The Briefing by Weintraub Tobin

Can you use “March Madness” without getting sued? In this episode of The Briefing, Weintraub Tobin partners Scott Hervey and Jessica Corpuz break down the NCAA’s lawsuit against DraftKings and the high stakes fight over one of the most recognizable trademarks in sports. In this episode, they cover: What nominative fair use actually means and how courts apply it Why DraftKings says its use of “March Madness” is necessary for bettors How the NCAA argues the use creates false association and brand harm Tune in for a clear look at where trademark law meets sports betting. Watch this episode on our YouTube or listen to the podcast here.

What happens when a failed police raid turns into a music video about lemon poundcake and a $3.9 million lawsuit? In this episode of The Briefing, Scott Hervey and Richard Buckley, Jr. break down the Afroman defamation case, where surveillance footage, satire, and public officials collide under First Amendment law. In this episode, they cover: Why the deputies’ defamation claims failed under the “actual malice” standard How satire and parody shape what counts as a statement of fact Why the lack of an anti-SLAPP law in Ohio changed the entire case strategy Tune in for a clear look at where defamation law meets satire and the First Amendment.

What happens when two fantasy stories share the same DNA? In this episode of The Briefing, Weintraub Tobin partners Scott Hervey and Matt Sugarman break down a major copyright decision involving the Crave series and what it means for substantial similarity in fiction. In this episode, they cover: – Why common genre tropes like love triangles, supernatural powers, and chosen one narratives are not protectable – How courts filter out unprotectable elements using the “more discerning ordinary observer” test – Why combining familiar elements is not enough to prove copyright infringement Tune in for a clear look at where copyright law draws the line between inspiration and infringement.

When does an AI voice become your voice? In this episode of The Briefing, Weintraub Tobin partners Scott Hervey and Richard Buckley break down the lawsuit filed by longtime broadcaster David Greene against Google over its NotebookLM tool and its eerily familiar AI-generated voice. In this episode, they cover: What Greene must prove to win a Right of Publicity claim How Midler and Waits shape the legal standard for voice imitation Why Google’s training data and “knowing use” will be key to the case From forensic voice analysis to AI training practices, this case raises major questions about identity, ownership, and emerging technology. Tune in for a clear look at where the right of publicity meets artificial intelligence

What happens when artists agree to transfer rights to a musical composition but never put that transfer in writing? In this episode of The Briefing, Weintraub Tobin partners Scott Hervey and Jessica R. Corpuz break down a federal court decision arising from a copyright dispute tied to Ye’s Donda album. The case turned on a simple but unforgiving rule of copyright law: without a written assignment, you do not own the copyright and you cannot enforce it. In this episode, they cover: Why Section 204(a) of the Copyright Act requires copyright transfers to be in writing The legal difference between composition copyrights and sound recording copyrights How the lack of a written assignment wiped out most of the plaintiff’s infringement claims Tune in for a clear reminder that in copyright law, if it is not in writing, it may as well not exist.

What happens when an artist terminates a decades-old copyright grant under U.S. law, but the work is still being exploited around the world? In this episode of The Briefing, Weintraub Tobin Partners Scott Hervey and Matt Sugarman break down the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Vetter v. Resnik and what it means for worldwide copyright grants. In this episode, they discuss: Whether termination under 17 U.S.C. § 304(c) can recapture foreign exploitation rights Why the Fifth Circuit parted ways with California cases like Siegel v. Warner Bros. The difference between ownership disputes and extraterritorial infringement claims How this ruling impacts publishers, studios, catalog buyers, and global licensing strategies If termination can unwind a worldwide grant, the leverage shift for authors and heirs could be significant. Tune in for a clear look at how copyright termination.

Can an arbitration provider force someone into arbitration who never signed the contract? In this episode of The Briefing, Weintraub Tobin partners Scott Hervey and Richard D. Buckley, Jr. break down the high-profile dispute involving Skechers, global influencer Khaby Lame, his management company KBL Services, and talent manager Barrett Wissman. At the center of the fight is a critical question of arbitration law: does the American Arbitration Association have jurisdiction over a non-signatory? In this episode, they discuss: When non-signatories can be compelled to arbitrate Alter ego and veil piercing theories Agency law and representative capacity Whether the AAA can administer arbitration against someone who never agreed to it Strategic litigation choices when challenging arbitrability If you handle contracts, endorsement agreements, arbitration clauses, or business disputes, this episode offers important insight into the limits of consent in arbitration.

When a jury says two works are not substantially similar, is that the end of the story? In this episode of The Briefing, Weintraub Tobin partners Scott Hervey and Richard D. Buckley, Jr. break down the Ninth Circuit’s decision arising from the Kat Von D tattoo of an iconic Miles Davis photograph and why it may signal the beginning of the end for the intrinsic test in copyright law. In this episode, they cover: How the Ninth Circuit’s two-part substantial similarity test works Why the jury’s finding was nearly impossible to overturn on appeal The concurring opinions calling the intrinsic test legally incoherent How other circuits analyze substantial similarity differently What a reworked test could look like going forward Whether you are a creator, lawyer, or rights holder, this case highlights a potential turning point in how courts evaluate copyright infringement.

California privacy law has entered a new phase. In Part Two of this two-part episode of The Briefing, Weintraub Tobin Partners Scott Hervey and Richard Buckley break down the CCPA’s new requirements for Risk Assessments and Cybersecurity Audits. In this episode, they cover: When Risk Assessments are required and what they must evaluate How businesses must weigh operational benefits against privacy risks Who must be involved in conducting Risk Assessments and when When Cybersecurity Audits are triggered and what they must include What businesses must submit to the California Privacy Protection Agency Tune in for part two on how a clear look at how California privacy law is turning AI compliance into an operational requirement.

California privacy law has entered a new phase. In Part 1 of this two-part episode of The Briefing, Weintraub Tobin Partners Scott Hervey and Richard Buckley breaks down California’s new CCPA regulations governing Automated Decision making Technology, or ADMT. This episode explains how the amended rules go beyond data collection and sharing to regulate how businesses use algorithms, artificial intelligence, and automated tools to make decisions about people. In this episode, they cover: What qualifies as Automated Decision making Technology under the CCPA Which automated decisions are considered “significant decisions” When a business is subject to the ADMT rules New notice, opt-out, and access rights for consumers, including employees and job applicants Key compliance deadlines businesses need to prepare for now Tune in for a clear look at how California privacy law is reshaping automated decision making and AI governance.

We previously covered the trademark lawsuit filed by Lost International against Lady Gaga over her use of “Mayhem” in connection with her album, tour, and related merchandise. Now the court has ruled, denying Lost’s motion for a preliminary injunction. In this episode of The Briefing, Weintraub Tobin partners Scott Hervey and Tara Sattler break down the court’s order and what it signals about the Rogers test after the Supreme Court’s Jack Daniel’s decision. In this episode, they cover: Why the court applied the Rogers test instead of the traditional Sleekcraft likelihood of confusion analysis How the court treated tour merchandise tied to an expressive work under Ninth Circuit precedent What “artistic relevance” means and why that prong was easily met here Why “use of the mark alone” was not enough to show the use was explicitly misleading How this ruling fits into the broader post Jack Daniel’s landscape, including recent Ninth Circuit developments Tune in for a clear look at where trademark law meets tour merchandising and First Amendment protections.

The Ninth Circuit kicked off 2026 with a major copyright decision in the long-running Top Gun dispute, affirming summary judgment for Paramount in the lawsuit over Top Gun: Maverick. In this episode of The Briefing, Weintraub Tobin shareholders Scott Hervey and Tara Sattler break down the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning and why it matters for studios, writers, and anyone adapting real-world stories.   In this episode, they cover: The background of the claim tied to the 1983 magazine article “Top Guns” How the Ninth Circuit applied the extrinsic and intrinsic tests for substantial similarity Why historical facts and real events remain free for all to use, even when dramatic The court’s focus on “protected expression” versus unprotectable ideas, facts, and genre conventions Key takeaways for nonfiction adaptations, biopics, and projects inspired by true stories Tune in for a clear look at where copyright law draws the line between protected expression and real-world facts.

As 2025 fades into the rearview mirror, many of the entertainment and media industry’s biggest legal questions remain unresolved. In this episode of The Briefing, Weintraub Tobin partners Scott Hervey and Tara Sattler take a forward-looking approach to the cases and doctrines that could shape 2026.   In this episode, they cover: The unsettled future of fair use in AI training and copyright infringement How courts are approaching lawful versus unlawful acquisition of training data The growing split in AI cases involving market substitution and fair use The narrowing application of the Rogers Test following the Jack Daniel’s decision What pending cases could mean for filmmakers, studios, and content creators Tune in for a clear look at the legal issues that could define entertainment and media in 2026.

Your intellectual property is one of your company’s most valuable assets. Are you keeping track of it? In this episode of The Briefing, Weintraub Tobin Partners Scott Hervey and Tara Sattler walk through why an IP checkup is a smart way to kick off the year and how businesses can safeguard their intellectual property assets. In this episode, they cover: Why regular IP audits matter for growing businesses How to track and manage trademarks, copyrights, and patents Common gaps companies overlook in their IP portfolios – Practical steps to protect and strengthen your IP strategy Tune in for a practical guide to protecting the ideas and assets that drive your business forward.

In this episode of The Briefing, Weintraub Tobin partners Scott Hervey and Matt Sugarman break down The New York Times v. Perplexity AI, a lawsuit that goes beyond copyright and into largely untested trademark territory. They discuss the Times’ allegations that Perplexity copied its journalism at both the input and output stages and, more significantly, that the AI attributed fabricated or inaccurate content to the Times using its trademarks. The case raises new questions about false designation of origin, trademark dilution, and how AI hallucinations could expose platforms to liability. In this episode, they cover: Alleged large-scale scraping and output copying of Times content How RAG systems complicate traditional copyright defenses The novel use of trademark law to challenge AI hallucinations False designation of origin and dilution by tarnishment claims What this lawsuit could mean for AI companies that cite or brand sources Tune in for a clear look at where trademark law meets AI-generated misinformation.

Get into the holiday spirit with a look at some of the most unique Christmas patents ever filed. From Santa detectors to upside-down Christmas trees, Scott Hervey and Jamie Lincenberg explore festive inventions that add a little extra cheer to the season on this episode of The Briefing. Watch this episode on the Weintraub YouTube channel.

The Terrifier franchise is one of the most unlikely independent horror success stories of the last 25 years. But a new lawsuit challenges how the first film was made and raises serious questions about performer consent and on-set protections. In this episode of The Briefing, Weintraub Tobin partners Scott Hervey and Matt Sugarman break down actress Catherine Corcoran’s lawsuit against the film’s producers and what it reveals about SAG-AFTRA requirements for nudity and simulated sex scenes. In this episode, they cover: What a SAG nudity rider is and why it is legally required How consent must be disclosed, documented, and respected on set Why filming nudity without a signed rider can be deemed nonconsensual The risks producers face when still images or footage are reused without permission How intimacy coordinators and detailed riders protect both performers and productions This case is a reminder that nudity riders are not a formality. They are a core safeguard in film and television production. Tune in here for a clear look at how SAG protections, performer consent, and production liability intersect.  

Did Coca-Cola cross the line by using a Johnny Cash soundalike in its nationwide “Fan Work is Thirsty Work” campaign? In this episode of The Briefing, Weintraub Tobin attorneys Scott Hervey and Richard Buckley unpack the Cash estate’s lawsuit and what it reveals about the evolving law of soundalikes. In this episode, they cover: How Tennessee’s new Elvis Act expands protection for voices and vocal imitation Why the Cash estate is also asserting a Lanham Act false endorsement claim How Midler v. Ford and Waits v. Frito-Lay continue to shape soundalike disputes The line between imitating a musical “style” and misappropriating a distinctive voice What brands and agencies should consider before using tribute artists or AI vocals Tune in here for a clear look at where right of publicity, soundalike law, and advertising practice collide.

Creators, beware: just because it’s online doesn’t mean it’s fair game. In this episode of The Briefing, Scott Hervey and Richard Buckley break down one of the most misunderstood areas of copyright law—fair use. In this episode, they cover: What makes a use “transformative”? Why credit alone doesn’t protect you How recent court rulings (Warhol v. Goldsmith) are changing the game Tips to stay on the right side of the law Watch this episode on YouTube or listen to this podcast episode here.

Who really owns your Thanksgiving traditions? In this special holiday edition of The Briefing, Weintraub Tobin partners Scott Hervey and Richard Buckley discuss how intellectual property law intersects with holiday food, recipes, and branding. They explore: Why recipes usually aren’t protected by copyright The surprising trademarks behind holiday favorites like Turducken and Tofurky How brands use trademarks, trade dress, and storytelling to own a piece of the Thanksgiving season The rise of “Friendsgiving” as both a cultural phenomenon and a branding challenge Whether you’re a lawyer, brand owner, or marketing professional, this episode offers valuable insight into how IP shapes the way we celebrate and sell the holidays.

In this episode of The Briefing, Scott Hervey and Richard Buckley break down Campbell Soup Co. v. Campbell for Congress, the lawsuit over a political candidate’s “Soup4Change” slogan and AI-generated soup can design. They cover the backstory, the trademark and First Amendment arguments, and how the Hershey case may influence the court’s view of political campaign branding. Tune in for a clear look at where trademark law meets political speech. Watch this episode on YouTube.

After losing its anti-SLAPP motion, Warner Bros. has appealed in Roadrunner JMTC LLC v. Warner Bros. Television, the lawsuit brought by Michael Crichton’s estate claiming the new series The Pitt is an unauthorized derivative of ER. In this episode of The Briefing, Weintraub Tobin attorneys Scott Hervey and Tara Sattler discuss: The background behind the ER “freeze clause” Warner Bros.’ First Amendment arguments under California’s anti-SLAPP statute The battle over what “derivative work” really means How the trial court handled the Katz declaration The broader implications for creative freedom and legacy IP Watch this episode on YouTube.

When artistic identity meets corporate branding, where does copyright law draw the line? In a new episode of The Briefing, Scott Hervey and Richard Buckley discuss the lawsuit filed by artist Tyrrell Winston against the New Orleans Pelicans. Winston—whose distinctive sculptures of deflated basketballs arranged in grids have been exhibited worldwide and licensed by brands like Nike, Adidas, and even NBA teams—claims the Pelicans copied his signature style in a social media campaign. His lawsuit raises a major question for artists, brands, and IP lawyers alike: Can a distinctive artistic style be protected under copyright law? The conversation compares Winston’s claim to the “vibe copyright” case (Sydney Nicole v. Alyssa Sheil) and examines whether courts are expanding protection from expression into concepts and aesthetics. Watch this episode on YouTube.

A consent agreement can be a powerful tool to overcome a USPTO likelihood-of-confusion refusal—but only if it’s done right. In this episode of The Briefing, Weintraub Tobin attorneys Scott Hervey and Richard Buckley discuss the TTAB’s precedential decision in In re Ye Mystic Krewe of Gasparilla, where the Board rejected a one-page consent agreement as a “naked consent” insufficient to overcome a Section 2(d) refusal. They unpack: The history of the GASPARILLA application Why the TTAB said the agreement didn’t “show the work” How to draft a consent agreement that will actually persuade the USPTO Don’t miss this one—it’s a practical guide for anyone working with trademarks or brand portfolios. Watch this episode on YouTube.

Can a car, a superhero, or even a cartoon sidekick be protected by copyright? In this episode of The Briefing, Scott Hervey and Matt Sugarman break down how fictional characters earn legal protection — and when they don’t. From DC Comics v. Towle (the “Batmobile” case) to Carroll Shelby Licensing v. Halicki (the “Eleanor” case), Scott and Matt explore the three-part test for character copyrightability, how trademark rights can extend protection, and what creators and studios can do to safeguard their most valuable IP assets. 🎧 You’ll learn: ● What makes a fictional character “especially distinctive” under copyright law ● Why consistency across stories matters for protection ● How trademark rights protect character names and merchandise ● The difference between creative expression and brand identity Watch this episode on YouTube and learn how to keep your characters safe from copycats.

A federal court has granted summary judgment for Nirvana, dismissing Spencer Elden’s claim that the Nevermind album cover — depicting him as a baby — constituted child pornography. In this episode of The Briefing, Scott Hervey and James Kachmar revisit their earlier coverage of the Ninth Circuit’s decision and unpack how the district court’s final ruling turned on artistic intent and context rather than perception. Tune in to learn how the court applied the Dost factors, what this ruling means for artists and rights holders, and how intent shapes the boundary between art and exploitation. Watch this episode on YouTube. Show Notes: Scott: In a previous episode, we covered Elden versus Nirvana, the lawsuit brought by Spencer Elden, the Baby, on the cover of Nirvana’s Never Mind album, who claimed that the image amounted to child pornography. The Ninth Circuit revived Elden’s case in late 2023, holding that his claims were not time barred and sent it back to the District Court to decide the big question, was Nirvana’s album cover child pornography? Now that question has been answered. The District Court has granted summary judgment for Nirvana, holding that the cover is not child pornography as a matter of law. I’m Scott Hervey, and I’m joined today by my partner, James Kachmar. We are going to break down the District Court’s ruling and evidence surrounding the artistic intent behind one of the most iconic album covers of all time on today’s installment of The Briefing. James, welcome back to The Briefing. Good to have you. James: Thanks for having me back, Scott. Scott: So, James, when you and I last talked about this case, the Ninth Circuit had just revived Eldon’s lawsuit. Can you remind the listeners how we got here? James: Sure, Scott. The photograph at the heart of this case is on the cover of Nirvana’s Never album. It’s a naked baby swimming underwater, appears to be reaching for a dollar bill that’s on a fishing hook. That baby, Spencer Eldon, was four months old when that photo was taken in 1991. Thirty years later, in 2021, Eldon sued Nirvana, the surviving band members, and their record labels under a federal law that allows victims of child pornography to bring civil claims. He alleged that the photo was sexually exploitive and that Nirvana had knowingly possessed, reproduced, and distributed what he claimed was child pornography. Scott: And that case was originally dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. James: Exactly, Scott. The District Court initially threw it out saying that Eldon had waited too long to sue. He turned 18 around 2009, but waited another 12 years to file his lawsuit. But in December 2023, the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that because the album had been rereleased in 2021, Eldon could bring claims based on that recent republication. That sent the case back to the district Court to decide the substance of Alden’s claim, whether or not the image itself met the legal definition of child pornography. Scott: And now, the District Court, having heard arguments on both sides, has granted summary judgment for Nirvana. So Let’s dive into the court’s reasoning. James: Sure. The court held at the Never mind cover simply doesn’t meet the definition of child pornography under federal law. Scott: Right. We don’t normally dive into this on these podcasts, but this is a media case, and it is interesting. I think there’s some other interesting aspects of this case that we’re going to talk about later. Okay, so the court applied the DOS factors. That’s a six-part test used to assess whether an image is sexually suggestive. Those factors look at things like whether the child’s pose is sexually suggestive, whether the photographer intended to elicit a sexual response. Here, the court said, obvious, that the photograph is not sexually suggestive. It depicts a baby swimming underwater with no sexualized focus or context. James: That’s right, Scott. The judge went even further, emphasizing that there was no evidence of sexual intent by anyone involved with the album cover. The judge wrote, The undisputed evidence establishes that the creative team intended the image to convey a critique of capitalism, not to sexualize or exploit the child. Scott: The court recognized that the concept behind the image was artistic, not sexual. The court noted that photographer, Kurt Weddell, testified that the shoot was done in a single session at a local pool, and that there was no direction to the baby, meaning that Eldon wasn’t posed or otherwise manipulated. James: Exactly, Scott. The designer, Robert Fischer, who created the album artwork, testified that the goal was to comment on how people are chasing money from birth. The court cited that testimony and wrote, The image was designed to be a satirical commentary on the pursuit of wealth, the baby reaching for the dollar, not

Disney faced a copyright lawsuit over the use of MOVA facial-capture software in Beauty and the Beast. A jury found Disney vicariously liable, the district court threw out the verdict, but the Ninth Circuit has now reinstated it. In this episode of The Briefing, Scott Hervey and Tara Sattler discuss: ● The facts behind Disney’s use of VFX vendor DD3 and the disputed MOVA software ● Why the district court found no “practical ability” for Disney to control its vendor ● How the Ninth Circuit reversed, emphasizing Disney’s contractual rights, on-set presence, and red-flag evidence ● What this means for studios and production companies managing VFX vendors

Former Congressman George Santos sued Jimmy Kimmel after the late-night host used Cameo videos in a comedy segment called “Will Santos Say It?” Santos claimed copyright infringement and fraud, but both the District Court and the Second Circuit said Kimmel’s use was fair use. In this episode of The Briefing, Scott Hervey and Tara Sattler break down: ● How Kimmel obtained the videos using fake Cameo accounts ● Why the District Court dismissed Santos’s case ● How the Second Circuit reinforced that criticism and satire are protected under fair use ● Why Santos’s contract and fraud claims also failed Watch this episode on YouTube.

Neil Young vs. Chrome Hearts — What happens when a rock legend collides with a luxury fashion powerhouse? Chrome Hearts has filed suit against Neil Young, claiming his new band “Neil Young and the Chrome Hearts” infringes on their famous trademark On this episode of The Briefing, Weintraub attorneys Scott Hervey and James Kachmar unpack the lawsuit, analyze the likelihood of confusion, and compare it to the Lady Gaga “Mayhem” case. Plus, they share practical takeaways for musicians to avoid trademark trouble. Show Notes:   Scott: Neil Young, one of the most influential voices in rock history, has landed in federal court, but not for his music. His new backing band, Neil Young and the Chrome Hearts, has become the center of a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by luxury fashion brand, Chrome Hearts. At issue is whether Neil Young’s use of the Chrome Hearts’ name, and especially the sale of related merchandise, crossed the line into infringement. I’m Scott Hervey, a partner of the I’m a law firm of Weintraub Tobin, and today I’m joined by my partner, James Kachmar. We are going to break down Chrome Hearts versus Neil Young on today’s installment of The Briefing.   James, welcome back to The Briefing. Good to have you.   James: Thanks for having me, Scott. Anytime you’ve got a clash between a rock legend and a fashion powerhouse, you know it’s going to be an interesting case. Scott: Oh, absolutely. Well, so let’s set the stage, shall we? So Chrome Hearts filed suit in the Central District of California against Neil Young and his production company, the Other Shoe Productions, and his bandmates. The complaint alleges trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, common law trademark infringement, and common law unfair competition. But I think the centerpiece of this case really is the federal trademark infringement claim. I think, really, this case either lives or dies on whether or not Neil Young has violated the Lanham Act. Okay, let’s talk about some background here. Chrome Hearts, for those of you who aren’t aware, Chrome Hearts is not just a boutique clothing line. It’s a billion-dollar brand that’s been around since 1988. They’ve built an empire on jewelry, leather goods, apparel, eyewear, and even furniture. They’ve collaborated with the Rolling Stones, Rihanna, Madonna, Drake, and countless others. Their products are sold in exclusive boutiques worldwide, and they have a loyal following among musicians and celebrities. Now, critically, Chrome Hearts has a very long list of federally-registered trademarks covering Chrome Hearts, both the wordmark and related designs. These registrations span across jewelry, letter goods, clothing, eyewear, retail store services, and even entertainment services in the nature of live performances by a musical band.   Now, that last one is particularly important because I think it directly overlaps with Neil Young’s activities.   James: I knew about Chrome Hearts as a fashion and jewelry brand, but I had no idea that there was a band associated with it. Did you know that, Scott?   Scott: No, I didn’t until I read the complaint. I got a little curious, and I found the specific trademark that covered their entertainment services. I mean, it’s listed in the complaint. I looked up its file at the USPTO to see what specimens it submitted. Lo and behold, it’s a photo of a band with the band name Chrome Hearts right there on the stage monitors. I tried to find out more about that band, but when you search Chrome Hearts Band, all you get is references to Neil Young’s new band.   James: Neil Young launched this new band, Neil Young and the Chrome Hearts, last year in 2024. They played shows in New York, branded the outing as the Chrome Hearts Tour, and then released new music earlier this year, including a full studio album this past June. The complaint highlights that they were selling T-shirts and other merchandise, prominently using the Chrome Hearts name as part of that tour.   Scott: If I had to guess, I would say that’s really the spark. Touring under a band name might have been acceptable, especially since it’s Neil Young and the Chrome Hearts. But I think once Young started selling merchandise, shirts, hoodies, and other items bearing Neil Young and the Chrome Hearts, that’s probably what caused Chrome Hearts to file its lawsuit. According to the complaint, vendors and fans, allegedly, have assumed there’s a collaboration between Young and the Chrome Hearts. That’s exactly the consumer confusion trademark law is designed to prevent.   James: Yeah, and this isn’t the first time we’ve seen a conflict between a fashion brand and a musical tour.   Scott: That’s right. Earlier this year, you and I covered the Lady Gaga mayhem case. In th

The Anthropic settlement shows just how costly copyright missteps can be in AI development. Anthropic has agreed to a $1.5B settlement after a court found that keeping a permanent library of pirated books was not fair use—even though training its AI model on those same works was. On this episode of The Briefing, Weintraub attorneys Scott Hervey and Matt Sugarman discuss the ruling, the settlement, and what it means for future copyright claims against AI companies. Show Notes: Scott: In a previous episode, we broke down a key ruling in the Anthropic AI Training case. That one asked, what happens when an AI company trains its model on millions of books? Some purchased, some pirated. In that closely watched decision, a federal judge said, the training itself was fair use, comparing it to how humans learn by reading. But keeping pirated copies of those books in a permanent digital library, that crossed the line. I’m Scott Hervey, a partner with the law firm of Weintraub Tobin. I’m joined today by my partner, Matt Sugarman. Today, we are going to talk about the one big question that ruling left open. What’s the price tag for that mistake? That answer just came in, and it’s a big one on this installment of the briefing. Matt, welcome back to the briefing. It’s good to have you. Matt: Thank you, Scott. It’s good to be here. Scott: Great. Well, this one’s a good one. I know you and I both talk a lot about these AI training cases, and we covered the meta case previously. But why don’t you give us a quick backstory on this case. Matt: Okay, Scott, let’s rewind for a second. In 2021, Anthropic trained its Claude model on a massive data set of books, articles, websites, you name it. But instead of licensing the books, they grabbed millions of copyrighted works straight off the pirate sites. Scott: Right. They did license them by some, but for sure, they pirated millions of books. Like you said, we’re not talking about a few. We’re talking about more than seven million pirated books. And those works include some very notable authors. At the same time, they bought millions of print books, they scanned them, and they built this huge searchable digital library. Matt: That’s correct, Scott. And that’s what set off the lawsuit. The author said that Anthropic infringed their copyrights in three separate ways: downloading the pirated books, using them to train Claude, and keeping digital copies in a permanent internal library. Scott: So when Anthropic moved for summary judgment on fair use, Judge William Alsup, of the Northern District of California, didn’t really give them a clean win. Instead, he carved up their conduct into three categories. Matt: That’s right. Training AI on books, scanning and digitizing legally-purchased print books, and then the big problem, keeping pirated books in a permanent digital library. Scott: And the judge treated each one differently. Matt: Correct. First, training Claude with the books, the court said that was fair use. And not just fair use, he called it spectacularly transformative. Scott: That’s right. He did call it spectacularly transformative. Even if Claude absorbed a lot of the underlying materials, the judge pointed out that the model wasn’t spitting out verbatim chunks of the author’s books. Matt: Well, the second point was digitizing purchased printbooks. The authors argued that converting them into searchable PDFs was also in free trade. Scott: But the court pushed back. Because Anthropic lawfully bought the books and then destroyed the physical copies and only kept one digital version for internal use, that passed muster as fair use. Matt: Scott, the judge even went out of his way to say that this use was more transformative than in Texaco. Google Books and Sony Betamax, and clearly different from the Napster case. Scott: Right, clearly different from the Napster case. That brings us to the third use, which was pirating books and retaining those pirated books. Matt: Correct, Scott. That’s where Anthropic went off the rails. They downloaded millions of books from pirate sites, and they stored them, even when a lot of them weren’t used for trading at all. Scott: The kicker, internal emails show that the founder and other executives really knew of the risk, and they were quite cavalier about this, but they decided that essentially, piracy was easier than licensing. Matt: Yep. And the court said no. This was not transformative. It undercut the market, and it was full verbatim copy. The bottom line, fair use didn’t apply. Scott: So this brings us to the fallout. So just last week, Anthropic agreed to settle the author’s claims for $1. 5 billion. Matt: That sounds like a lot, but when you break it down, Scott, that’s only about $3,000 per copyrighted work. Scott: True, but it doesn’t really stop at $1.5 billion. That $1.5 billion is only floor.

The Yuga Labs v. Ryder Ripps case is shaking up NFTs and trademarks. In this episode of The Briefing, Weintraub attorneys Scott Hervey and Tara Sattler unpack the Ninth Circuit’s ruling on whether NFTs count as “goods,” why the First Amendment defense fell flat, and what it all means for the future of digital asset law. Watch this episode on YouTube. Show Notes: Scott: Was the Ryder Ripps Bored Ape Yacht Club NFT series a social commentary on the popular Board Ape Yacht Club and an exposure of its racist tropes? Or was it just an attempt to capitalize off of Bayes’ popularity for profit? These questions were front and center in the lawsuit between Yuga Labs, the creators of the Board Ape Yacht Club NFT. Boys, say that 10 times fast. Project and Ryder Ripps, a popular visual artist. This case resulted in a bench trial award to Yuga Labs of $8 million in damages. But the appeal of that award to the Ninth Circuit raised some very interesting issues, named Mainly the question of whether NFTs are goods that fall under the Lanham Act. I’m Scott Hervey, a partner with Weintraub Tobin, and today I’m joined by my partner and frequent briefing contributor, Tara Sattler. We are taking a deep dive into the fascinating intersection of digital art, blockchain, and Intellectual Property on today’s installment of The Briefing. Tara, welcome back to the briefing. Tara: Hi, Scott. Great to be here, as always. Scott: It’s good to have you here. Let me ask you a question. Did you ever buy any NFTs? Tara: I did not. Scott: I did not either. But I think we’re still qualified to talk about this case, even though we weren’t suckers, I’m sorry, consumers of NFTs. Tara: Yes, I agree. Scott: Let’s start with a summary of the Yuga Labs case. Why don’t you tell us what exactly happened here? Tara: Sure. Yuga Labs Inc. Created the Bored Ape Yacht Club or B-A-Y-C NFT collection, which is one of the most recognized NFT collections globally. The B-A-Y-C collection was associated with, very early with celebrity owners, including Snoop Dogg, Justin Bieber, and Jimmy Fallon. Each NFT in this collection is associated with a unique cartoon soon, Bored Ape Image, and purchasing an NFT not only grants rights to the ape art, but also membership in what’s been described as a strange combination of gated online community, stock shareholding group, and art appreciation society. Yuga Labs launched BAYC in April of 2021, quickly selling out the collection and generating over $2 million. They also developed various trademarked brand signifiers like Bored Ape Yacht Club and Bayayc. Scott: Now, this was right as NFTs took off, some promoting NFTs as an investment category and some just promoting it as hype. There was a huge rush to the adoption of NFT art, and NFTs gained cultural relevance as status symbols. That’s where Ryder Ripps and Jeremy Cahan, hope I pronounce his last name correctly. Tara: Comment. Prefithely. In late 2021, Ryder Ripps, a visual artist, started criticizing Yuga Labs, alleging they used neo-nazi symbolism, alt-right dog whistles, and racist imagery in the B-A-Y-C NFTs. Scott: That’s right. According to Ripps, the Bayy-C Ape Skull logo resembled the Totenkopf emblem of the Nazi SS Stormtroopers. Ripps compiled his findings on a website and used art to satirize the Bayy-C brand. In May 2022, Ripps and Kehen created their own collection called Ryder Ripps Board Ape Yacht Club, which was linked to the exact same ape images with some slight changes and a corresponding ape ID, as was Yuga’s NFTs. Tara: So surprise, Yuga Labs sued Ripps and Cahin and asserted 11 federal and state causes of action, including claims under the Lanham Act for trademark infringement. Yuga claimed the defendants made counterfeits market, BAYC NFTs that they advertised and sold to the same customers in the same markets using Yuga’s BAYC trademarks. Scott: The defendants argued that their use was protected by normative fair use and the First Amendment. It’s interesting that of the 11 causes of action, Yuga didn’t sue for copyright infringement despite that the BAYC NFTs are associated with original works of art. Tara: That’s true. What’s your thought on why Yuga didn’t sue for copyright infringement? Scott: This is just my hypothetical and my thought. When Bayayay-C NFTs were sold, you have a lab’s granted buyer as a license to use the underlying artwork for personal and commercial purposes. It could be as broad as creating derivative works or merchandise featuring the artwork that corresponds to the NFT that you purchased. This licensing model could potentially complicate a copyright claim because Ripps could argue that his NFTs were permissible under the broad license that was granted to the BAYC NFT holders, or he could have argued that his use was fair use, especially since Ripps claimed that his project was satirical commentary of th

50 Cent’s two-minute cameo in the horror film “Skill House” turned into a full-blown legal battle over credits, contracts, and control. In this episode of The Briefing, Weintraub entertainment and IP attorneys Scott Hervey and Tara Sattler break down what went wrong—and what Hollywood can learn from it. Watch this episode on YouTube. Show Notes: Scott: Picture this, Curtis 50 Cent Jackson, hip hop legend and media mogul, steps on to the set of a new horror flick, Skill House. He films a quick two-minute scene, gets billed as a producer, and then next thing you know, he’s in court, trying to stop the film’s release, claiming his name and likeness were used without his permission. But the producers say, Hold on, wait a minute, we had a deal. Welcome to the Briefing by Weintraub Tobin, where we dissect the legal showdowns Shaking Up Hollywood. I’m Scott Hervey, and I’m joined today by my partner, Tara Sattler. Today, we’re going to unravel this messy dispute on today’s installment of The Briefing. Tara, welcome back to The Briefing. Tara: It’s always great to be here, Scott, and welcome back. I know you’ve been gone for a little bit. Scott: Yeah, that’s right. We pre-filmed about four or five episodes, and they weren’t our standard deep dive into current cases. I’m happy to dig back into this one. This I wrote while I was away on vacation because I found this case from the start to be incredibly interesting. Tara: God, since I work with a lot of studios and production companies, this case is absolutely my worst nightmare. Scott: Oh, mine too. I work with a bunch of studios and production company as well. When I read this case, I broke out in cold sweat. This is the thing that keeps you up at night. Tara: Yeah, it really is. It’s a wild ride. A 50 Cent, a horror film, a missing signed contract. Let’s get into it. Scott: Yeah. So let’s start with the factual history of the dispute, Tara. Why don’t you give our listeners a Some background on what’s going on here. Tara: Yeah, absolutely. So this case revolves around Skill House, a horror film that was released on July 11th, 2025, earlier this summer. Curtis Jackson, also known as 50 Cent, appears in the film for just over two minutes, but is prominently featured as a producer in its marketing. 50 Cent and his company, NYC Viive LLLC, filed a lawsuit against the film’s production company, Skillhouse Movies, LLC, its producer Ryan Cavenagh and GenTV, LLC, alleging unauthorized use of his name, likeness, voice, trademarks, and other intellectual property. 50 Cent then sought a preliminary injunction to stop the film’s release, claiming it would cause irreparable harm to his brand and reputation. The defendants, however, argued that 50 Cent agreed to participate in and promote the film in exchange for a back-end profit share of 10%, among some other terms. Scott: Right. So the core issue, or one of the core issues, is whether there was an agreement. What’s the backstory on that, Tara? Tara: So in the summer of 2022, 50 Cent and Cavenagh started discussing his involvement in Skillhouse, which is Gen TV’s first feature film. On June 26th, 2022, 50 Cent Council, Stephen Sava, emailed Production Council Neil Sacker, confirming they were good to go on the terms, including producer credit, 10% of the back-end profits, social media promotion with approval rights, product placement for 50 Cent Cognac and champagne brands, and a small acting role. Kavanaugh confirmed these terms, and on July second, 2022, Sacker sent a binding term sheet and certificate of employment, which included $100,000 in fixed compensation and a clause barring 50 cent from seeking injunctive relief in relation to the film. The parties exchanged some revisions on those documents, and by July 30th, Sacker sent what he called the final version of the agreement. But here’s the catch. Neither side can produce a signed copy. So Kavanaugh claims that 50 Cent signed it on set on August second, 2022, in front of witnesses. But 50 Cent and his team deny that. Scott: That’s pretty messy. I see how this all plays out because this happens. This just happens. But it’s messy. No signed agreement. But the parties kept working together. Tara: Yeah, they did, even without a signed contract. So 50 Cent filmed his scene, and his team continued discussions about promotion and payment terms. For example, on August 15th, 2022, 50 Cent commented positively about a film flip, and he later discussed product placement with Kavanaugh. But by April of 2025, 50 Cent’s team claimed they hadn’t been paid, and on June 2, 2025, he filed the injunction to block the film’s release, citing federal and state trademark infringement, unfair competition, false advertising, and violations of his right of publicity. Scott: So let’s get to the court’s legal analysis. Le

You came up with a clever brand name in a foreign language—great! But did you know it might be refused by the USPTO? In this episode of The Briefing, Scott Hervey and Richard Buckley break down what a doctrine is, how trademark examiners apply it, and other important considerations for choosing foreign-language marks. Watch this episode on YouTube. Show Notes: Scott: You’ve come up with a great brand. It’s clever, it’s catchy, and it’s in a foreign language. But when you file for a trademark, the USPTO refuses your application. Why? Well, the answer might lie in an obscure but important rule, the doctrine of foreign equivalence. I’m Scott Hervey, a partner with a law firm of Weintraub Tobin, and I’m joined today by my partner Richard Buckley. We are going to unpack the doctrine of foreign equivalence, how it works, when it applies, and what it means for brand owners and their lawyers on today’s installment of the briefing. Richard, welcome back to The Briefing. Richard: Great to be here, Scott. Great topic. Scott: Yeah, I was reminded of this when I was looking at a trademark search for a client, and it happened to be for a consumer brand, and their mark was in Italian. In clearing the brand, I had to think, Okay, what does that word mean? I had to look for that English language word for similar products. I’m jumping ahead of myself, though. Let’s start with the basics. The doctrine of foreign equivalence is a rule in US trademark law used to analyze trademarks that contain foreign words. Under this doctrine, a foreign word used in a trademark mark may be translated into English to determine whether the mark is generic or merely descriptive, and whether it’s confusingly similar to another registered or pending mark. Richard: The doctrine reflects the idea that the average American consumer familiar with the foreign language may translate the word when encountering the mark. It’s not automatic. Translation only happens if it’s likely that the consumer would recognize the term translate it mentally into English. Scott: All right. So let’s talk about how this comes up in practice. So during the trademark examination process, and that happens after an applicant has filed their trademark registration application with the Patent and Trademark Office, the USPTO examining attorneys are required to consider whether a foreign term should be translated under this document. The USPTO even has what’s called a Trademark manual of Examining Procedure, or the TMEP, which directs examiners to apply the doctrine when it is appropriate. Richard: Here’s how they typically analyze it. First, language recognition. Is the word in a common, modern, foreign language that is spoken by a substantial portion of US consumers? Spanish, Italian, French, German, and Mandarin are the usual suspects. Scott: Last Latin, not so much. Okay. Richard: Not anymore. Scott: Translatability. Is the term directly translatable? For example, Lupo, right? It’s Italian for wolf. Richard: Third, relevance of the translation. Does the English translation affect the analysis of the mark? For instance, if the translation is descriptive or generic, that can be grounds for refusal. If the translated the word is confusingly similar to an already registered English language mark, that may lead to a Section 2D likelihood of confusion refusal. Scott: Right. The doctrine of foreign equivalence only applies when an ordinary American purchaser is likely to translate the foreign mark into English. However, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has interpreted the phrase ordinary American purchaser as purchasers familiar with the foreign language. This definition of ordinary American purchaser effectively guarantees that the doctrine would be applied in almost every case involving a foreign word, since those familiar with a non-English language would ordinarily be expected to translate the word into English. So the bottom line of that is if your mark is in a foreign language, it’s always best to analyze whether that mark conflicts with its English language counterpart. Richard: Scott, let’s discuss why this matters for brand owners, especially in entertainment and consumer-facing industries. Scott: Sure. That’s a great idea. All right, so let’s say you’re launching a fashion label, and let’s say it’s called Bell Mode, French for beautiful fashion. Even though that sounds elegant, it could be viewed as merely descriptive when translated, making it hard, if not impossible to protect. Richard: Or imagine you name your tequila Toro Azul, a Spanish for a blue bowl. If there’s already a brand called Blue Bull Spirits, you may be blocked, even if your mark is entirely in Spanish. Scott: For entrepreneurs, the key is to avoid assuming that using foreign words gives your brand instant uniqueness. And also recognize that common or transla