that Mr. Fairey copied all of the original, creative expression in the AP's photograph without crediting or compensating the AP, and that Mr. Fairey's unlicensed use of the photograph was not a fair use. Mr. Fairey claimed that he did not appropriate any copyrightable material from the AP's photo, and that, in any event, his use of the photograph constituted a fair use under copyright law.

In settling the lawsuit, the AP and Mr. Fairey have agreed that neither side surrenders its view of the law. Mr. Fairey has agreed that he will not use another AP photo in his work without obtaining a license from the AP. The two sides have also agreed to work together going forward with the Hope image and share the rights to make the posters and merchandise bearing the Hope image and to collaborate on a series of images that Fairey will create based on AP photographs. The parties have agreed to additional financial terms that will remain confidential.

"The Associated Press is pleased to have reached resolution of its lawsuit with Mr. Fairey," said Tom Curley, president and CEO. "AP will continue to celebrate the outstanding work of its award-winning photographers and use revenue from the licensing of those photos to support its mission as the essential provider of news and photography from around the world. The AP will continue to vigilantly protect its copyrighted photographs against wholesale copying and commercialization where there is no legitimate basis for asserting fair use."

"I am pleased to have resolved the dispute with the Associated Press," said Mr. Fairey. "I respect the work of photographers, as well as recognize the need to preserve opportunities for other artists to make fair use of photographic images. I often collaborate with photographers in my work, and I look forward to working with photos provided by the AP's talented photographers."

The AP's copyright infringement lawsuit against Obey Clothing, the marketer of apparel with the Hope image, remains ongoing.

January 24, 2011

Senior Corporate Attorney Position NYC

A Senior Corporate Attorney Position is available, which key responsibilities include:

• General legal affairs. Direct general legal affairs of the company, including public company compliance, risk management, commercial contracts, lease agreements, IP protections, business entity structure, capital financing, employment issues and other matters as needed. Participate in the definition, development of, and ongoing compliance of corporate policies and procedures.
• Business transactions. Serve as legal advisor on all major business transactions, including acquisitions, divestitures joint ventures, routine and non-routine commercial arrangements.
• Privacy. Serve as the company's Chief Privacy Officer. Develop and oversee privacy-related policies, procedures, compliance and disclosures. Establish and maintain an internal framework to ensure adherence to standards of consumer privacy including regulatory, NAI and other industry requirements. Conduct privacy training, prepare appropriate contractual provisions, develop procedures to vet potential partners, apprise senior management of significant industry developments and requirements, etc.
• Litigation. Manage all litigation matters involving the company. Consult with and direct outside counsel on case strategy and tactics. Judge the merits of claims filed against or on behalf of the company. Review and comment on drafts of pleadings, briefs, and other papers. Work with appropriate personnel to define strategic defenses and facilitate settlements where warranted.

Requirements and Qualifications:

• Accomplished attorney with 7-12+ years of progressively responsible experience relevant to the key responsibilities required for this role.
• Background in privacy law, corporate governance, litigation, and complex business matters a must.
• JD degree from national law school and professional license in good standing.
• Very strong knowledge of digital privacy rules and the current regulatory / self-regulatory environment.

If interested, please email Craig Rumberg, Managing Director, at crumberg@cyberforce.net

January 28, 2011

NHL Team Faces Charge of Religious Discrimination by Jewish Hockey Player

By Joseph M. Hanna

The issue of the lack of racial diversity in the National Hockey League (NHL) is not a new one, but with the filing of a new lawsuit in California on January 25, 2011, it appears that the NHL may have other discrimination issues to worry about as well. Jason Bailey, a Jewish hockey player drafted by the Anaheim Ducks and assigned to play with their minor league affiliate the Bakersfield Condors, is suing the Ducks for religious discrimination and failure to prevent harassment. According to The Orange County Register (see below link), Bailey's Complaint alleges that he was subject to severe harassment from both the Condors' head coach and assistant head coach relating to his religious beliefs. In response to Bailey's complaints about the harassment, both coaches were briefly suspended and made to write letters of apology, a penalty that Bailey alleges was not stiff enough. Bailey was subsequently traded by Anaheim to the Ottawa Senators organization, where he plays for its minor league affiliate, the Birmingham Senators. Both coaches remain with the Condors, although the Ducks cut their ties with the team last year.

(http://www.ocregister.com/news/bailey-285628-ducks-complaint.html webmail.goldbergsegalla.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.ocregister.com/news/bailey-285628-ducks-complaint.html>)


January 31, 2011

Seton Hall Journal of Sports & Entertainment Symposium

The Seton Hall Journal of Sports & Entertainment Law will be hosting its annual Symposium on February 15, 2011, to address current sports and entertainment law issues. Specifically, this event will focus on the professional and ethical dilemmas confronting attorneys representing athletes and entertainers.

The 2011 Sports & Entertainment Law Symposium will be held on February 15, 2011, from 4:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.

Three (2 General & 1 Ethics) CLE credits will be awarded for full day attendance.

For more information, contact Emily Battersby at emily.battersby@student.shu.edu.

About January 2011

This page contains all entries posted to The Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Blog in January 2011. They are listed from oldest to newest.

December 2010 is the previous archive.

February 2011 is the next archive.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.