On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Counseling Clients in the Entertainment Industry 2018 – Overview of Entertainment Law Issues; Television, Video & User-Generated Content; Media's Transformation - Over-the-Top Content (OTT), Multi-Channel Networks (MCNs) & Mobile-Driven Video; Game & App Development Deals; Ethics

Released on: Mar. 5, 2018
Running Time: 06:29:08

Experienced entertainment attorneys and business executives will discuss legal, financial, and business issues in the practice of entertainment law, with a focus on new methods of delivery. The following is covered:

  • Overview of Entertainment Law Issues; Television, Video & User-Generated Content; Media’s Transformation – OTTs, MCNs & Mobile-Driven Video; Game and App Development Deals; Ethics
  • Sound Recordings; Music Publishing
  • Book Publishing; Current Developments in Entertainment and Sports Litigation; Film 

 Lecture Topics [Total RunTime: 06:29:08]
Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Opening Remarks* [00:01:34]
    Kenneth M. Kaufman, Linda A. Newmark
  • Television, video & User-Generated Content [03:10:22]
    Vernon G. Chu, Melanie Jones, Kenneth M. Kaufman
  • Media's Transformation - Over-The-Top Content (OTT), Multi-Channel Networks (MCNs) & Mobile Driven Video [01:16:45]
    T. Hale Boggs, Gil Fuchsberg, Elgin Thompson
  • Game and App Development Deals from 36,000 feet: The Broad View [01:00:19]
    Jim Charne
  • Ethical Issues in the Practice of Entertainment Law [01:00:08]
    Jack P. Sahl

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:

COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK

  • Common Issues in Entertainment Industry Transactions (Updated December 2017)
    Kenneth M. Kaufman
  • Television and Video Production, Financing and Distribution (Updated December 2017)
    Kenneth M. Kaufman
  • Underlying Rights Option Agreement, Television Production
    Kenneth M. Kaufman
  • License Agreement for Subscription Video on Demand Delivery
    Kenneth M. Kaufman
  • Gap in Termination Provisions, Final Rule, 76 Fed. Reg. 32316 (June 6, 2011)
    Kenneth M. Kaufman
  • Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 815 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2015)
    Kenneth M. Kaufman
  • Opinion, Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. Aereokiller, LLC, No. 15-56420 (9th Cir. Mar. 21, 2017)
    Kenneth M. Kaufman
  • Summary Order, U.S. v. Broadcast Music, Inc., No. 16-3830 (2d Cir. Dec. 19, 2017)
    Kenneth M. Kaufman
  • Sample Deal Memorandum for Pilot Script Commitment
    Vernon G. Chu
  • Sample Digital Delivery Questionnaire
    Vernon G. Chu
  • Sample Talent Agreement for a Reality Television Series
    Vernon G. Chu
  • Sample Standard Terms and Conditions for a Reality Television Series
    Vernon G. Chu
  • Sample Name and Likeness Rider for Reality Television Series
    Vernon G. Chu
  • Forest Park Pictures v. Universal Television Network, Inc., No. 11-2011-cv (2d Cir. June 26, 2012)
    Vernon G. Chu
  • Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television Inc., Docket No. 08-56954 (9th Cir. Dec. 16, 2010)
    Vernon G. Chu
  • The Perfect Digital Agreement (PowerPoint slides)
    Vernon G. Chu
  • Sample Development Agreement Provisions
    Julie Wolf
  • Sample Co-Production Standard Terms and Conditions
    Julie Wolf
  • Sample Co-Production Attachment Provisions
    Julie Wolf
  • Sample RFP
    Julie Wolf
  • Sample Freelance Contractor Agreement
    Julie Wolf
  • Sample Deal Memo—Co-Finance and Distribution
    Julie Wolf
  • General Pre-Publication Checklist
    Lisa A. Williams-Fauntroy
  • Acquiring Life and Story Rights for Television and Other Productions
    Lisa A. Williams-Fauntroy
  • Essential Provisions for a Contest Program’s Official Rules
    Lisa A. Williams-Fauntroy
  • Television Production Agreement
    Lisa A. Williams-Fauntroy
  • Personal Appearance Release
    Lisa A. Williams-Fauntroy
  • Sample Work for Hire Composer Agreement
    Lisa A. Williams-Fauntroy
  • Contractor Agreement
    Lisa A. Williams-Fauntroy
  • Mary Ermitanio, The Evolution of MCNs and Rise of Digital-First Studios, Manatt Digital January Newsletter (January 2017)
    T. Hale Boggs
  • Jacob Carlson, How a $300 million eSports Deal Could Change Traditional Sports Distribution, Manatt Digital January Newsletter (January 2017)
    T. Hale Boggs
  • Jordan Pritchett, Snap Inc.’s Effect on Digital Video, Manatt Digital January Newsletter (January 2017)
    T. Hale Boggs
  • Eunice Shin, Farnaz Zanjani, Let’s Go To The Movies, Manatt Digital November Newsletter (November 29, 2017)
    T. Hale Boggs
  • Mary Ermitanio, The Evolving Global Theatrical Stage, Manatt Digital November Newsletter (November 29, 2017)
    T. Hale Boggs
  • Jacob Carlson, Big Screen Opportunity, Manatt Digital November Newsletter (November 2017)
    T. Hale Boggs
  • Ned Sherman, Bringing Interactivity Into the Theater, Manatt Digital November Newsletter (November 2017)
    T. Hale Boggs
  • Jim Charne, International Game Developers Association, “Famous Last Words,” NDAs: Bombs in the Boilerplate (December 2008)
  • Issues to Consider in Negotiating for Game and App Developers (November 2017)
    Jim Charne
  • Licensing Developer Tools and Tech in Videogame Development Agreements (November 2017)
    Jim Charne
  • Planning for a Soft Landing: Negotiating Termination Clauses in Game Dev Deals (November 2017)
    Jim Charne
  • A 2017 Update: What Every Entertainment Lawyer Needs to Know—How to Avoid Being the Target of a Legal Malpractice Claim or Disciplinary Action (November 2017)
    Jack P. Sahl
  • Hypothetical—Funkee Toe & The Band
    Julie Swidler
  • Recording Agreement, Outline of Detail Points
    Julie Swidler
  • Music Publishing (Substantive Outline) (November 2017)
    Linda A. Newmark, Stephen J. Dallas
  • The Harry Fox Agency, HFA Ready to Implement New Digital Era Mechanical Royalty Rates (October 2, 2008)
    Stephen J. Dallas
  • Michael J. Perlstein, Esq., Chapter Two: Music Publishing, New York State Bar Association, Entertainment Law, Fourth Edition
    Linda A. Newmark
  • Administration Agreement Sample
    Linda A. Newmark
  • Exclusive Songwriter & Co-Publishing Agreement Sample (Artist)
    Linda A. Newmark
  • Exclusive Songwriter & Co-Publishing Agreement Sample (Writer)
    Linda A. Newmark
  • Proposed Exclusive Songwriter and Co-Publishing Agreement Deal Memo
    Linda A. Newmark
  • Co-Administration Agreement Sample
    Linda A. Newmark
  • Sample Publishing Agreement
    Gail Ross
  • Athlete and Celebrity Publicity Rights: Balancing First Amendment (and Other Competing) Legal Interests (2017)
    Lateef Mtima
  • Text Messaging and the Requirements of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Excerpt from Chapter 29: Email and Text Marketing, Spam and the Law of Unsolicited Commercial Email and Text Messaging, E-Commerce and Internet Law: A Legal Treatise with Forms, Second Edition (2017)
    Ian C. Ballon
  • Secondary Trademark Infringement in Internet, Media, and Mobile Cases, Excerpt from Chapter 6: Trademark, Service Mark, Trade Name and Trade Dress Protection in Cyberspace, E-Commerce and Internet Law: A Legal Treatise with Forms, Second Edition (2017)
    Ian C. Ballon
  • Defending Security Breach Class Action Litigation, Excerpt from Chapter 27: Information, Network and Data Security, E-Commerce and Internet Law: A Legal Treatise with Forms, Second Edition (2017)
    Ian C. Ballon
  • Defending Data Privacy Class Action Litigation, Excerpt from Chapter 26: Data Privacy, E-Commerce and Internet Law: A Legal Treatise with Forms, Second Edition (2017)
    Ian C. Ballon
  • Fair Use of Trademarks Under the Lanham Act, Excerpt from Chapter 6: Trademark, Service Mark, Trade Name and Trade Dress Protection in Cyberspace, E-Commerce and Internet Law: A Legal Treatise with Forms, Second Edition (2017)
    Ian C. Ballon
  • The DMCA User Storage Safe Harbor: An Analysis of the Statute and Case Law, Excerpt from Chapter 4: Copyright Protection in Cyberspace, E-Commerce and Internet Law: A Legal Treatise with Forms, Second Edition (2017)
    Ian C. Ballon
  • Copyright Fair Use, Excerpt from Chapter 4: Copyright Protection in Cyberspace, E-Commerce and Internet Law: A Legal Treatise with Forms, Second Edition (2017)
    Ian C. Ballon
  • Common Law and State Statutory Copyrights [Including Pre-1972 Sound Recordings], Excerpt from Chapter 4: Copyright Protection in Cyberspace, E-Commerce and Internet Law: A Legal Treatise with Forms, Second Edition (2017)
    Ian C. Ballon
  • Independent Film Financing, Outline 2017
    Alison Cohen
  • Accounting Statement
    Joseph J. Dapello
  • Memorandum Agreement: Option—Screenplay (Fiction)
    Joseph J. Dapello
  • Memorandum Agreement: Services—Writer—Screenplay
    Joseph J. Dapello
  • Memorandum Agreement: Services—Director—Individual
    Joseph J. Dapello
  • Memorandum Agreement: Services—Performer—Loanout
    Joseph J. Dapello
  • Definition of Net Profits
    Joseph J. Dapello
  • Form Sales Agency Agreement 2017
    Alison Cohen
  • Outline—Production
    Emerson E. Bruns
  • Outline—Distribution Economics
    Joseph J. Dapello
  • Memorandum: ABC Productions, Inc.
    Joseph J. Dapello
  • International Distribution License Agreement
    Alison Cohen

Presentation Material


  • Television and Video Production, Financing and Distribution
    Kenneth M. Kaufman
  • Media’s Transformation: Over-the-Top Content (OTT) and the Rise of New Media Companies
    T. Hale Boggs
  • Work-For-Hire Game Assets Offshore Outsource Provider Services Agreement
    Jim Charne
  • Establishing the Lawyer-Client Relationship with a Music Group
    Jack P. Sahl
Co-Chair(s)
Kenneth M. Kaufman ~ Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Linda A. Newmark ~ Executive Vice President - Head of Acquisitions & Strategic Projects, Universal Music Publishing Group
Moderator(s)
T. Hale Boggs ~ Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Speaker(s)
Jim Charne ~ Law Offices James I. Charne
Vernon G. Chu ~ General Counsel, BBC Worldwide Americas, Inc.
Gil Fuchsberg ~ Investor; Member of Screening Committee, NY Angels
Melanie Jones ~ Senior Director, Business and Legal Affairs, Discovery Communications, LLC
Jack P. Sahl ~ Joseph G. Miller Professor of Law & Director, Miller-Becker Center for Professional Responsibility - University Of Akron School Of Law
Elgin Thompson ~ Managing Director, Digital Capital Advisors
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period. Effective January 1, 2019, the limit of distance education per reporting period will increase from 9 to 18 credits.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  All PLI products can fulfill New Hampshire’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  All PLI products can fulfill Puerto Rico’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “video replay” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 video replay credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  All PLI products can fulfill Washington’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Alberta (CPD-ALBERTA):  All PLI products can fulfill Alberta’s CPD requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2018 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2018 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.