24 Burst results for "Terrence Ross"
AP News Radio
Carter, Ross lead Magic to 114-97 win over Suns
"The magic have their first winning streak of the season following the one 1497 thumping of the suns Wendell Carter junior had 20 points and ten rebounds for Orlando with shot 52% from the field and was 15 of 33 from three point range Terrence Ross provided 12 of his 14 points in the fourth quarter helping the magic improve to four and 9 Franz Wagner finished with 17 points and Jalen suggs added 16 with 5 assists Phoenix shot just 40% with Devin Booker going 6 of 19 while scoring 17 points Cameron Payne had a game high 22 points for the sons I'm Dave ferry
AP News Radio
Jayson Tatum, Derrick White lead Celtics over Magic, 126-120
"Jayson Tatum important 40 points and had 8 rebounds in the Celtics one 26 one 20 downing of the magic Tatum and Derek white combined for 12 straight points late in the game helping Boston improve to three and O White finished with 27 points two shy of his career high The Celtics went with 6 foot 6 grant Williams at center after scratching Al Horford due to a stiff back Williams had 13 points and 6 boards and 31 minutes Terrence Ross pays to Orlando with 29 points and rookie Paulo banquero had 23 in the magic's tenth straight loss to Boston I'm Dave ferry
Bloomberg Radio New York
"terrence ross" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Sent a message to me that they are leaning towards this not being a fair use. I will point out the Warhol foundation to the extent I have this right at this point. Would have to run the table on the other three to get there. It's a very challenging case. Both sides say the potential stakes here are enormous. Not just on the art world, but on publishing on movies, and so on. Are they exaggerating or do you agree with that? Oh, absolutely. This is going to be one of the most significant decisions with respect to secondary works of all time Anglo Saxon law. At issue is control of the original work by the artist for the original work. And to the extent that this is held to be not a fair use. I think the critics are correct that that will mean that the original artist have much more control over their works. The question is whether or not the next step in that argument is correct. Does giving the original artist more control over the work inhibit future creativity and as we heard in the oral argument, there was a lot of discussion of licensing, doesn't the right to license these original works to make changes allow you to still engage in level creativity. This was not said in court, but look, you had very wealthy entities involved here. You had Vanity Fair, Andy Warhol, they clearly had the wherewithal to license the photograph again from Lynn goldsmith in order to do these 16 Colorado silk screens. But they deliberately chose not to. It strikes me that ling goldsmith was entitled to some benefit for her creativity in the first place, which she was being deprived of. So yes, there is going to be a change in the bargaining power amongst artists as to secondary uses of original works. Whether or not it stops creativity. I just don't think so. Thanks so much, Terry. That's intellectual property litigator Terrence Ross, a partner at cat and Newton rosenman. And that's it for
Bloomberg Radio New York
"terrence ross" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Would have to run the table on the other three to get there. It's a very challenging case. Both sides say the potential stakes here are enormous. Not just on the art world, but on publishing on movies, and so on. Are they exaggerating or do you agree with that? Oh, absolutely. This is going to be one of the most significant decisions with respect to secondary works of all time Anglo Saxon law. At issue is control of the original work by the artist for the original work. And to the extent that this is held to be not a fair use. I think the critics are correct that that will mean that the original artists have much more control over their works. The question is whether or not the next step in that argument is correct. Does giving the original artist more control over the work inhibit future creativity and as we heard in the oral argument, there was a lot of discussion of licensing, doesn't the right to license these original works to make changes allow you to still engage in level creativity. This was not said in court, but look, you had very wealthy entities involved here. You had Vanity Fair, Andy Warhol, they clearly had the wherewithal to license the photograph again from Lynn goldsmith in order to do these 16 colorized silk screens. But they deliberately chose not to. It strikes me that ling goldsmith was entitled to some benefit for her creativity in the first place, which she was being deprived of. So yes, there is going to be a change in the bargaining power amongst artists as to secondary uses of original works. Whether or not it stops creativity. I just don't think so. Thanks so much, Terry. That's intellectual property litigator Terrence Ross, a partner at cat and Newton rosenman. And that's it for
Bloomberg Radio New York
"terrence ross" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"This is Bloomberg law with June grosso from Bloomberg radio. Her name is Anna Delphi, or anisa Sorkin, no one's sure she's either a mega rich German heiress, or she's flat broke, and maybe she's Russian. Vivian. That's the point. No one knows. But everyone knows her now. And a soric and was a con artist with an extravagant lifestyle who convinced New York's elite that she was a German heiress, conning acquaintances, banks and realtors. So the unadulterated foundation is a private club, but it's also a dynamic visual on sector. I wanted to be a place for people with taste. The drama series inventing Anna was an instant hit for Netflix. But now it's turned into a legal headache, one of Anna's former friends is suing Netflix for portraying her as a backstabbing freeloader. Big night out? I was, um, I couldn't sleep. Living your best life. I see you, Rachel Williams. My guest is intellectual property litigator Terrence Ross, a partner at cat and nuch and rosenman. Terry, this was not a documentary, Netflix called it a drama inspired by a true story. And at the start of every episode, there was this disclaimer. This story is completely true, except for the parts that are totally made up. Does that protect Netflix in any way here? Not necessarily, June. In fact, I can't imagine a worse disclaimer being used. I really wonder about who came up with this. This story is completely true, except for the parts that are totally made up, but we don't tell you which parts those are. I mean, it's this bizarre. Indeed, I think, to a certain extent, by saying at the start of the disclaimer, this story is completely true. You were sort of reinforcing the view that people have that this is just a recitation of the actual events as they occurred. So the complaint says that it's going to show that Netflix made a deliberate decision for dramatic purposes basically to tell a better story to show Williams doing or saying things that portray her as greedy, snobbish, disloyal, dishonest, cowardly manipulative, and opportunistic. So is this false light invasion of privacy? It might be. It's certainly not as clear cut as the plaintiff seems to present it in the complaint. The core of false light invasion of privacy, which has elements very similar to defamation. So you got to show a false statement that somehow places the plaintiff in a false light. You have to show by clear and convincing evidence, actual malice. And then you have to show that it was highly offensive. The portrayal was highly offensive to a reasonable person. Some of these factual claims, even if accepted as true, I'm not sure that in this day and age that a jury would find them highly offensive. Now, I will set aside the parts about the purported false billing on her credit card back to her employer. But these comments greedy snobbish, manipulative, disloyal. Even if true, they don't really shock the conscience, given what goes on in the world nowadays. And so I think that's a big problem for the plaintiff here as to whether a jury in this day and age would find this to be quote unquote highly offensive. And a lot of those traits, like disloyal dishonest, cowardly manipulative opportunistic. Williams did work with police to get Sorkin arrested and testified against her and some people might view her. In that way. So that goes
Bloomberg Radio New York
"terrence ross" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Miss a story about a con artist living an extravagant lifestyle by convincing New York's elite that she was a German heiress, swindling them out of their money and banks out of millions. And to add to the appeal, it was based on a true story and had a quirky disclaimer. This story is completely true, except for the parts that are totally made up. That hasn't stopped Rachel Williams from suing Netflix for portraying her as an historic and backstabbing freeloading friend who helped police calm the con artist. Joining me is intellectual property attorney, Terrence Ross, a partner at cat and Newton rosenman. This is not a documentary, Netflix called it a drama inspired by the story of Anna Sorkin. And at the start of every episode, there was this disclaimer. This story is completely true, except for the parts that are totally made up. Does that protect Netflix in any way here? No, not necessarily, June. In fact, I can't imagine a worse disclaimer being used. I really wonder about who came up with this. The story is completely true, except for the parts that are totally made up, but we don't tell you which parts those are. I mean, it's this bizarre. Indeed, I think the certain extent by saying at the start of the disclaimer, this story is completely true. You were sort of reinforcing the view that people have that this is just a recitation of the actual events as they occurred. So the complaint says that it's going to show that Netflix made a deliberate decision for dramatic purposes basically to tell a better story to show Williams doing or saying things that portray her as greedy, snobbish, disloyal, dishonest, cowardly manipulative, and opportunistic. So is this false light invasion of privacy? Well, it might be. It's certainly not
The Lowe Post
"terrence ross" Discussed on The Lowe Post
"They did something I thought was really interesting, which is they rebuilt on the fly a little bit. And they didn't say we're going to take four years to do this like some franchises. Do they said, okay, we're going to do a mini rebuild within a rebuild. It's like a play within a play. And they got it done. Really, really well. And I can not give them any more kudos to that. So we mentioned they're starting 5. Yeah. You can go, you can go through their bench. Here are some of the names on their bench. And I'm doing this facetiously on purpose. Cole Anthony, who's going to have to be talked into being a backup again. Tough, fine, that's life. Gary Harris, nice bounce back last year. Terrence Ross, who's going to be on the magic in 2035? I felt like he said he said goodbye. I'm like 9 different podcasts and he's just still here. He'll never leave. He's gonna be, he's gonna be there, Udonis Haslem, I think. He'll just be in a situation assistant coach, cultures that are. We're gonna be we're gonna be begging him to come back for your 20 two and we're gonna, it's gonna be great. Yep, forever, forever, a soft spot for me. We love, yes. Mo bamba. And again, what I was being facetious about is there's a name we did not mention a very important name on this team despite the fact that his contract is non guaranteed in perpetuity. Jonathan Isaac, who I think exists as more than an author, and he's a successful author. Yes, he is. And what I understand and is healthy is I don't think going to start, which then raises the question of this guy was once considered maybe the most important long-term piece on the entire roster. How is he going to fit into this team? I have some thoughts, but I mentioned you're laughing already. Are you out? Are you just out? Is it over for you? Jonathan Isaac? No, I will
Bloomberg Radio New York
"terrence ross" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Property litigator Terrence Ross of cat and mutant rosenman about the copyright infringement lawsuit filed against paramount over its blockbuster hit Top Gun: Maverick So are you saying that the studio didn't even need to pay the writer for the first Top Gun That is correct They could arguably have made the Top Gun movie the original without obtaining any rights to the California magazine article That's not the way most movie studios work They like to lock up ideas And that's all this California magazine article is an idea of what might turn into a movie Movies always like to lock up ideas for movies By going out and optioning them for relatively small amounts of money and they will have a portfolio of these And paramount is probably the most famous of the movie studios for engaging in this practice If you've watched the new mini series on paramount streaming called the offer which is about the making of The Godfather movie there's a discussion in there between the head of the studio And some other executives about how paramount's practice is to lock up famous books even if there's no current plan to make a movie about the book which is how they got The Godfather Book locked up to make a movie about godfather however the fictional work This article in California magazine was not a fictional work It was just a recounting of facts If that constitutes some sort of intellectual property control over the telling of any story about naval aviation my goodness there would be a claim to so many other movies out there It would make it impossible for the movie industry to do any sort of movie about naval fighter pilots or the United States naval aviation units I mean that's not how copyright works Let's suppose for the sake of argument that paramount did need to get the copyright from the writer Let's talk about the timeline So paramount said that it had been sufficiently completed before the effective termination date of the copyright And this movie was delayed due to COVID I mean would it have to have been substantially completed Completed released or is that not even known There is no existing law in this issue The position that paramount has taken is that it was quote substantially completed And they claim substantial completion prior to the termination date Now the way section two O three the copyright act works is that notwithstanding a termination notice having been issued if you publish him I mean published in the sense of copyright publishing put it out there for the public If you publish a work prior to the termination date you have the right to continue to distribute that work And there is no infringement And so it becomes a very important secondary line of defense for paramount as to whether or not there was sufficient completion in order to take advantage of this one aspect of section two O three It will come down at the end of the day to a factual question that a jury will probably have to decide It will be what state was the movie in on January 21st 2020 In particular are the elements that the plaintiff's claim were taken from the California magazine article Were they complete and there could be other elements that the sound might not be quite finished yet The sound effects might not be quite finished yet The aerial stunts might not be quite finished yet Those are not elements that are claimed under the copyright and therefore it doesn't have to be complete ready to be rolled out to the movie theaters And again keep in mind the delay was apparently caused by the COVID pandemic They didn't want to release this movie which was going to be a blockbuster they knew when there was nobody willing to come back to the movie theaters yet And so I mean there is factual question here and we'll just have to wait to see what the facts are The film has generated more than $546 million globally since its release just last month The lawsuit wants some profits from maverick and to block the studio from distributing the movie or further sequels They are looking for enormous damages here There you are And let's start with this junk development There's going to be no injunction issued That simply won't happen That sort of bar of free speech just as an asthma to courts even in copyright cases The court will say well luck it's actually if you're asking for profits It's in your best interest not to stop showing the movie You want the movie to generate as many profits as possible to help your damages case So there's not going to be an injunction Do not need to rush out this afternoon And watch Top Gun: Maverick before some theoretical injunctions issued not going to happen On the damages side I think the plane of also has a significant problem The original license my understanding was sold for relatively peanuts compared to what was made with no element of profit being factored in And the way we do copyright damages is the first thing we look at is what was the market for the copyrighted work And to determine what the market is you look what willing buyer and a willing sell are paid prior to the infringement And there's only one example of that And that's this 1983 purchase of the original license and that was relatively low dollar amount that had no profit participation So I think there's going to be some problems on trying to get a big chunk of the profits here And even if the court allows them to seek some portion of profits it will have to be shown to what extent the California magazine article contributed to those profits The characters in the California magazine article by mister yone are not the characters that got put up on the screen not maverick It's a rather bland set of characters who seem more like bus drivers go into their jobs every day and then drinking at night And so I think you can have a lot of issues surrounding.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"terrence ross" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"This is Bloomberg law with June grosso from Bloomberg radio The movie Top Gun: Maverick has almost made more in its first two weeks than any other movie paramount has distributed in the last decade according to information from IMDb pro However a copyright infringement lawsuit has been filed against paramount for releasing the blockbuster without securing a license from the estate of the writer whose story inspired the original film almost four decades ago Joining me is intellectual property litigator Terrence Ross a partner at cat and mutant rosenman This is a huge movie with an enormous budget that's been highly anticipated for a long time And Top Gun has been called a jewel in paramount portfolio The return of Tom Cruise as maverick it seems incredible to me that a company like paramount wouldn't be sure it had the rights before it came out with this film Well I think that's correct June And I know for a fact that paramount's well represented on the legal side and I assume that they came to the same conclusion that I did that There was no obligation on their part to purchase a new license from the family in order to produce the Top Gun sequel Wow so you agree with them So let's go to the very beginning At the making of Top Gun paramount did have the rights at that point What happened since then So the rights you refer to June are the rights to an article in California magazine published April 21st 1983 That describes two participants in the navy Top Gun program who go by the call signs yoki and possum and what their typical day at Top Gun is like That's what they bought the rights for The movie has at the end somewhere a credit to the extent story based on this story We need to come back and discuss what that means in more detail but the movie came out as you recall 1986 Under the 1976 copyright act there was a new provision put in section two or three That provides for termination of copyright transfers 35 years after the copyright is transferred during a 5 year window So essentially 35 years after the copyright is assigned you have 5 years to claw back the ownership of the copyright from whomever you assigned it to by sending them a termination letter and jumping through some formalities To the author of the top guns article in California magazine assert that they did that that they properly lawfully terminated the assignment of the copyright effective January 21st 2020 And that therefore when the movie came out a couple of weeks ago in 2022 that it was an infringement of the copyright that they now owned once more And for which paramount did not take a new license before release of the movie So we get a hint of paramount's response in the suit According to the suit the cease and desist letter in early maid which paramount responded that the film had been sufficiently completed before the effective termination date of its copyright and was not derivative of article So let's take the second question first How is this not derivative if the first movie was derivative So you've got to presumption built in there that the first movie was derivative of the article And I think that's the problem with the logic here And the problem with a lot of the commentary so far on the filing of this lawsuit Unlike most of the reporting unlike most of the media that has gone on So far about this I actually went back and read the California magazine article called top guns plural that was written by mister Jones You're too good You're so good Research Everything It's all in the details June And I went the article And it was nothing more than a factual account of two fighter pilots typical day in the top ten training program What it did not have was that the rear seat for maverick dies during the training There's no female trainer that Kelly McGillis part There is no encounter with MiG fighter jets over the Indian Ocean There's no father of maverick being shot down in Korea as the backstory of whole iconic volleyball match There's no competition amongst the Top Gun violence For these to be the maverick versus iceman competition There's simply no story there What there is is a factual recounting of a typical day for two typical navy fighter pilots in the Top Gun program Now keep in mind there is a big difference how copyright treats fiction and factual works In order to infringe a copyright in a factual work which is what this magazine article was you have to engage in what's known as literal copying It's like taking it and putting it on the Xerox machine and reprinting it that way With respect to fictional works there's this concept of substantial similarity All you have to do is show that somehow substantially similar Derived from that work And we have that very important distinction built into copyright law between factual works of fiction works because we don't want anyone to have a monopoly on the facts or on history And this work that was copyrighted is a work of fact not fiction The movie Top Gun that was put out is a work of fiction that happens to share certain factual elements from the California magazine article That does not constitute copyright infringement Coming up next what might paramount be on the hook for in damages This is Bloomberg The balance Aw you didn't have to go so well out for my birthday Yes we did Because birthdays are about.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"terrence ross" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Carlin There are words that you can say No problem Top a graphy No one has ever gone to jail for screaming topography But there are some words that you can go to jail for You can listen to their comedy albums on streaming services but the estates of Williams and Carlin say that Pandora media is streaming their comedy albums without getting a license from them Their estates along with comedians Andrew dice clay Ron white Bill ang villa Nick de Paulo are suing Pandora for not paying them as the authors of the jokes in the way that songwriters are paid royalties for writing lyrics It will be the first time a court will hear a case over licensing spoken word comedy To help us understand the novel questions here my guest is intellectual property litigator Terrence Ross a partner at Catton yutan rosenman Terry the licensing structure gets very complicated Can you give us an overview So copyright law with respect to recorded sound is currently very complex because of a complicated history And there was literally no provision for copyright in recorded sound over the course of 20 century In 1972 Congress finally got around to fixing the 1909 copyright act by providing copyright or recorded sound going forward in time But because recorded Sam came to the copyright game so late in the day it has now a complicated licensing mechanism And this in part has to do with history but also in part with the nature of music You start from the beginning Somebody writes notes the melody to a song someone perhaps the same person perhaps somebody else writes the lyrics to go with that That combination of musical notes and lyrics is often published as sheet music that sheet music that can be played live to audiences For example in a ballroom by an orchestra or it can be recorded onto an LP CD and the other digital medium and listen to a person's convenience So you have these multiplicity of ways that music can be you And that requires several different types of licenses because there are several different copyright components The first one is known as a mechanical license Mechanical license has to do with the copyright in the underlying composition The musical notes and the lyrics So if I am a band and I want to call a song of say Led Zeppelin which is copyrighted I would have to obtain a mechanical license in order to use their composition If however as part of perhaps a hip hop piece I want to sample a few sections from a Led Zeppelin saw and then add to those samples my own composition what I need is known as a master license which is a right to use the actual recording of the music that Led Zeppelin did To make things even more complicated if you're a radio station you need to obtain a public performance license which they third type of license for Musical recordings And after the music modernization act we now have digital streaming services and they have to get completely separate license provided under the MMA which is referred to as a blanket license Where does the spoken word fit into this The copyright regime I just described grew up in a musical context not in the context of spoke words And yet what is the comedy recording It is spoken word And we now have a culture in which thanks to streaming services and podcasts The marketplace for the spoken word is surging and people who have copyrights in the spoken word who previously never even gave much of a thought to enforcing the copyrights Now see that we have this new marketplace in which the spoken word is very valuable and see an opportunity to make money off of that by now for the first time enforcing their copyrights And at the cutting edge of this are the comedians and these lawsuits that have been filed by them in California Let me ask you this just on a pure copyright kind of analysis Is a joke a comedian tells the same as a song that someone writes because you often hear people say oh he's still my joke You know you tell the same joke in a different way Is it like lyrics or is it unlike lyrics So in theory it is like lyric There's the story of Bob Hope one of the most prolific joke riders of all time who kept all these jokes on three by 5 index cards and had this massive catalog in collection of jokes And why did he do that Because copyright only attaches when an original work is fixed in a tangible medium The words from the copyright act fixed in a tangible medium If I simply get up at a comedy club and do an improvised routine I am not fixing those jokes and a tangible medium by for example the classic way of doing that writing them down Now the interesting thing about these recordings of comedians performing is that that act of recording their performance fixes the jokes in a tangible medium writing to be heard for all time And therefore there is at least a copyright in those recordings whether or not there is a separate copyright in the jokes the way there would be a separate copyright for the sheet music is a question that is purely factual and depends on how did the comedian take care of their gel creation where they like Bob Hope where they writing down their jokes and saving them a.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"terrence ross" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Art music film Fashion He broke every row of he made you look at things in a completely different way but that's what art is And now the Supreme Court will decide whether Warhol's series of images of rock icon prince made people look at a photograph of the musician in a completely different way Were those paintings a transformative work of art or were they an appropriation of the photograph by Lynn goldsmith joining me as intellectual property litigator Terrence Ross a partnered cat and mutant rosenman Terry at this point it looks like fair use is in the eye of the beholder Because the district court found that Warhol series was a fair use but the second circuit Court of Appeals disagreed tell us what fair use is Fair use is a statutory defense against copyright infringement It's actually in the copyright act It provides that a secondary use of a copyright work may be fair if the court considers four factors and makes a judgment that the use is appropriate on the statute They're not exclusive courts often look at other factors but the purpose here that Congress had in mind is that we have to have a safety valve for certain type of uses that society favors wants to encourage but might under overly strict interpretation of copyright constant infringement And so we have the safety file that allows courts in individual instances to say No this is a sort thing we want people to be doing So we're going to allow it under this fair use doctor Because keep in mind the tradeoff that our country gives authors and creators with a copyright is that you get certain limited rights for a limited period of time in order to benefit society as a whole and encourage creation But unlike a patent that copyright is not a monopoly And so that's really what their use is about Central question you presented here in this specific case is how many artists fairly use prior works in the creation of new works and that's where fair use comes in What does it tell you that the Supreme Court decided to take this case Well I have somewhat surprised that the Supreme Court granted this case I think it's generally your bit surprised The court passed I think this is fair for several decades now declined to take these fair use cases They did take the Google versus Oracle case to complicate a case for fair use in that involved computer program And as we saw in that decision last year Supreme Court essentially punished the fair use question And I think they realized after briefing in oral arguments this is really we don't know what to do It is really hard We'll decide this one but we're not going to set any precedent with respect to fair use generally And so this sort of surprising that they took this case.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"terrence ross" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Decades after his death pop artist Andy Warhol is everywhere In museum exhibitions Christie's auction house new dramatic plays and musicals upcoming movies and the Netflix documentary series the Andy Warhol diaries Andy Warhol's greatest work of art is Andy Warhol Genius Art music film Fashion He broke every row of he made you look at things in a completely different way but that's what art is And now the Supreme Court will decide whether Warhol's series of images of rock icon prince made people look at a photograph of the musician in a completely different way Were those paintings a transformative work of art or were they an appropriation of the photograph by Lynn goldsmith Joining me is intellectual property litigator Terrence Ross a partnered cat and mutant rosenman Carry at this point it looks like fair use is in the eye of the beholder Because the district court found that Warhol series was a fair use but the second circuit Court of Appeals disagreed tell us what fair use is Fair use is a statutory defense against copyright infringement It's actually in the copyright act It provides that a secondary use of a copyright work may be fair if the court considers four factors and makes a judgment that the use is appropriate on the statute if they're not exclusive courts often look at other factors but the purpose here that Congress had in mind is that we have to have a safety valve for certain type of uses that society favors wants to encourage but might under overly strict interpretation of copyright infringement And so we have the safety file that allows courts in individual instances to say now this is a sort of thing we want people to be doing So we're going to allow it under this fair use doctor I'm going to keep in mind that tradeoff that our country gives authors and creators with a copyright is that you get certain limited rights for a limited period of time in order to benefit society as a whole and encourage creation But unlike a patent that copyright is not a monopoly And so that's really what fair use is about Central question presented here in this specific case is how many artists fairly use prior works in the creation of new works and that's where service comes in What does it tell you that the Supreme Court decided to take this case Well I have to somewhat surprise that the Supreme Court granted this case I think it's generally your bit surprised The court passed I think there's a fair for several decades now declined to take these fair use cases They did take the Google versus Oracle case to complicate a case for fair use in that involved computer program code And as we saw in that decision last year Supreme Court essentially punished the fair use question And I think they realized after briefing in oral arguments This is really we don't know what to do This is really hard We'll decide this one but we're not going to set any precedent with respect to fair use generally And so this sort of surprising that they took this case we will never know.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"terrence ross" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"More than three decades after his death pop artist Andy Warhol is everywhere In museum exhibitions Christie's auction house new dramatic plays and musicals upcoming movies and the Netflix documentary series the Andy Warhol diaries Andy Warhol's greatest work of art is Andy world Genius Art music film fashion We broke every row of he made you look at things in a completely different way but that's what art is And now the Supreme Court will decide whether Warhol's series of images of rock icon prints made people look at a photograph of the musician in a completely different way Were those paintings a transformative work of art or were they an appropriation of the photograph by Lynn goldsmith Joining me is intellectual property litigator Terrence Ross a partnered cat and mutant rosenman Terry at this point it looks like fair use is in the eye of the beholder Because the district court found that Warhol series was a fair use but the second circuit Court of Appeals disagreed tell us what fair use is Fair use is a statutory defense against copyright infringement It's actually in the copyright act It provides that a secondary use of a copyright work may be fair if the court considers four factors and makes a judgment that the use is appropriate on the statute if they're not exclusive courts often look at other factors but the purpose here that Congress had in mind is that we have to have a safety valve for certain type of uses that society favors wants to encourage but might under overly strict interpretation of copyright infringement And so we have the safety file that allows courts in individual instances to say Now this is a sort of thing we want people to be doing So we're going to allow it under this fair use doctor Because keep in mind the tradeoff that our country gives authors and creators with the copyright is that you get certain limited rights for a limited period of time in order to benefit society as a whole and encourage creation But unlike a patent that copyright is not a monopoly And so that's really what fair use is about Central question that presented here in this specific case is how many artists fairly use prior works in the creation of new works and that's where service comes in What does it tell you that the Supreme Court decided to take this case Well I have said somewhat surprised that the Supreme Court granted this case I think competition is generally surprised The court passed I think this is fair for several decades now declined to take these fair use cases They did take the Google versus Oracle case to complicate a case for fair use in that involved computer program code And as we saw in that decision last year Supreme Court essentially punished the fair use question And I think they realized after briefing in oral argument this is really we don't know what to do It is really hard We'll decide this one but we're not going to set any precedent with respect to fair use generally And so this sort of surprising that they took this case we.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"terrence ross" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"TV series servant has all the suspense Supernatural plots and twists M. Night Shyamalan is known for but there's a twist even the filmmaker didn't seek coming A lawsuit by Francesca gregorini claiming the TV series rips off her 2013 movie the truth about Emanuel And the 9th circuit served up a twist of its own by reviving her lawsuit after a district court had dismissed it Here to help us figure out the plot of the lawsuit that is is intellectual property litigator Terrence Ross a partner at cat and nuch and rosenman So Terry in what way does Gregory allege that the TV series ripped off her movie Well June both the movie and the television series on their face tell the story of a grieving mother who has lost a baby and forms an attachment to a doll And in both a teenage nanny goes along with the mother and starts caring for this doll as if it were a real baby So there are those superficial similarities which in copyright law We would call simply ideas With respect to more specific allegations of similarities there is in the original complaint filed by miss gregorini allegations that the plot theme and dialog are all similar The problem I think that the district court judge had with this loss suit and why he dismissed it is that there is a certain lack of specificity in that original complaint Gregorini did specify certain things such as both nannies form attachments with naive young women whom they compelled to steal a bottle of wine similar blocking of shots shock reveals But the judge said the alleged similarities pale in comparison to the differences So here's the core problem with the district court judges decision in my opinion It's this focus on differences between the two works That's not the legal standard The 9th circuit and other courts have said we focus on what are the similarities and not what are the differences This is not a balancing test where you put on one side of the similarities and on the other side the difference is that there are more differences than similarities Therefore we're going to dismiss the lawsuit No that's not the way it's done The way it's supposed to be done is you focus just on the similarities and ask yourself are there sufficient similarities that a reasonable juror might find copyright infringement That's not well spelled out in the 9th circuit decision reversing the Discord judge but it is the one thing that jumped off the page at me in the district court judge's decision and was probably working on the minds of the appellate court judges even though they didn't expressly articulated that way Tell us more about the 9th circuit's reasons for unanimously telling the judge you can't dismiss this lawsuit at this stage So the decision on appeal largely focused on procedural elements And these procedural elements have been a bug a booth in the 9th circuit in copyright cases for over a decade now What is that issue with substantial similarity And for substantial similarity we apply a two part test known as extrinsic test and the intrinsic test But on a motion to dismiss all we consider is the extrinsic test and the extrinsic test asks whether there are similarities remember similarities not differences where there are similarities between plot themes dialog mood setting characters and sequence of events that are considered protectable elements under copyright law The first thing the district court judge has to do is decide what's protectable and what's not protectable elements So the general idea of a grieving mother is not protectable under copyright law The idea of a doll being given humanistic features being treated like a human is not copyrightable The fact that you focused on inducing a boyfriend to go steal a bottle of wine that may well be copyrightable What did not happen here at the Discord level was the judge never attempted to separate the wheat from the chaff to figure out what were the copyrightable elements and what were the non copyrightable elements And then say well these copyrightable elements do have some similarities such that reasonable juror might believe there was copyright frigid That's what the district court did not do in which the 9th circuit really wants to be done on a motion to dismiss The 9th circuit said dismissal of the lawsuit at this early stage was improper because quote reasonable minds could differ on whether the stories are substantially similar My question is don't reasonable minds always differ on whether these things are similar I mean it seems like it's very subjective You're absolutely right June And that's why the 9th circuit that followed those comments with a suggestion that it would be more appropriate here to allow experts to weigh in on this matter And this has become increasingly common in the 9th circuit We see experts being used more and more in copyright cases and I would say there's a definite trend in the 9th circuit to almost requiring some sort of expert input before summary judgment or motion It's misses granted The plot will continue back at the district court Thanks Terry That's Terrence Ross of cat mutant rosenman Coming up will the Supreme Court limit the EPA's power to tackle climate change This is Bloomberg Businesses drivers who switch and save with progressive save over $700 on average and those savings add up Imagine what.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"terrence ross" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"This is Bloomberg law with June gross from Bloomberg radio You hired a nanny for a doll What did you find her How much did those boys tell you about what happened The Apple TV series servant has all the suspense Supernatural plots and twists M. Night Shyamalan is known for but there's a twist even the filmmaker didn't seek coming A lawsuit by Francesca gregorini claiming the TV series rips off her 2013 movie the truth about Emanuel And the 9th circuit served up a twist of its own by reviving her lawsuit after a district court had dismissed it Here to help us figure out the plot of the lawsuit that is is intellectual property litigator Terrence Ross a partner at cat and eugen rosenman So Terry in what way does Gregory allege that the TV series ripped off her movie Well June both the movie and the television series on their face tell the story of a grieving mother who has lost a baby and forms an attachment to a doll And in both a teenage nanny goes along with the mother and starts caring for this doll as if it were a real baby So there are those superficial similarities which in copyright law We would call simply ideas With respect to more specific allegations of similarity there is in the original complaint filed by miss gregorini allegations that the plot theme and dialog are all similar The problem I think that the district court judge had with this loss suit and why he dismissed it is that there is a certain lack of specificity in that original complaint Gregorini did specify certain things such as both nannies form attachments with naive young women whom they compelled to steal a bottle of wine similar blocking of shots shock reveals But the judge said the alleged similarities pale in comparison to the differences So here's the core problem with the district court judges decision in my opinion It's this focus on differences between the two works That's not the legal standard The 9th circuit and other courts have said we focus on what are the similarities and not what are the differences This is not a balancing test where you put on one side of the similarities and on the other side the difference is that there are more differences than similarities therefore we're going to dismiss the lawsuit No that's not the way it's done The way it's supposed to be done is you focus just on the similarities and ask yourself are there sufficient similarities that a reasonable juror might find copyright infringement That's not well spelled out in the 9th circuit decision reversing the Discord judge but it is the one thing that jumped off the page at me in the district court judge's decision and was probably working on the minds of the appellate court judges even though they didn't expressly articulated that way Tell us more about the 9th circuit's reasons for unanimously telling the judge you can't dismiss this lawsuit at this stage So the decision on appeal largely focused on procedural elements And these procedural elements have been a bugaboo in the 9th circuit in copyright cases for over a decade now What is that issue with substantial similarity And for substantial similarity we apply a two part test known as extrinsic test and the intrinsic test But on a motion to dismiss all we consider is the extrinsic test and the extrinsic test asks whether there are similarities remember similarities not differences where there are similarities between plot themes dialog mood setting characters and sequence of events that are considered protectable elements under copyright law The first thing the district court judge has to do is decide what's protectable and what's not protectable elements So the general idea of a grieving mother is not protectable under copyright law The idea of a doll being given humanistic features being treated like him is not copyrightable The fact that you focused on inducing a boyfriend to go steal a bottle of wine that may well be copyrightable What did not happen here at the Discord level was the judge never attempted to separate the wheat from the chaff to figure out what were the copyrightable elements and what were the non copyrightable elements And then say well these copyrightable elements do have some similarities such that reasonable juror might believe there was copyright frigid That's what the district court did not do in which the 9th circuit really wants to be done on a motion to dismiss The 9th circuit said dismissal of the lawsuit at this early stage was improper because quote reasonable minds could differ on whether the stories are substantially similar My question is don't reasonable minds always differ on whether these things are similar I mean it seems like it's very subjective You're absolutely right June And that's why the 9th story that followed those comments with a suggestion that it would be more appropriate here to allow experts to weigh in on this matter And this has become increasingly common in the 9th circuit We see experts being used more and more in copyright cases and I would say there's a definite trend in the 9th circuit to almost requiring some sort of expert input before summary judgment or motion business granted The plot will continue back at the district court thanks Terry That's Terrence Ross of cat and mutant rosenman Coming up will the Supreme Court limit the EPA's power to tackle climate change This is Bloomberg I haven't really woken up Until I've had my McDonald's breakfast deal and I know this is true because before breakfast I put my phone in the refrigerator and couldn't find the keys that were already in my hand.
Lakers Nation Podcast
"terrence ross" Discussed on Lakers Nation Podcast
"And your Lakers did nothing. No, no moves from the Lakers. We're going to break down the what this really makes. I think this, it's easy just to look at this and say, oh, that it's nothing. The Lakers didn't do anything, and that's it. No, I actually think that this means a lot about the rest of this season. It means a lot about this off season and everything else. So we've got a lot to talk about still joining me is Sean Davis from Lakers nation dot com, Sean, how are you doing? I'm doing all right, and I just want to highlight what you've been saying for a little while and now no trade is better than a bad trade. So there's something to be positive about. Yeah, I mean, I know a lot of Lakers fans. First of all, let's just start here. A lot of Lakers fans are frustrated that the Lakers didn't make a move. And that's understandable, especially given what happened last night against the blazers. That was bad. Very, very bad. That was not a good time. Yeah. And so a lot of people were saying, okay, well then they've got to do something. You have to fix this. You have to do something. And so fans are frustrated, of course, that the Lakers didn't do anything you're even seeing national accounts that are commenting about how the Lakers didn't get anything done at the trade deadline. I understand that frustration. Don't get me wrong. I was hoping. Hoping that the Lakers would find something that would make sense and pull off something as well, but it did not happen so fan frustration totally reasonable. I'm seeing a lot of fans that are just upset right now and I think that's a normal thing. And I know you've been seeing the same thing. Yeah, yeah, I've definitely just seen the same thing. And I mean, I get it. I think I said it even last night on the postgame show. I was like, there's no, I thought it was no chance rob pelinka and the front office looks at this roster as, yeah, we're fine with that. We're Bible, these are the blazers, there's only a pretty assignment to use of. But I mean, I think towards the end of the deadline, there was rumors about Terrence Ross, maybe I think I saw at least somebody told me it was THT in the first no, don't do that. So again, no trace better than a bad trade, but I was definitely a little surprised that the Lakers did make a move considering what happened last night. I didn't see anything reliable on the Terrence Ross thing, but we did have the rumor that broke late last night, it was from Michael Scott of hoop site, but then later confirmed a few hours later by Ian begley, about a three team trade between the Lakers, the raptors and the Knicks that would have landed the Lakers cam reddish as well as Alec Burks in exchange for Taylor Horton Tucker and probably Kendrick nunn would have been in there. And then there were some picks that would have been going to the Knicks. We don't know if it's the Lakers first, would have been in or whatever. That was something that apparently did have some traction. We also heard Lakers and nicks had some talks throughout the day that maybe there's something that was going to happen there. But that ultimately, the Lakers decided they didn't want to part with any draft picks. And so I think that tells us a little bit about what the mindset is moving forward. See, a lot of people saw the blazers game and thought, oh, well, clearly, they have to get something done. I think the Lakers may have gone the other way..
The Lowe Post
"terrence ross" Discussed on The Lowe Post
"Gotta find a nickname for this package because it's gonna be mentioned for every player. And if I'm somewhat intrigued by Taylor Horton Tucker, if he's shooting 22% for the three or whatever shooting, there just doesn't have a lot of trade about Kendrick nunn. He's having played and he's got to play the whole season. I think that pick has actually been kind of scoffed at too much. I think that 2027 pick is a pretty could be a potentially valuable pick. But those teams are going to look to upgrade Utah's need for wing defenses. I think obvious. I think if I'm Utah, I'm kicking the tires on a guy like Gary Harris. I think they've discussed Harrison Barnes. I don't know if they have the ammo to get Harrison Barnes Sacramento's obviously got a lot of balls in the air. Minnesota's got Tori and prince in a first round pick. I think Minnesota will be a buyer. I don't know what they can really get though. Is there a name that intrigues you with Minnesota? I don't mean Terrence Ross intrigues me a little bit, but I you know you got a Jalen Noelle playing pretty well off your bench, you know beezy's a wild card. I don't think it would I don't think it cost you. It shouldn't cost you a first round pick, so is it prince and multiple twos, you know? Like something or if Orlando gets a first for either Ross or Harris. Yeah. That's a home run. I don't expect them to be able to get. I don't either. Harris is a big number. I mean, terrance is more in that $11 million range. So it's a little bit more manageable there. But yeah, I mean, Gary Harris has played well enough in the last two months. I'd take him over Terrence Ross. Terrence Ross, his shooting is up and down. And it takes a lot of difficult shots on a better team, you take easier shots. He's shooting. I trust, he just seems like the kind of player he sounds good in theory. You see him on the right and he's like, oh my God. And then you get them on your team and you're like, I can't trust this guy to guard. He doesn't play make for others. He's gonna be my 9th guy. He's more exciting in theory than he is in real life. Well, that's kind of going back to the Lakers like so if it's, I don't even know. We call the package. I have a Laker article coming out next week, so I'm going to have to ask our editors to maybe make up a name for the package because it's referenced a lot in there. But if you're the Lakers, does not Horton Tucker. The Trojan horse, the Lakers the Trojan horse. You let them come in and then all these things come out. But there's none Horton Tucker in three seconds for Gary Harris, makes sense if you're Orlando. Maybe, you know? No, I don't know. That just hurt my head a little bit, honestly. The thought of Taylor Horton Tucker in Orlando with their 9000 centers and others, I like watching Orlando when Cole Anthony in Franz Wagner and shuma okiki and one center window Carter junior had a really nice year. When all the before, I like watching Orlando. When the other guys get involved, they don't like watching them quite as much. And God bless Robin Lopez got to be the happiest, easiest player in the league to deal with. Doesn't play ever doesn't seem to care. He doesn't sit on the bed she lays on the floor and he just watches the game and cheers. And then if they need him, if someone's heard, hey Robin, come in, he makes 7 hook shots and puts up like 18 and 12 and 20 minutes. And if they go to and I'm sure if Jeff Watson goes to Robin after the deadline says, Robin, you're interested in a buyout run, but I'm good. I'm good. You can jump and go to go to him and say Robin, I am trading you to Oklahoma City. But before then, could you be the entertainment at my kid's birthday party? Just as a goodbye present to me, and he'd be like, yeah, where do I sign up? That sounds great. You need me to make some hook shots in the game before then, and what a nice guy. While the final 14s battle.
AP News Radio
Reggie Jackson hits winning jumper, Clippers beat Magic
"Reggie Reggie Jackson Jackson nailed nailed a a jumper jumper with with two two point point two two seconds seconds left left to to give give the the clippers clippers a a one one oh oh six six one one oh oh four four win win over over the the magic magic Jackson Jackson scored scored nine nine of of his his twenty twenty five five points points in in the the fourth fourth quarter quarter including including his his step step back back twenty twenty footer footer which which came came after after call call after after he he tied tied it it with with a a three three pointer pointer Terrence Terrence Ross Ross missed missed a a Trey Trey at at the the buzzer buzzer Luke Luke Conard Conard had had a a season season high high twenty twenty three three points points and and hit hit seven seven threes threes in in the the clippers clippers third third straight straight win win Terrence Terrence Mann Mann added added sixteen sixteen points points Anthony Anthony led led the the magic magic with with twenty twenty three three points points one one more more than than Ross Ross Anthony Anthony also also hit hit five five three three pointers pointers I'm I'm Dave Dave Ferrie Ferrie
Bloomberg Radio New York
"terrence ross" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Their agencies have filed more than a dozen copyright infringement suits against individual celebrities or their companies The suits are targeting celebrities who post photos of themselves on social media Photos they don't on the rights to I've been talking to intellectual property litigator Terrence Ross a partner at Kat and eugen rosenman Back grid USA which calls itself one of Hollywood's largest celebrity photograph agencies Is looking for as much as $1.2 million in damages For actress Lisa Rinna posting 8 unauthorized photos of herself and her grown daughters So first of all the amount of money involved I mean is that demand for damages way out of line Because if the photos were sold they wouldn't bring anything close to that amount So that's correct junior There are two approaches to damages for copyright infringement One is known as statutory damages We recognize that it's hard sometimes to quantify the damage caused by infringement of a copyright And so we simply set a schedule of what the damages should be And that ranges from $750 up to a $150,000 The range depends in large part upon the willfulness involved So if it's a completely accidental innocent use it's a lower end If it's a willful use knowing that there's a copyright involved using it to try to gain some commercial advantage The numbers will be much higher So that's a statutory damage key But separately you can simply see for the lost profits that the photographer has given up because their photo was taken Again that sell them going to be in the $1.2 million range that could be more in the 3000 to $5000 range It's $1.2 million certainly seems excessive In this case but perhaps there's some unique set of facts that justify it She's actually fighting this and her lawyer claims that backwards allegations are barred because the agency has effectively weaponized the copyright act in an effort to augment its income That sounds like a good argument to make to the media but is that a legal argument I agree completely with you That's nice rhetoric to use in the media and I saw that line get quoted in a number of new stories about the lawsuit already I think that one would be hard pressed in front of a competent judge to throw that up as a defense It might be that there's an argument sort of underneath that that says that according a copyright in these circumstances is inappropriate because the circumstances under which the photograph was taken So this is often the case if the paparazzi has broken into your house and taking a photograph of you getting out of the shower for example or more simple case You're lying by the pool in your backyard surrounded by ten foot high privacy fence with signs that say no trespassing and they climb on top of the fence to take a photograph of you In those circumstances is at least a kernel of an argument that a copyright should not be awarded and it does circumstances But even that's not a defense that I would consider particularly strong in front of a judge Really Even if the images are stolen So that's a different case If the image is one that you took.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"terrence ross" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"You're listening to Bloomberg law with June grosso from Bloomberg radio It may seem a little backwards but since June photographers or their agencies have filed more than a dozen copyright infringement suits against individual celebrities or their companies The suits are targeting celebrities who post photos of themselves on social media Photos they don't own the rights to Joining me is intellectual property litigator Terrence Ross a partner at catan Newton rosenman So celebrities are caught by a paparazzi and unwillingly become the subject of a photograph that's published They pose the photo on social media and then the paparazzi sues them for using the photo Something seems off with that It sure does seem off but the way the copyright laws in the United States are written is that the copyright protection is given to the creator of a work And in this case the creator of the work is the photographer who happens to be a paparazzi The celebrity who is captured in the photograph is not actually the creator of the work although much of the value in the photograph may be attributable to the subject of the photograph The copyright laws are strictly concerned with protecting creators of works And here the paparazzi as the photographer qualifies as the creator of the work and gets the copyright protection Does it factor in anywhere that a photo may be being made without the consent of the celebrity or the person whose photo is being taken Not with respect to copyright ownership It matters in other regards So I have done for multiple magazines and for one university system photography policies in which we lay out when a magazine photographer or university photographer is allowed to take photographs and then use them in a commercial way of people in the public Just walking down the street on the campus whatever And they're pretty strict guidelines to follow But that has to do with commercial exploitation of an image As opposed to the copyright here So one way to think about this is if you were simply walking down the street and you saw a celebrity and you pulled out your phone and took a quick picture I mean you would be allowed to do that and to keep it and show it to your friends And you would own the copyright in that Even if you didn't register it with the copyright office where the celebrity starts to get a little bit of power in the equation is if you attempt to then exploit the celebrities image in likeness by using it to sell a product that you are pushing upon the marketplace Suppose I just sell the photo to a tabloid Is that okay It is clearly okay For one thing it would be.
AP News Radio
Magic rally in fourth, snap Clippers' six-game win streak
"The magic rallied late to beat the clippers one oh three to ninety six putting an end to LA's six game winning streak Orlando went on a seventeen to three run over the game's final two and a half minutes to pull out the victory just its third in sixteen games Wendell Carter junior who scored eleven points said this one was special doctors can still are going to use one of those teams in the Western Conference in Wisconsin a role to my Kiki scored a team high eighteen points Terrence Ross had fifteen LA was led by Kawhi Leonard with twenty eight the magic snaps a seven game road losing skid I am mark Myers
AP News Radio
Ross scores season-high 30, Magic rally past Knicks 107-89
"The magic ended the next three game winning streak by rallying for a one oh seven eighty nine victory in Orlando Terrence Ross scored eighteen of his season high thirty points in the second half and help the magical on the twenty five eight run over the final nine minutes of the third quarter Nikola vucevic provided sixteen points and seventeen rebounds in his twenty eighth double double of the season every forty A. added nineteen points for the magic who were sixteen of thirty four from three point range the next shot just twenty five percent in the second half Julius Randle had twenty five points and seven rebounds for New York I'm Dave Ferrie
CBS Sports Radio
Over $3 Billion in New Money Given Out on Day 1 of 2019 NBA Free Agency
"There's certainly a lot of money flying around Sean in fact as of the start of the show it was three billion dollars that had been committed to this point is there one contract that you saw with the money and thought holy crap we have jumped the shark well I mean I don't think there's anything that right is quite to the level of some of those who got the contract for you what we think about the first night of free agency the Lakers were throwing like seventy million dollars at ten of a mile gabar Luol Deng or or some of those ones there's nothing quite at that level I'm not sure really understand Terry road you're getting nineteen million dollars a year Charlotte I don't really know that that a good use of that money some of these some water lander was doing like I don't think I'll prove to me new or Terrence Ross are bad players I just don't understand what they're doing spending that money on the on those guys with it like but those are the ones are kind of sticking out to me it's just kind of weird I keep I still when I read the flying cannot believe it but Damian Lillard will have a player option for fifty four point three million in the last year of the extension he signed with the Blazers Dino he's worth a Max deal but one season fifty four point three million dollars I mean that's the thing like you so much shock with with this stuff but I think I think I think a lot of a lot tackle him like I I get I get this a lot on the the one ninety nine that you don't have a look all your like this guy's never may also argue they can get fifteen sixteen million people kind of have to I'm gonna have to re calibrate what these contract are because there's just so much more money in the league right now because of the TV deal they find you're going like revenue just keep going up as they continue to grow the game internationally and especially over the next few years now that sports betting is becoming more of establishing accepted fitting like I think that's gonna bring even more revenue into the league meet Ron tractors gonna keep going up and up to the actual dollar amount people are going to kind of have to get used to the staggering numbers that you look at your like waiting this guy who maybe like a mid level role player who five years ago would be making four million dollars a year making fourteen now it's
CBS Sports Radio
Eric Ross, Terrence Ross And Raptors discussed on CBS Sports Radio
"Eric Ross is just to the raptors up from outside right now. Ross got twenty four he's made free threes nap Dennis Newman magic radio. The magic beat the raptors one thirteen ninety eight Toronto seven game winning streak comes to it. And Terrence Ross twenty eight points