Issue three (March 2005) of Sweet & Maxwell's Entertainment Law Review has now emerged. It's still very thin -- the IPKat hopes it's not going down with a dreadful disease -- but there's some good and readable material in it. This includes:
* Paris-based Hogan & Hartson lawyers Winston J. Maxwell and Julie Massaloux team up with their Budapest colleague Aurel Pinter to describe the current tax incentives for making motion pictures in France and Hungary;

* David Engel (Addleshaw Goddard, London) reviews the UK Film Council's Film Theft in the UK and looks at the opportunities provided by the new technologies as well as their inevitable threats;

* Veteran IP commentator Peter Groves (Bircham Dyson Bell) adds his thoughts on the recent Court of Appeal decision in Griggs v Evans - the "Doc Martens logo" case - relating to copyright in commissioned logos. Not specifically an entertainment law issue, but neither is it exactly irrelevant to that field.
Click here for your copy of Film Theft in the UK
More great film thefts here and here
THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT ... LEGAL STYLE THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT ... LEGAL STYLE Reviewed by Jeremy on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 Rating: 5


  1. “We cannot live for ourselves alone. Our lives are connected by a thousand invisible threads, and along these sympathetic fibers, our actions run as causes and return to us as results.”
    - Herman Melville

    RSS is the way of the Future...
    carrier rss

  2. Imagine Thousands Of Links Back To Your Web Site From Other People's Blogs!

  3. And A Link Back To Your Web Site Excite You?

  4. Click here if your LOOKING for "No Charge Online Advertising Channels For Any Business"


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.