He did. I had so much fun with the shoot and the whole time, I forgot I was at a photoshoot as we talked about numerous current topics ranging from music, fashion, business, the economy to the legal profession.I am very pleased with the result. Would I recommend him? Heck yeah!

Here is how Rudy described the last shot below- “Just striding the halls of power like a sleek, high-powered attorney on the move.” LOL! I forgot. He has a good sense of humor. Enjoy images below. Rudy was assisted by his assistant Boris Rajeski who made me comfortable and was professional. For more information about Rudy, visit Rudy Meyers Photography.

-Uduak

“Hip-hop parents Beyoncé and Jay-Z were in lullaby land with their baby girl Blue Ivy Carter Sunday, but one new dad was fuming over the velvet rope in the maternity ward that kept him away from his twins.

Neil Coulon, 38, of Brooklyn said the stress of his wife delivering two premature girls was tripled by Beyoncé’s bodyguards treating Lenox Hill Hospital like an exclusive nightclub.

Coulon griped that he’s been repeatedly barred from the sixth-floor neonatal intensive care unit, once for 20 minutes, by the superstar couple’s private security.

He said bodyguards wearing headsets even cleared the sixth floor waiting room, booting his relatives out.

“Three times they stopped me from entering or exiting the NICU (Neo-natal Intensive Care Unit) and it happened once on Friday — just because they wanted to use the hallway,” said Coulon, a contractor from Bedford-Stuyvesant.

“They should have been more strategic about it,” he said. “These are children with problems in intensive care and you’re just going to take over the hospital like you own it? All I want is an apology.”

Lenox Hill staffers, speaking anonymously, told the Daily News that Beyoncé and Jay-Z paid $1.3 million to seal off and redecorate a wing at the upper East Side hospital, in a super-strict effort to protect their privacy.

Beyoncé gave birth to her daughter, Blue Ivy Carter, Saturday night on the sixth floor, near the NICU, a hospital staffer told The News.

“Some people were upset,” the staffer said. “I heard a gentleman say he couldn’t go upstairs to see his baby (Saturday).”

Hospital spokeswoman Anne Silverman said she had not personally heard of the complaints.

“We take patient satisfaction very seriously,” Silverman told The News. “This is the first time I’m hearing about it.”

Coulon scoffed at the double-standard treatment.

“I know they spent $1.3 million and I’m just a contractor from Bed-Stuy, but the treatment we received was not okay,” Coulon said. “My wife is just terribly upset. She had a C-section. She gave birth to twins. She is sore. Nobody needs this.”

Coulon insisted he wasn’t the only new parent upset by the hip-hop hassles in the hospital.

“This is the NICU. Nobody cares if you’re a celebrity. Nobody is star-gazing. They just want to see their children,” fumed Coulon, whose wife delivered two premature and underweight girls on Wednesday.-New York Daily News

Legal Issues Raised

1. Negligence

2. Negligent Supervision

3. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

What area of Law?

Tort Law

What are the Possible Arguments under a Negligence claim?

Area of Law

Tort Law

Claims

Negligence

Under a negligence claim, the argument would be as follows:

1) The hospital had a duty of care to make sure Mr. Coulon had privacy and access to his twins. In legal speak, Defendant had a duty of  care to conform to a specific standard of conduct to protect forseeable Plaintiffs like Mr. Coulon.

2) Defendant (hospital) breached that duty

3)Defendant’s breach was the “actual and proximate” cause of Plaintiff’s injury – Father was denied access to his wife and twins, especially given the fact that father’s twins were delivered by C-section. He needed to be there for his wife and also for his twins.

4) Plaintiff suffered damages – Father and wife suffered damages.

Negligent Supervision claim would essentially follow the same basic line of argument but focus on the supervision of hospital staff and/or bodyguards so they that they avoided placing the family in such situation.

 Intentional infliction of emotional distress

This claim is actually a sexier claim for the Plaintiff’s lawyer. First, for this claim in general, there has to be a showing of:

1. An act by the hospital that amounted to extreme and outrageous conduct. Is it extreme and outrageous for “B” and Jay-Z to have sectioned off a part of the hospital just to have their daughter? That is an argument a Plaintiff lawyer will have to make and a jury will have to decide. A compelling case could be made that it is not given Beyonce’s status as an A-list celebrity. However, is she the first A-list celebrity to have a baby? 
2. There has to be intent on the part of the hospital to cause Plaintiff Coulon and his wife severe emotional distress or recklessness as to the effect of the Hospital’s conduct in sectioning off the hospital and permitting bodyguards, without supervision, to prevent Coulon from seeing his family. This is where I expect the real battle, if the case gets before a jury, to really be.
3. Causation- Your lawyer cannot prevail on your behalf on any tort claim if you cannot establish causation. You have to show that an act of a defendant caused an injury suffered. Here, this is a moot issue.
4. Finally, a claim for IIED must show damages i.e. severe emotional distress.

This case if filed, should settle and settle quickly. I expect it too.

-Uduak

Photocredit:Urbandaily

“Snoop Dogg isn’t the only canine with a nose for weed … TMZ has learned the rapper was ARRESTED in Texas this weekend after a drug-sniffing dog uncovered marijuana on his tour bus.

Law enforcement sources tell us … Snoop’s tour bus was stopped at a border patrol checkpoint in Sierra Blanca — a small town in West Texas where Willie Nelson was popped for weed back in 2010.

It’s all pretty ironic — considering Snoop RAILED against cops in 2010 for arresting the country singer, claiming, “They better leave Willie the f**k alone.”

We’re told the border patrol ran a standard inspection of the bus with the dog … when the animal alerted the agents to a possible hit in a waste basket in the back of the vehicle.

The agents claim they found a red prescription bottle with several joints inside. We’re told the bottle contained under a half-ounce of weed.

Cops say Snoop admitted the dope belonged to him. Snoop has a prescription for cannabis in California, but law enforcement tells us, there is a zero tolerance policy for weed in Texas … regardless of his status in other states.

Snoop was issued a citation for misdemeanor drug possession and released. . .”

Several things to note:

1. Snoop has a prescription for cannabis in California. It is prudent if you will travel out of California into another state, especially a state like Texas, to do your homework. Laws differ from state to state.

2. Snoop was cited for a misdemeanor drug possession and released. In California, a misdemeanor carries a sentence of maximum one year or less in addition to the fines you will have to pay for the crime committed. If you should spend anytime “locked up,” that time is usually spent in the county jail. Typically, the maximum sentence you should expect to spend locked up for a misdemeanor charge is six months with a maximum fine of $1,000. Nevertheless, depending on the misdemeanor i.e. if it is “aggravated” or “gross,”  the fines increase up to $2,000 while the jail time increases to one year, maximum.

Since Snoop was cited and released, the crime is deemed a less serious crime than a felony which would carry a sentence of one year to life, depending on the charges, in California. The first court appearance Snoop makes before a Judge is known as an arraignment. See the Paris Hilton Cocaine Possession case for more discussions on arrest and how arraignments work in a California court.

NOTE: In Texas, a misdemeanor carries a sentence of one year or less like California. A felony sentence, in Texas, carries anywhere from 6months to life.

Your first point of contact, needless to say, is to hire a good criminal defense attorney  to help fight your case for you.

TMZ has the full story and video.

-Uduak

Photocredit: NME.com

Welcome to 2012 on UDUAK LAW FIRM’S Fashionentlaw.com blog.

It feels good to be back on my online home. This is my favorite hangout spot on the web. It is the place to relax and just be “legally me.” Typically, I prepare my stories I discuss with you all during the week on weekends, giving room for breaking and compelling legal news stories as my full work schedule permits. Well, this weekend, I did not have the luxury to prepare for a big welcome party welcoming you all!

Most of you longtime readers know I am of Nigerian heritage. I was born in San Jose, California but raised in Lagos, Nigeria. My desire to be an attorney and specifically a trial lawyer did not come from my time in the USA. On the contrary. It actually came from my time in Nigeria as a little girl and specifically reading a book in the Yoruba language  about a courtroom proceeding that accused a young girl of wrongdoing.

In any event, Nigeria is experiencing a nationwide strike as a result of the deregulation of the country’s oil sector and an overnight removal of fuel subsidy which sent gas prices skyrocketing over a 100%.  Given the protests and preparation for protests, I spent my weekend reporting and discussing all things related to the turn of events in the country.

So, excuse me that we are having evening court sessions if you will.

I am excited for all that 2012 brings and I am convinced it will be a fantastic year ahead! I look forward to discussing the legal issues I frequently confront in my  practice areas by way of legal pop culture news. I hope my discussions and legal take helps you sleep better at night as you research the right legal professional to assist you for your legal troubles should they arise. I also have exciting news for you and look forward to sharing it in the coming weeks ahead.

Watch the clip below that best captures the issues on the deregulation of the oil sector in Nigeria. I look forward to our talks soon and once again, Happy New Year!

Cheers,
Uduak

“This is the true story of a great people, in a land flowing with milk and honey. Since independence on October 1st 1960, our government have enslaved us even though we got freedom from the colonialist. They steal from us and give us nothing in return. We toil they eat; we cry they smile; we cater for our basic needs and also for theirs with our tax. Government after government impoverished us, yet we kept sealed lips, now they’ve removed oil subsidy so that we can die. They have the guns, we have the guts, and we shall fight until we see the light, arise Nigerians say no to oil subsidy removal.”

Either way you look at it, from representing hundreds over the years in my capacity as an attorney, there is a consistent thing that happens when people rub shoulders with the legal system. They lose sleep. It doesn’t matter what side of the fence they are on.

I understand what that means for the many I have represented. This blog seeks to provide basic but crucial information to make you feel a bit at ease when/should you ever deal with the legal system, especially in a litigation context.

A special thank you to the following organizations and persons that have extended invitations to me this year and/or supported.

1. University of California School of Law Davis
2. Delta College School of Fashion – Leslie Asfour
3. Fashionably Marketing’s Retail Camp – Macala Wright
4. San Francisco’s SFFAMA – Owen Geronimo
5. Licensing International Expo 2011- Courtesy Macala Wright
6. Fashion Cloture’s Kenya Wiley – Thank you Ms. Wiley
7. Fox Rothschild’s Staci Riordan – She is uniquely herself and a cool Fashion Lawyer colleague. Thank you Staci.
8. Stan Rapada – Thank you for the photos
9. Susan Scafidi, B.A.F.F.L.E.D, Fame Appeal – Thank you for keeping the fashion law community interesting. Susan thanks for all of your work especially with Fordham’s Fashion Law Institute.
10. Get Clickable.com – Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Social Media & the Law

Thank you all. Thank you to Natalie Cupps (@nataliecupps) for the beautiful time and help at the Licensing International Expo 2011.

HAPPY NEW YEAR IN ADVANCE! I hope 2012, for you all, is your best year, yet. I will see you all on January 9th, 2012. Below are the six articles you all enjoyed best measured by my analytics/measuring  system.

1. Fashion Law: Don’t Give me Sh*t! – Girlfriend Sues Boyfriend for Tattooing Pile of Feces on her Back!!
2. Fashion Law: “Spread Eagle” Underage Teen Model Photo Lands Urban Outfitters & Photographer Jason Lee Parry in $28Million Trouble
3. Film Law: Hahaha Wayan Brothers Sued For Stealing Jokes- CUT! Not Funny! #Copyright Infringement
4. Music Law: Amber Rose Music Meets Runway, the Shutdown #Performance Agreement
5. Film Law: Actress Omotola Jalade Ekeinde Threatens Lawsuit for Defamation Against Nigeriafilms.com?
6. Music Law: Mathew Knowles Sues Beyonce’s Live Nation, What It All Means #Defamation

Cheers,
Uduak

Photocredit: About.com

If you are just joining me for the first time, welcome. My name is Uduak Oduok. I am a trial lawyer. I am also an online publisher who has been in the digital media space for almost five years (www.ladybrillemag.com, www.africamusiclaw.com and www.ladybrillenigeria.com). I have said before, on this blog, that today’s 21st century lawyers must have a strong command of social media, among other technological developments, and be prepared to meet the demands of our time by accurately informing and educating the bench (Judges), legal profession and the jury as they render decisions and/or craft laws in the inevitable situations where social media and the law collide.

The current case is one where social media primarily collides with intellectual property law, business law, employment law and contract law. Roll your sleeves people let’s dive in!

The Key Facts
As reported by the New York Times the key facts are as follows: “In October 2010, Noah Kravitz, a writer who lives in Oakland, Calif., quit his job at a popular mobile phone site, Phonedog.com, after nearly four years. The site has two parts — an e-commerce wing, which sells phones, and a blog.

While at the company, Mr. Kravitz, 38, began writing on Twitter under the name Phonedog_Noah, and over time, had amassed 17,000 followers. When he left, he said, PhoneDog told him he could keep his Twitter account in exchange for posting occasionally.

The company asked him to “tweet on their behalf from time to time and I said sure, as we were parting on good terms,” Mr. Kravitz said by telephone.

And so he began writing as NoahKravitz, keeping all his followers under that new handle. But eight months after Mr. Kravitz left the company, PhoneDog sued, saying the Twitter list was a customer list, and seeking damages of $2.50 a month per follower for eight months, for a total of $340,000.

PhoneDog Media declined to comment for this article except for this statement: “The costs and resources invested by PhoneDog Media into growing its followers, fans and general brand awareness through social media are substantial and are considered property of PhoneDog Media L.L.C. We intend to aggressively protect our customer lists and confidential information, intellectual property, trademark and brands.”

Mr. Kravitz said the lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California, was in retaliation for his claim to 15 percent of the site’s gross advertising revenue because of his position as a vested partner, as well as back pay related to his position as a video reviewer and blogger for the site.” –New York Times

What Jurisdiction (Location) Is this Case Taking Place?
In Northern California where I practice law.

What Type of Case is this?
This is a case of “first impression.” It means there is no case like this existing. This here is exciting because it allows the trial lawyers in this case to help fashion law that will go down as precedent and guide present and future generations of people and businesses.

What are the Challenges Present in a Case of “First Impression?”
Since it is a case of first impression, one of the challenges will be to see how our current laws work with an ever evolving digital media age. As an aside, as a matter of public policy, should we rethink existing laws, especially as it relates to intellectual property law and social media?

What Practice Areas of Law Are We Dealing With?
Plaintiff PhoneDog’s reported statements raises legal issues in Intellectual Property Laws (Copyright, Trademarks & Trade Secrets), Employment and Contract law.

Defendant’s Kravitz’s reported statements raise legal issues in Business Law, Employment Law and Contract Law.

Why Do We Care Who Owns What?
Life is so much more than a tweet “innit?” Why should you reading this be concerned about “twitter followers” and who owns them? Like seriously?

Here is Why You Should Care:
First understand the numbers: It’s a new world where social media rules and those who refuse to move with the times will be left behind. It just is what it is. Translated in English, it means there is a compelling case for using social media as a business owner or talent. Here are some compelling numbers:

•US Internet Users Spend 3x (24%) more minutes in blogs and social networks than email. (Nielsen Company Nov. 2010)

•Social media was the leading “emerging channel” for lead generations in 2010 at 74%. (Unisfair May 2010)

•Linkedin drives the most Business to Business (B2B) referrals (Lead Force June 2010)

•Facebook drives the most Business to Consumer (B2C) referrals (Lead Force 2010)

•There are now 152 million blogs online (UM, October 2010)

More stats as reported by Hubspot.com

•Most people read 1 blog a day. Most also read 5-10 blogs.

•B2C Companies that Blog Generate 88% more leads per month than those who don’t.

•B2B Companies that Blog Generate 67% More lead

•93% Internet Users are on Facebook

•US Twitter Users are more educated than the general population

Finally understand the implications and what is at stake:
1. Radio & Television Owners: Media business owners, if you have radio/television hosts or personalities with twitter names such as Twitter.com/CNNAndersonCooper, you need to answer the fundamental question whether you want Anderson Cooper or personalities like him walking away with thousands/millions of followers he built using your brand name.

2. Celebrities (Designers, Musicians, Filmmakers): If you hire your Publicists to tweet for you and help build much needed buzz on your twitter handle, you need to know that if anything happens and that relationship is severed, your publicists will not claim he/she owns your twitter followers and possibly block access to your account.

3. Publicists: if you use your connections and contacts to help a no name talent, company etc. become famous, you need to know that they can’t just replace you and keep the followers who got on the bandwagon strictly because of you and your name. Plus, what about your actual tweets? Per copyright law, the tweets belongs to you, not so?

4. Employees and Independent Contractors: If there is money to be made in twitter followers, surely you want to know so you can up the stakes when you negotiate compensation and copyright ownership of your tweets.

5. Business Owners: You want to know whether you own your followers on Twitter, your “friends” on Facebook fan page and group members on Linkedin because it is ridiculous to think you have invested all these money, time and energy so someone can walk away with thousands of followers who you believe are rightfully yours.

6. Lawyers: Hello fellow legal minds. If you are an employee of a law firm and decide, for reasons known to you, to leave the firm, should you be permitted to walk away with your twitter followers even though you tweeted through the firm’s name and firm’s twitter account?
The above examples illustrate the numerous layers of what is at stake in this very interesting first impression case. Now let’s really get to the legal issues before us.

Issue #1: Who Does Twitter Say Owns Your Twitter Followers? Twitter’s current policy provides copyright ownership only in the tweets that you tweet as a twitter user. It claims ownership of everything else. While its terms of service is silent as to ownership of followers, it would seem to suggest that if twitter did not give its users a right over followers, then its users cannot claim they own twitter followers. Strategically, either party could sue Twitter and ask for some sort of “Declaratory Judgment” that Twitter acknowledge that either one owns the Twitter followers. Doing this would be thinking outside the box and would also permit the court to decide that issue so Twitter does not turn around and sue the winner of this lawsuit. Plus, we all really want to know if twitter ultimately owns our followers.

Issue #2: What was the true legal status of Noah Kravitz when he worked for Phonedog.com? We need to know the exact legal status Noah Kravitz had when he worked for Phonedog.com. The reported facts say Noah claims he was a “vested partner.” Working with the reported facts, “Mr. Kravitz if indeed you had a partnership, why did you keep ALL 17,000 followers? *Blank stare.* Partnerships under Partnership law includes shared profits and liabilities. How does Kravitz get to be a partner yet he did not share any of his 17,000 followers? It makes no sense.

Issue #3 : Was Kravitz an Independent Contractor (IC)?Some news websites report Phonedog.com claims Kravitz’s was an independent contractor. That is one argument, if true, that could hurt Plaintiff Phonedog.com. Why?

If Kravitz was an employee, then the tweets he created while working for Phonedog was created within the scope of employment and belongs to Phonedog. Phonedog owns the account and also the tweets. They hired him, provided the resources, tools (computer etc.) for him to do his work. In contrast, if he was an independent contractor, then the work he did as a writer may be a “work made for hire” ONLY IF: 1) both Phonedog and Kravitz signed a work-for-hire agreement pursuant to law and 2) the work is one of the types of works that may be considered works made for hire by nonemployees.

The problem is tweeting on twitter does not fall neatly into the nine enunciated categories. One more reason I ask if our current legal regime needs to be reassessed where social media collides with the law.

Issue #4: What is the distinction between employees and independent contractors.
1. Employers are required to fulfill tax obligations for employees (workers comp., social security, medicare etc.). In contrast, Employers are not required to do anything with an IC than to send them a form 1099 at the end of each tax year ONLY if you paid $600 and above to the IC.

2. Employers are required to have worker’s compensation insurance in case an employee gets injured on the job. IC status does not require such obligations from employers.

3. To cut straight to the point on this, The IRS has enunciated several rules that helps an employer determine who is and who isn’t an employee. A key one is the degree of control an employer has over the worker. If Phonedog.com controlled Kravitz’s work i.e. how and when it was to be done, then Kravitz was an employee. For example, if Kravitz stayed home and tweeted whenever he wanted, then he might be more of an IC. Please visit the IRS website for more of these distinctions.

Issue #5: Does the Twitter User Handle (Twitter Name) “PhoneDog_Kravitz” confer Employee or IC status? Again it is critical to determine what status Kravitz occupied when he worked for Phonedog.com. In the past, under the IRS rules identifying or using a company’s name in the course of business dealings, in behalf of that company, would mean you are an employee of that company. Today, the IRS views it as a neutral factor. If Defendant Kravitz wins on this issue, there is still a problem. Plaintiff counsel for Phonedog.com can try to argue trademark infringement. Will it hold water? See Fashionentlaw.com recommended reading Chris Aire v. Louis Vuitton for a breakdown of Trademark Law.

Issue #6: Should There Be a Battle Over the Trademark “PhoneDog_Kravitz”: Plaintiff Phonedog has said it spent a lot of time and resources to build a strong social media brand through its employment of Defendant Kravitz to create buzz for its brand, among other duties. I don’t doubt the Plaintiff one bit. I believe they can easily prove up and provide exhibits/evidence in court. The bigger question, however, is what is the value of the name Kravitz? Phonedog has its own trademark. But thinking outside the box, “Kravitz” is also a trademarked name, albeit unregistered. Why is this significant?

Let’s go back to my Anderson Cooper reference with CNN. While CNN is a strong brand, there is no doubt that Anderson Cooper is an equally strong brand and name. By that I mean, he is a strong personality and does not lose being a personality just because he worked for CNN, if he leaves CNN. The personal brand strength of Anderson Cooper is what attracts the followers on twitter in the first place, after all there are many who work for CNN who do not enjoy the amount of followers he does.

Similarly, the same argument can be made for Kravitz. While the Plaintiff argues resources it invested in social media and alleged intellectual property infringement including trademarks, the Defense Counsel certainly should be arguing that PhoneDog_Kravitz required Kravitz’s unique brand  name and attributes associated with the brand to be successful. This argument is further strengthened because after Kravitz left Phonedog and changed his twitter handle (name) to Noah Kravitz, all 17,000 followers stayed on with Noah Kravitz.

The followers choosing to stay with Noah Kravitz negates any argument of a “likelihood of confusion” which is the hallmark of Trademark disputes. In making the above argument, however, what does this mean as a matter of public policy for us as a society? This is where this case gets very tricky and difficult. It is also why I asked in the first place whether we need to rethink or carve out new laws that better address the collision of social media with the law.

For example, if we argue that Anderson Cooper is a personality unto himself, how do we ignore the fact that, but for CNN, we would not have been exposed to Anderson Cooper’s strong personal brand? What about the resources, marketing and promotions CNN expended in shaping Anderson Cooper to be the personality and voice we all resonate with? Do we split the baby in half, like the famous story of King Solomon in the Bible. What should be the right result as we continue to march forward in this 21st century?

Two final points and then I will wrap this up.

Issue #7: Show Me the Money! Who determines the Value of Twitter Followers? Trial lawyers LOVE our experts. The Plaintiff claims $2.50 per tweet. But, who determines the value of a tweet? Do we have economists that have determined the value of Twitter followers? Err… no! Okay. Timeout. Somebody press the replay button on the scene from the movie my Cousin Vinny. Okay. Stop. Yes. Stop right there. Remember the scene where Defense Lawyer Vinny tendered Ms. Veto “an out of work hair dress”as an expert witness on automobiles? (LOL!) Remember when opposing counsel challenged the witness for not being an expert in “general automotive knowledge?” She was a woman. a hairdresser. What did she know about cars? LOL! Remember how she silenced him when she coughed up her real life expert CV? Delicious stuff right? Maybe Plaintiff Counsel has a Twitter expert like that? The problem is, even Twitter, the company,  has not valued its own tweets. It values the amount of persons it has and uses that pursuant to the online advertising model to lobby for advertisers and investments in Twitter’s growth and expansion. So, valuing tweets is definitely a first.

This is where Defense Counsel for Defendant Kravitz would and should attack ferociously. If we can’t determine damages, then  aren’t we wasting the court and everyone’s time? Everyone pack up and go home now. Thank you. Court is adjourned.

Issue #8: Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh It’s a Secret! Trade Secret!
Finally, let’s get back to Intellectual Property Laws to wrap this up. Phonedog.com does something interesting. They say, “We intend to aggressively protect our customer lists and confidential information, intellectual property, trademark and brands.” I believe Phonedog is on shaky legal footing on most of its arguments. I think its strongest argument would be that Kravitz was an employee and in the capacity of working as an employee, Kravitz could not walk away with the 17,000 followers. Its shaky footing is emphasized in its attempt to argue that the 17,000 followers constitute a customer list and confidential information. Really? That argument is quite attenuated and very weak, at best. There has to be a more aggressive thinking outside of the box that is more in line with the times. The Anderson Cooper CNN example I gave may be a better analogy in furtherance of an argument within the Employment Law context.

Let’s see why.

What is a Trade Secret?
A Trade secret is any and all information that has commercial value AND employers have been zealous in keeping confidential. Courts have found blueprints, customer lists, pricing information, non-public financial data to be trade secrets.

Saying something is a trade secret does not make it one. Phonedog’s arguments falls flat on its face just by the legal definition of a trade secret. DO Twitter Followers have commercial value? Specific to Twitter owners, yes. Specific to a Twitter User, it is a case of first impression. Assuming the court rules that a Twitter user’s followers have commercial value and you can independently make money off your follower even on twitter, how are public tweets confidential? The second part of the test must be met.

How are 17,000 followers confidential? What steps have been taken to keep them confidential? These 17,000 joined Phonedog_Kravitz as a result of their own freewill so I am unsure where the Plaintiff is headed with this argument.

Taken a step further, how do courts determine what constitutes trade secrets? The courts will look at several factors to determine what constitutes trade secret. They include:

1. To what extent is the information (secret) known outside a company’s particular business?
2. To what extent is the information (secret) known to those within the business? i.e. your employees.
3. Have you the employer and holder of the trade secret taken precautionary measures to guard the secrecy of the information?
4. What is the value of information to the business when weighed against your competitors? and;
5. What is the difficulty with which the information could be properly acquired or independently duplicated by others.?

Look at the above factors. Now answer my rhetorical question. How exactly do Phonedog’s followers on Twitter constitute a “customer list” or “confidential information”? It doesn’t fit. This means two things: 1) Phonedog loses on that argument or 2) the court decides on its own to address the collision of social media and the law; upon arguments and written motions by both attorneys for the litigants. The court then concludes there is a need to expand the legal reasoning and analysis to include a new way of thinking about customer lists so that Twitter Followers now constitute customer lists. Is it necessary for the court to get to this analysis? I don’t think so. The court can stop at categorizing Kravitz as an employee, should the facts lean that way.

Conclusion
I could discuss and stress the importance to you all, especially business owners, reading this to have a social media policy in place at your businesses. I could encourage celebrities, talents etc. to maintain control over their accounts. Indeed you all should do this. But, I think the bigger question is posed to my legal colleagues reading this. In the 21st century, with the speed at which our digital age society moves and is moving, how are  legal professionals and the legal industry preparing to meet the demands of an ever  evolving and complex 21st century society? The rules we fashion through our zealous advocacy have the potential to create an effect that will either grow or stifle our economy. I think we can no longer, as many in the industry do, ignore the relevance and impact of social media on the law. There is a need to be proactive. There is a need to gather the best of the best legal, technology and social media minds to create a roadmap for the way forward. Waiting for the lawsuits to happen and then trying to fashion legal solutions with laws that need to be expanded or overhauled is not going to cut it.

Having said all that, I am happy to be in a jurisdiction (California) where this lawsuit is filed. I can’t think of a better place for this kind of lawsuit than California, and specifically, Northern California, the home of Silicon Valley. . . Now let’s all see how it shakes out!

NOTE: Special Shoutout to one of my fans Dozie David for bringing this to my attention. I read about it but Dozie David’s email further compelled me to write. Thank you.

For further information or legal commentary  and analysis (radio, TV, or print) please contact my office at (916-361-6506) or email (firm@fashionentlaw.com).

Cheers,
Uduak

On December 26th, 2011, Allhiphop.compublished an exclusive story stating that although Rick Ross was to perform in Calabar, Cross River State in Nigeria on December 28th, 2011, he was reneging on his promise based on an alleged “unfulfilled contractual obligations.” You don’t say. 

On December 28th, 2011, the organizers of the Calabar Festival allegedly released a statement saying Rick Ross “confirmed a receipt of his entire performance fee many weeks ago.” Further, Cross River State allegedly sent a BBM broadcast stating the following pertinent facts:

“Cross River State and its agents have retained counsel in the United States to pursue their legal and monetary remedies against the artist’ . . .‘The Calabar Festival concerts raise money for many charities across Nigeria. The performance by Rick Ross was scheduled to raise significant amounts for the Destiny Child Centre Charity . . .”

As a child, I visited Cross River State a couple of times and even attended a private school in the state for about a week, at best. My family technically hailed from Cross River State until a political division split the state into two, years ago. Now, I am from the equally beautifully and progressive state called Akwa-Ibom which still shares the same language, culture and customs with the people of Cross River State.

Even with my limited visits, I still remember vividly how gorgeous the landscape was. Folks think Napa meets Hawaii meets San Diego or one of the beautiful Carribean Islands marketed on television. Over the years, Cross River State has packaged, marketed and become notorious for providing the largest, well organized Christmas Festival in the whole of West Africa. Along with that has been hiring major acts from the USA to perform in Calabar, the capital of Cross River State.

Whatever stereotypes you have about Africans, take them, dump them in one of those big trash bags and toss the bag as far as you can because Calabar is anything but those stereotypes.

As an American and a trial attorney who represents individuals and businesses in the fashion and entertainment industry, I support American artists seeking opportunities and collaborations on foreign soil. As an attorney of African heritage and also one with a vested interest in seeing Africa’s entertainment industry flourish, I am strongly opposed to the millions of dollars African promoters and organizers spend to have American foreign acts perform in Africa. Further, I am strongly opposed to situations where local acts are bypassed or paid miserable fees just so foreign acts can perform. I believe African promoters should think long term and help with building music institutions for African youths, pushing for a better music education and infrastructure and of course paying their local acts well. Earlier this year I discussed the ridiculous story of Amber Rose whose nude photos hit the web. While many American fashion and entertainment companies allegedly quickly distanced themselves from Amber Rose, Nigeria was begging Amber Rose to show up, right at the heart of that sex photo scandal! They could not even wait for things to settle. Incredible!

Over the years we have seen Nigerians and Ghanaians, particularly, pay millions of dollars for American artists to perform. Beyonce, Jay-Z, Kelly Rowland, Brandy, Dru-Hill, R-Kelly, The Game and the list goes on. As America’s music industry faces an upheaval brought on by the digital revolution, American artists realize they have to pay the bills to keep the lights on. Africa now looks sexy. But, there is a problem. Over and over again, Africans continue to be disrespected by the same people they are paying or have paid monies to show up and perform.

I want to get to the heart of this potential litigation so I will stop for now because I do have a lot to say about this issue and do not believe I can possibly address it all in one article. Let’s get quickly to the lawsuit. It is basically a republishing of similar cases discussed in the past where cancellation of concerts took place.

What Law Governs?
USA Contract Law. Folks remember if you are a California or other USA based artist, you want home court advantage. Your lawyer should negotiate a contract that keeps all litigation/arbitration proceedings in the USA. It gets expensive very quickly if you have to pay for costs of travel and accommodations to defend a lawsuit on foreign soil. Also, for those in Cross-River State, certainly with the Naira to Dollar conversion rate, it becomes quite expensive to foot this litigation.

On the flip side, if the facts are as they read, then USA courtrooms will only benefit the Plaintiff suing you the American artist. They will show up on your turf like the underdogs Chicago Bulls just did in Los Angeles with the Lakers and give you a good spanking. How embarrassing. Better lawyer up and follow the rules your lawyer spends the time to create for you to do business and make money.

What Kind of Lawsuit is this?
Breach of Contract

Cross River State Promoters/Organizers  versus Rick Ross/Maybach Breach of Contract Suit.
The Promoters can sue Rick Ross under a breach of contract claim. To prevail, the Promoters must show that:

• There was a valid contract between Rick Ross and Promoters. Seems so common sense but often many promoters do not have a signed agreement in place. Just talks, series of back and forth emails and nothing concrete and in writing.
• Rick Ross failed to perform or announced an intent not to perform (They had to find out via Allhiphop.com, like seriously? Talk about major disrespect and walking all over the Africans.)
• There was no legally valid reason for the lack of performance. For example, the Promoters can claim as they are already doing that seizures were not an issue in this case. Instead an alleged “unfulfilled contractual obligations.” Of course, Rick Ross can throw Allhiphop.com under the bus and drive the bus by denying he ever told Allhiphop.com such statements. Allhiphop.com would be left to produce the tape or emailed statements to save face. If Rick Ross denies such statements, then a safe default is health reasons since we already know that is an issue for him. Then of course we get into why would they book Rick Ross given his health scare known to the world? Was it foreseeable he would be unable to perform? Further, why would Rick Ross promise his health was no longer an issue when in fact it is an issue?
• The failure of Rick Ross to perform made it impossible for the Calabar Promoters to fulfill their obligations; and
• The Calabar Promoters have been injured i.e. out of money etc.

Common Defenses Rick Ross & Artists Like him Can Use if Applicable

• We never had a contract. We talked and yes I sent emails but I never signed anything.
• I lacked the capacity to enter into an agreement- I was mentally impaired or I am a minor (under 18) etc.
• Force Majeure clause i.e. the recent Christmas bombing in Nigeria at churches made Rick Ross feel unsafe to perform. This argument is very weak at best. Sadly, bombs and killings have been ongoing and remain ongoing in Nigeria YET Rick Ross signed a contract to show up and perform.
• I was drunk! Intoxicated. They showed me a paper after I had drank 10 bottles of Moet. I didn’t even know what they said. I can’t even remember signing. Generally this defense is not very strong.
• I was under duress (blackmail, for example) and undue influence from an overbearing promoter who also happens to be my Uncle.
• The promoter misrepresented the facts and but for that misrepresentation artist would not have signed agreement.
• Unconscionable. Think, “how on earth could anyone negotiate such unfair contract with artist?” If Promoter, for example, makes $50,000 and only pays Rick Ross $1,000.

Remedies
If the Calabar Promoters prevail in a US court, then the remedy can be in the form of:

• Damages i.e. money
• Specific performance – forcing artist to perform
• Cancellation & restitution- Calabar Promoters claim they already gave him his entire fees. Restitution would be for Rick Ross to return that money. Cancellation would void any other obligations both parties might owe to each other.

Fashionentlaw.com further recommended readings:

1. Amber Rose v. Nigeria’s Music Meets Runway
2. Natasha Bedingfield Live Performance Agreements

Cheers,
Uduak

For further information or legal commentary  and analysis (radio, TV, or print) please contact my office at (916-361-6506) or email (firm@fashionentlaw.com).

But the complaint. . .lleges that the bag is instead made by the Chinese American company Diophy, which Louis Vuitton is currently suing in an attempt to prevent knock-off items from being sold in the U.S.

Louis Vuitton says it has been damaged by the consumer confusion (“Careful, that is a Louis Vuitton.” has supposedly become a catchphrase) and claims that Warners has refused to alter the scene before the movie is released on DVD.

A Warners spokesman declined to comment on the suit. . .” reports Mathew Belloni for THR, Esq.

Legal issues to know:

1. Counterfeiting  – Louis Vuitton Burberry Lawsuit

2. Trademark Law – Chris Aire lawsuit against Louis Vuitton et al

Sources close to the family tell us … Kris Jenner is furious — claiming the guy who runs the Institute for Global Labour and Human Rights had no right to accuse the Kardashian brands of wrongdoing because he has no tangible proof to back up his claims.

Kris must have seen I.G.L.H.R. honcho Charles Kernaghan on “TMZ Live” Wednesday — when he flat out admitted he didn’t actually go to the factories in question … and is making the ASSUMPTION based on years of research on the Chinese manufacturing industry.

Jenner also believes Star Magazine’s cover — which screamed “Kardashian Sweatshop Scandal” — was not only unfair … but libelous … and it should have to pay for any damage that has been caused to the brand’s reputation. . .” -TMZ

My Take

A couple of takeaways. The fashion and entertainment industry is notorious  sweatshop like working conditions and child labor violations. Just recently, we saw allegations about Victoria Secret’s African Child Labor violations in Burkina Faso unveiled by Bloomberg. Employers, if you will hire a young employee in California, you will need to comply with California’s Labor Code. All minors under the age of 18 must have a work permit per California’s Labor Code. For the Entertainment industry, minors between the age of 15-18years must have a work permit.

As to the claims the Kardashians will have, we’ve seen these legal issues in different forms. Here, the issues at the heart of this case if it should be filed would be defamation and libel.

As it stands, it appears there is a recant on this story. This might be enough for the Kardashians on a strategic level. However, it is also a seemingly easy case to win and one that Star Magazine would quickly want to settle, depending on other facts unknown to us. . .

For Defamation legal commentary and analysis, click here.

Also see the Courtney Love case for further legal commentary and analysis.

Cheers,
Uduak

I just recently heard from him again, via email, informing me the case settled. Read the two pieces of relevant emails, in pertinent part, that I received. Congratulations to both parties. While we trial lawyers LOVE a good fight, we do realize, often, it is in the best interest of our clients to efficiently and quickly resolve disputes. It is nice to see both parties come to an amicable resolution, per the statements below:

“Dear Uduak:

You called it right from the start: they have settled. . . I just wanted to inform you and renew my sincere expression of respect . . .

Carlos”

The official statement as of December 18th, 2011

Please take note of the “Joint Statement” below, regarding the settlement of my dispute with the producers of the Broadway musical FELA!:

JOINT STATEMENT

“The matter of Mr. Moore’s claims has been resolved to the mutual satisfaction of the parties.”

For your information, the FELA! playbill (and associated materials) now bear the acknowledgement:

“Inspired by the authorized biography Fela, Fela: This Bitch of a Life!, by Carlos Moore.”

I wish to thank all those around the world who extended their support to me over this matter.

Cheers,
Uduak

Photocredit: Tavis Smiley.com