Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons^™

The First Amendment And Content Restrictions In State Film Incentive Programs, Dr. Joel Timmer

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

In recent years, many states have offered incentive programs to lure film production and its associated economic benefits—increased jobs, spending, and tourism—to their states. Several of these programs have restrictions that deny incentives based on a film’s content. For example, Texas denies film incentives to projects that have “inappropriate content” or portray “Texas or Texans in a negative way.” This article concludes that these restrictions do not violate the First Amendment. Two key considerations factor into this conclusion: First, in granting subsidies, the government may apply criteria that would be impermissible in a regulatory context. Second, the denial of a …

Capitol Records V. Vimeo: How The Digital Millennium Copyright Act Is Outdated And In Need Of Revision, Dustin Johnson

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

This Comment analyzes the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ interpretation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in Capitol Records, LLC v. Vimeo, LLC, 826 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2016). Beginning with a brief overview of the DMCA’s history, this Comment acknowledges the Second Circuit’s holding in Viacom Int’l Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2012). In Viacom, the Second Circuit set precedent with its interpretation of the knowledge requirements for safe harbor under section 512(c) of the DMCA.

In Capitol Records, the Second Circuit confirmed its holding in Viacom but missed an …

Battle Of The Band: Exploring The Unconstitutionality Of Section 2(A) Of The Lanham Act And The Fate Of Disparaging, Scandalous, And Immoral Trademarks In A Consumer-Driven Market, Tanya Behnam

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

In the 2016-2017 term, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Matal v. Tam, holding that the Lanham Act’s section 2(a) ban on disparaging trademarks—which prevents registration of any trademarks that the PTO deems to be disparaging to any groups or institutions—is unconstitutional. Although meant to only apply to section 2(a)’s ban on disparaging trademarks, the Court’s decision increases the likelihood that section 2(a)’s still-standing ban on scandalous and immoral marks are unconstitutional as well.

This Comment first reviews the basic principles of trademark law and the Lanham Act, summarizes Simon Tam’s legal battles, and briefly presents the conflicting …

Leveling (Up) The Playing Field: A Policy-Based Case For Legalizing And Regulating Esports Gambling, Matthew Dobill

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

No abstract provided.

Comment: Equal Access Requires Full Captioning Of Music And Song Lyrics For The Deaf And Hard Of Hearing, Frances Choi

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

No abstract provided.

Comment: Ray V. Espn, Inc. And The Need For Further Development In Copyright Preemption Analysis Of The Right Of Publicity In Professional Sports, Thomas Hwang

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

No abstract provided.

Comment: United States V. Nosal Ii, Futoshi Dean Takatsuki

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

No abstract provided.

Stop The 'Nazzi': Why The United States Needs A Full Ban On Paparazzi Photographs Of Children Of Celebrities, Dayna Berkowitz

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Square Peg In A Round Hole: The Current State Of The Video Privacy Protection Act For Videos On The Internet And The Need For Updated Legislation, Schooner Sonntag

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

No abstract provided.

Playing Around Hart And Keller's Full-Court Press: Designing A Federal Compulsory Licensing Regime For Rights Of Publicity That Enables Developers And Compensates Rights Holders, Will Bucher

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fight Terror, Not Twitter: Insulating Social Media From Material Support Claims, Nina I. Brown

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Twelfth Round: Will Boxing Save Itself?, Katherine Figueroa

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

No abstract provided.

Online Gaming And The Pay-To-Win Problem: Legal Deterrence Or Industry Self-Regulation?, Simone Darakjian

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

No abstract provided.

Stripping Down A Victory For Adult Entertainment: Showtime Entertainment, Llc V. Town Of Mendon, Ethan Bond

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

No abstract provided.

By Any Other Name: Image Advertising And The Commercial Speech Doctrine In Jordan V. Jewel, Kelly Miller

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

This Comment focuses on the commercial speech doctrine as applied to modern advertising strategies, specifically, corporate image advertising. It centers on the recent litigation between basketball superstar Michael Jordan and a Chicago-area grocery chain, Jewel-Osco. When Michael Jordan was inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame, Jewel-Osco was invited to submit a congratulatory ad for a commemorative issue of Sports Illustrated devoted exclusively to Jordan’s career and accomplishments. Because Jordan had spent the bulk of his storied professional basketball career with the Chicago Bulls, the ad seemed a natural fit. Jordan, who did not give permission for his name to …

Adapt Or Die: Aereo, Ivi, And The Right Of Control In An Evolving Digital Age, Johanna R. Alves-Parks

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

The advent of the Internet has had a great effect on the production, distribution, and consumption of television programming. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to ABC, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. and will now review the issue of unlicensed digital distribution of copyrighted programming in its Spring 2014 term. This Comment will first briefly examine the origins and interconnection between television and digital media, culminating in a discussion of the repercussions of allowing unlicensed over-the-top retransmissions of network broadcast programming to continue to stream over the Internet. It will then examine the decisions in WPIX v. IVI, Inc., ABC, Inc. v. …

Unringing The Bell: Publicly Funded Art And The Government Speech Doctrine, John Barlow

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

This Article advances the novel argument that within the domain of removing publicly funded art from public display, the application of the Government Speech Doctrine is improper because of the current scope and policy considerations of the Doctrine, the mutable nature of art speech, and artist moral rights. As an alternative, this Article proposes a model statute legislatures should adopt that outlines an appropriate analytical framework for removing public art from public display that takes into consideration individual free speech rights, the government’s right to control its own messages, the nature of art speech, and artist moral rights.