The Artful Jurist

The show hasn't even aired yet, and already a new CBS program is drawing fire.  And it's all about the title.

The show is euphemistically referred to as (Bleep) My Dad Says.  If you've any imagination at all, you can probably fill in the "bleep" for yourself.  The program is based on a popular Twitter feed, and it stars William Shatner, who apparently delights in getting more outrageous each year.  (Who'd have believed he would have been at his most average and normal when he was playing Captain Kirk?)

Anyway, the "bleep" isn't bleeped on Twitter, which means the unadulterated, unbleeped word will be hidden from only the most technologically challenged kids (and is there any such thing as a technologically challenged kid today?).  The very notion that TV is skating so close to one of those words that doesn't get First Amendment protections is causing a parents group to threaten to seek the revocation of the broadcast license of any CBS affiliate that airs the show.

Despite the flap, reports are that the show isn't having any problem attracting advertisers.

No doubt, when the French government enacted legislation in September to crack down on Internet piracy, many owners of high profile intellectual property must have cried, "Vive la France!"  But, according to a New York Times article, that crackdown hasn't exactly been a juggernaut.  In fact, according to the article, since the law went into effect, it hasn't been used to shut down even a single Internet pirate.  Not even a warning has been issued.

The idea behind the law was that people who engaged in illegal Internet file sharing of copyright protected works would have their Internet access cut off if they ignored two warnings to stop the piracy.  In other words, it's a three-strikes-your-out approach.  At least, if it were an American plan, it'd be "three strikes."  In France, where they don't play baseball, that analogy might fall as flat as a crepe.

But, anyway, it won't really matter what analogy they use if they don't even issue any warnings.  The way it's currently going, they're not even going to get to first base.

Gee, that's another baseball analogy, isn't it?...Hmmm.  Maybe what France needs to do first is learn something about baseball.

As a follow-up to an earlier post ("Better Call Your Lawyer, Bubba"), actor Don Johnson has won his case against three production companies in which Mr. Johnson claimed he was owed millions of dollars from the TV show Nash Bridges.  The total awarded by the jury was in excess of $23 million.

The key to the case apparently hinged on a contract provision -- a rare contract provision in such Hollywood agreements -- that made Mr. Johnson a 50 percent owner of the copyright on the show.

At least one of the defendant companies has said it will probably appeal the decision.

The other day, a friend was talking to me about an artistic project he hopes to have published.  The final work will likely involve some atristic contribution from another person.  I immediately chirped up that a collaboration agreement was in order.  And that advice applies whether you're working with a friend, a relative, or even your own mother.

Some don't quite get why you need a written agreement if the person you're collaborating with is a close friend or relative.  And, maybe in many cases, it isn't absolutely essential.  Your mother isn't likely to try to cheat you, is she?  Well, most people's mothers, anyway.

But here's the part people usually don't think about...

You collaborate on a work of art with your mom.  There's no written agreement between you.  All goes just swimmingly...that is, until the day when, as is the ultimate finale for us all, Mom passes away.  At that point, what happens to all of Mom's stuff.  Well, it passes to her heirs, either through a will or trust or through the laws of intestate succession.  And, by "Mom's stuff," that also means any copyrights she holds at the time of her death.  Suddenly, part of the copyright on your joint artistic project belongs to someone other than Mom -- maybe a sibbling or sibblings; or Mom's spouse at the time of her demise; or someone else who, for whatever reason, has a claim on her estate.  Now suddenly you're in a joint authorship arrangement with someone you never intended to be a part of it, and your copyright (with all its accompanying rights) is being shared with that unintended partner.

Now that might all work out just fine.  But, then again, depending on who that unintended future partner is, it might not.

Moral of the story:  there are good reasons to have a written collaboration agreement with whomever you work...even Mom.

Okay, does anybody else see those Volkswagen "punch dub" TV commercials and think to themselves, "This is just begging to be the subject of litigation"?

Long ago, they did away with those cartoon Hawaiian Punch commercials.  (Remember?:  "Hey, how 'bout a nice Hawaiian Punch?"  "Sure!"  POW!)  I've lived under the impression that socking people in the nose for fun is no longer politically correct, and the soft drink's manufacturer probably didn't need the headache of dealing with people chanting that their commercials promoted violence and were a bad influence on impressionable children.

But here we are in the oh-so-PC 21st century, and an auto manufacturer has an entire ad campaign featuring the mostly forgotten "slug bug" game of the '60s where the idea was to punch your friend if you were the first to spot a VW Beetle.  Volkswagen calls it a fun, engaging way to reintroduce the VW brand to new markets.  (I suppose those new markets would be prize fighters?)

Okay, the people in the commercials are just actors, and no one's really getting hurt there.  But I've seen other commercials -- less flagrantly violent ones -- that have come under fire for promoting bad things.  And, if someone gets really hurt when his "punch dub" buddy gets a little carried away, is that injured person then going to have a lawsuit to file against Volkswagen for promoting unsafe behavior?  Is the person who gets sued going to blame VW for prompting him to do it?

Too silly even to consider, you scoff?  Well...Can you say "Twinkie Defense"?