- Quickdraw McLaw
- 36 Comments
- 189 Views
- Newlyweds sue banquet hall after Metro shuts down reception. [RJ]
- Armed with money, Vegas Justice League takes on cold cases. [RJ]
- Expert urges officials “do the math” on development. [Nevada Current]
- Metro officer arrested after pulling gun on citizen. [Fox5Vegas]
- Not Nevada, but attorney gets censured for questioning judge. [ABA Journal]
There was a lengthy feature article in the local paper the other day about wedding chapels, that feature Elvis impersonators performing the ceremonies, being shut down by a company that apparently controls the name and likeness of Elvis.
Many people, including the mayor, are quite critical of these actions, and it will put many wedding chapels in financial distress–at least the chapels that derive their primary income from featuring Elvis weddings.
The company, that supposedly controls the Elvis name and likeness, purchased the Elvis rights from Elvis' widow about a decade ago.
It all seems suspect. The article did not do a deep dive on the legal aspects, but can someone really completely control the use and likeness and image of a deceased person–particularly one like Elvis who has almost become an abstraction or caricature. This is not about the rights to his music or anything like that. It is about preventing someone from even vaguely impersonating him for profit, even if he is not referred to as Elvis but merely has his mannerisms, speech, clothing choices, etc.
If anyone really had the "right" to shut down all Elvis impersonators and Elvis wedding conductors, wouldn't it have happened decades ago?
I for one find the whole concept, of Elvis impersonators and wedding performers, real corny and shopworn and glitzy. But hey, it's a part of Vegas, so rock one.
Can someone explain the legal underpinnings of all this?
Can someone explain th elegal issues and ights that aree in play here?
I had a similar thought thread after reading the articles. Reminds me of the Knuckleheads that purchased or were assigned the copyright rights to RJ articles and filed suit against anyone that reposted or quoted an article. Dicks.
I know nothing at all about IP law but it seems like even if the estate technically had the right to stop Elvis impersonator weddings, they slept on that right for too long and therefore waived it.
Under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, false endorsement occurs when a person's identity is connected with a product or service in such a way that consumers are likely to be misled about that person's sponsorship or approval of the product or service.
The licensing company (Authentic Brands Group) appears to be relying on such false endorsement arguments here. Not surprisingly, the licensing company quickly did an about face given the overwhelmingly negative publicity that followed. In backpedaling and saying it is going to “work with” these chapels to let them continue operating, that likely just means the licensing company is going to offer the chapels continued use of the image & likeness at their standard rates. In the end, all the licensing company & estate care about is making money where they can. Capitalism 101.
So they were arguing that people are likely to be misled into believing that Elvis Presley (1935-1977) is actually the one performing the wedding?
Doesn't it come down to exactly which and what rights the company purchased from the estate? Normally trademark law is extremely specific. Aren't applications denied for being too broad? Also, how does one define the "likeness" of Elvis? I've seen impersonators from 3 feet tall to almost 7 feet tall, with all different skin tones, voices and accents. Maybe the original trademark docs could answer some questions…
The licensing company might argue that impersonators mislead the public into believing that the estate of Elvis Presley sanctions or endorses the wedding services being provided. If you look at Authentic Brands Group’s website, you’ll see that they handle licensing for lots of celebrities—dead and alive (https://www.authenticbrands.com/brand-portfolio). I suspect Elvis estate isn’t completely out of the picture…they likely collect pretty handsome royalties.
But did Elvis' estate really own the rights, if Elvis is alive and living in a trailer park in Mobile, Alabama?
I'm not saying I'm the master of marriage as I am divorced – but damnnnnn I would not want to start off a Sacred relationship with an Elvis hahaha seems very weird
Not sure how I feel about the censure. Most days I would take the position that the attorney was out of line and decorum and respect are necessary. But I have had my patience tried in the last few years with over zealous judges – new ones mostly – and have had to bite my tongue. And I think I censor myself so much that I have lost my edge. I once made an "under my breath" comment directed at a judge about the judges ruling and he just called me to the bench. It was 10 years ago and it was somewhat tame, no curse words or anything close – just something like "ok judge" or something snarky. I was way out of line and apologized to the judge. Some cases are just pressure cookers. After being brow beat for 25 years, I am a little worried that I have lost my instincts so I actually like to see a little bit of passion from other attorney's. Disrespect, no. There is definitely a line but again, I think I've lost my edge.
Same. There's a particular judGe in family court who issues orders that are way out there. It gets difficult not to drop a "are you serious" in that court sometimes. I don't know if that means we have all lost our edge or if they've mentally beaten us into submission.
Completely agree. Have felt that way recently with the newbies, and in the past with some that had overstayed retirement time by several years.
I have issued an audible "Are you Serious?" on a number of occasions. Most of them to Sandra Pomeranze. Anyone is better than her.
Hahaha Pomeranze was such a nightmare. She continues to terrorize attorneys and litigants as a settlement judge, but at least that's limited. I had at least two cases with her in which she completely made up laws from the bench…just invented laws and started berating the parties for violating laws that don't even exist.
I had a case won! On the law, on the facts, OC told me in the hallway that she knew it and couldnt get her guy to settle that she knew we were right and that we were being reasonable. Walked in and Pomeranze was in her psycho mode and I was laying low, watching OC squirm.
My client literally sneezed and Pom glared at her shifted from arguing my side for me to changing the whole thing and awarding the H child support when we had primary physical custody. So effing irritating. Luckily OC was great to work with and told me in the hallway, that she knew that Pom was nuts and that we were going to have to fight like hell and agreed to our settlement offer and even drafted the SAO for us.
There are good ones left and Pom is evil. Will bow out if she ever gets named for settlement judge or grab a continuance if she shows up sitting as a Sr.
2:05-So,was the case law she invented superior to the actual existing case law?
A person to which cancel culture can be supported and justified by any political persuasion.
It's good to fight strenuously for one's position, and I admire attorneys who do. So, it's really a question of degree and manner. If the judge has not yet ruled but is engaging in a discourse with the attorney, and the attorney seeing that things are heading against him/her, make this kind of remark, that can be kind of understandable in certain cases. Just the heat of battle.
But if we wind up with someone who refuses to accept a final court ruling, and keeps carrying on, and essentially is insulting and attacking the judge's intellect, legal knowledge and preparation, that is not too impressive. It is simply alienating a judge who that attorney is likely going to appear before in the future. And that can't be justified with the tired "just making a record" excuse. The attorney has already made a record, and stated their views, like 58 times over before the ruling was finally issued.
Had opposing counsel like that last week. He went way too far, it did him no good, was unbecoming, persuaded no one, the judge is likely to remember such behavior, and even if the attorney has some valid points to preserve, we never want an appellate court to review a transcript and record wherein we are throwing a temper tantrum
I essentially view it as 3;14, in that rather than focusing solely on whether this conduct raises ethical implications, usually a far greater concern should be the question: is this behavior effective?
.And it, more often than not, is ineffective and actually harmful for the attorney, the court record, and the attorney's reputation.
2:56–I viewed 2:38's post as a slice of sarcasm, and not some policy statement that we should all go with what happens to work for us at a given time, no matter how vile and immoral. But I could be wrong. Either I'm wrong or some posters on this blog take every little remark way too seriously and as a serving as an invite to express moral indignation.
The Sandra P./Joe Houston Decision is a classic. One in which the NSC upheld the right of courts to hold contempt but basically laid out the entire record in the Decision so that people could see how nuts she was (and is).
I had to go read the Houston opinion. Classic Pom. She was such a bully on the bench. Glad to no longer have to deal with her.
“THE COURT: Mr. Houston , I don't miss any points.” Houston v. Dist. Ct., 122 Nev. 544, 548 (Nev. 2006)
"Demeaning to goats" LOL! Saull Goodman much.
Regarding respect and sanctions, I have always wondered the following: many years ago attorney Andy Myers represented the mother of Judge Don Moseley's child. Moseley and this woman had a long history of litigation against each other pertaining to the child they had together out of wedlock. So Andy filed an appellate brief in which he referred to Moseley, throughout the brief, as "the ass." I never found out what happened to that case. Did the Supreme Court sanction Andy? Andy left the state shortly thereafter, and he has never responded to my letters or messages. If anyone knows what happened in that case, please post it. Thanks.
SBN website says he resigned, but doesn't say when.
According to this article, the wife lost the appeal and NSC "allowed" Myers to withdraw as counsel. https://lasvegassun.com/news/2002/mar/28/high-court-denies-mothers-appeal-in-mosley-custody/
That case dragged on in the news for years, interrupted briefly by the time when Mosley's then-current girlfriend died in a traffic accident shortly after leaving his house. The custody case was a tragedy though. The ex-girlfriend changed her last name to Mosley even though they were never married, and then the kid predictably could not stay out of trouble as he got older.
When parents put their own best interests first above and beyond their child's best interest this is what can happen: https://lasvegassun.com/news/2008/nov/17/15-year-old-girl-killed-wreck-identified/
Anyone know what happened to Ash of Sam and Ash's radio show? I haven't heard her on there in a while.
They're going to bring in Cousin Oliver for the final season while Ash is "visiting her sick mother in Iowa."
#dougdidntdoit Maybe he did but hopefully this gets sorted out through the courts sooner than later and he is accountable for his actions being a sexual predator as it appears that is what the facts would support.
I read the affidavits and arrest warrant. I nearly threw up. I personally know several of the Jane Does; its all true and worse.
If the Doug case has taught me anything (other than dont sexually assault your staff which I already knew) it is have someone with the passwords to lock your social media if something bad happens to you so you do not become a pinata for a week. Perhaps he had such a person and she was Jane Doe 1 in the Affidavit.
What is his criminal case number?
In the D.A. race, is Wolfson's camp paying far too much attention to Fumo? Wolfson's mailers and campaign material seem to focus a lot more on how bad Fumo supposedly is than on how great Wolfson supposedly is.
That either means one of two things. It either means Wolfson's team has internal data that Fumo is polling a lot closer than we have been led to believe, or it means that Fumo is polling vey weakly which would make Wolfson's team a team of fools for spending so many tens of thousands of dollars attacking a paper tiger, non-issue candidate.
So whih is it.