New York Emmy Awards RSS Feed

Midmorning Exchange on 22-May-13 9:30 AM

Wed, 22 May 2013 13:30:00 GMT

Midmorning Exchange
Start Date: 22-May-13 9:30 AM
End Time: 22-May-13 11:00 AM
Location: NY NATAS, New York, NY 10018
Event Details:

Midmorning Exchange

Wednesday, May 22, 2013 ~ 9:30 – 11:00 AM
NY NATAS Office – 1375 Broadway (between 37^th and 38^th Streets), 21^st floor, Suite 2103

Table Reading of a New Play by

Jane K. Cleland

The eighth in Ms. Cleland’s Josie Prescott mystery series will be published in June.

PLEASE RSVP VIA EMAIL info@nyemmys.org OR PHONE 212-459-3630, ext. 204.

Event produced by Ellen Muir.

NY NATAS

1375 Broadway, Suite 2103

New York, NY 10018

Meet The Filmmaker on 10-Jun-13 6:00 PM

Mon, 10 Jun 2013 22:00:00 GMT

Meet The Filmmaker
Start Date: 10-Jun-13 6:00 PM
End Time: 10-Jun-13 8:00 PM
Location: NY NATAS, New York, NY 10018
Event Details:

Meet the Filmmaker (Elizabeth Sheldon, distribution rep)

“Five Broken Cameras”

Date: Monday, June 10, 2013

Location: NY NATAS, 1375 Broadway (between 37th and 38th Streets), Suite 2103

Reception: 6:00-6:30 PM ~ Program: 6:30-8:00 PM

*Free to NY NATAS Members! $15 for those without current NY NATAS membership.

"Five Broken Cameras"

Produced & Moderated by Sumner Jules Glimcher.

The first-ever Palestinian film to be nominated for best Documentary Feature by A.M.P.A.S®, the critically-acclaimed FIVE BROKEN CAMERAS is a deeply personal, first-hand account of life and non-violent resistance in Bil’in, a West Bank village surrounded by Israeli settlements. Shot by Palestinian farmer Emad Burnat, who bought his first camera in 2005 to record the birth of his youngest son, Gibreel, the film was co-directed by Burnat and Guy Davidi, an Israeli filmmaker. Structured in chapters around the destruction of each one of Burnat’s cameras, the filmmakers’ collaboration follows one family’s evolution over five years of village upheaval. As the years pass in front of the camera, we witness Gibreel grow from a newborn baby into a young boy who observes the world unfolding around him with the astute powers of perception that only children possess. Burnat watches from behind the lens as olive trees are bulldozed, protests intensify and lives are lost in this cinematic diary and unparalleled record of life in the West Bank. FIVE BROKEN CAMERAS is a Palestinian-Israeli-French co-production. A Kino Lorber Release.

THE FILMMAKERS:

A lifelong inhabitant of the Palestinian village of Bil’in, Emad Burnat is a farmer and freelance cameraman. He has contributed to several documentaries, including Bil’in My Love, Palestine Kids, Open Close, and Interrupted Streams. Born in Jaffa, Guy Davidi is a documentary filmmaker and teacher who has been directing, editing, and shooting films since the age of 16. His short documentaries include In Working Progress, Keywords, and Women Defying Barriers; his first feature film, Interrupted Streams, premiered in 2010 at the Jerusalem Film Festival.

FILMMAKERS' STATEMENT:

When we started this project, we knew we would be criticized for working together. Emad would be asked why he chose to make the film with an Israeli, and Guy would be asked why he chose to make the film with a Palestinian. Still, the actual differences between us were something we could not avoid: we have different cultural backgrounds and different privileges, and we had to learn to use them in a constructive way. There are also different expectations for us as a result of our identities. When we finally decided to make the film, we decided it had to be as intimate and personal as possible. That was the only way to tell the story in a new and emotional way. For Emad, this was not an obvious or simple decision. Exposure can be flattering, but it can also be risky. On the other hand, the film had be focused on Emad’s narrative, with Guy taking the role of storyteller.

RESERVATIONS REQUIRED DUE TO BUILDING SECURITY. ALL NAMES MUST BE ON GUEST LIST. Please RSVP via email info@nyemmys.org to reserve a seat. Please write “Five Broken Cameras” in the subject line. Space is limited.

NY NATAS

1375 Broadway, Suite 2103

New York, NY 10018

Play Reading Hosted by Arlene Dahl on 24-Jun-13 5:30 PM

Mon, 24 Jun 2013 21:30:00 GMT

Play Reading Hosted by Arlene Dahl
Start Date: 24-Jun-13 5:30 PM
End Time: 24-Jun-13 8:00 PM
Event Details:

PLAY READING Hosted By

Arlene Dahl

“Stage Fright”

A new comedy written and directed by John Wooten in which an aspiring actress embarks on a perilous journey to secure the role of a lifetime.

Date: Monday, June 24, 2013

Reception: 5:30 p.m.

Program: 6:00 p.m.

For reservations (required) and location information please call (212) 459-3630, ext. 204. No email reservations will be accepted.

Event produced by Ellen Muir.

Midmorning Exchange on 12-Dec-13 9:30 AM

Thu, 12 Dec 2013 14:30:00 GMT

Midmorning Exchange
Start Date: 12-Dec-13 9:30 AM
End Time: 12-Dec-13 11:00 AM
Location: NY NATAS, New York, NY 10018
Event Details:

Midmorning Exchange

Wednesday, December 12, 2012 ~ 9:30 – 11:00 AM
NY NATAS Office – 1375 Broadway (between 37^th and 38^th Streets), 21^st floor, Suite 2103

“The Party Store” (Part Two)

Join us for coffee, conversation and a table reading of the second draft of a new play by George Lefferts who has written a number of plays, dozens of television shows and many hundreds of radio scripts in more than 20 years at NBC. The first draft was read on December 5^th and has been reworked by the author since then.

PLEASE RSVP VIA EMAIL info@nyemmys.org OR PHONE 212-459-3630, ext. 204.

Event produced by Ellen Muir.

NY NATAS

1375 Broadway, Suite 2103

New York, NY 10018

Olbermann Broadcasting Empire v. Current TV, LLC – A Three-Part Series Uncovering the Legal Battle Between Two Media Titans

Fernando M. Pinguelo, Esq. - noemail@nyemmys.org — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 00:00:00 GMT

Olbermann Broadcasting Empire v. Current TV, LLC – A Three-Part Series Uncovering the Legal Battle Between Two Media Titans

By Fernando M. Pinguelo and Timothy Cedrone

Part III: Is the End Close at Hand?

Part I of this three-part series explored the history of the relationship between Keith Olbermann and Current TV, a television station owned by Current Media (collectively, “Current”). That relationship began in 2011, when Keith Olbermann joined Current TV as its Chief News Officer, and ended unceremoniously in March 2012, when Current notified Olbermann that it was terminating his contract. About a week later, Olbermann sued Current TV for breach of contract, as detailed in Part I of this series. Part II examined Current’s responses to Olbermann’s claims, including Current’s Answer and Cross-Complaint requesting monetary damages and other relief from the Court. So where do the parties stand now, and where are they going? Read on for answers to those questions.

At first, Olbermann’s case progressed in much the same way that most employment cases progress. The parties filed their initial pleadings with the court and then began the discovery process. Olbermann’s attorneys sent notices to Current seeking to take the depositions of various Current officers, including Al Gore.[1] The court entered case management orders, with a final status conference in the case scheduled for May 16, 2013. There is even a trial date set: May 28, 2013, with an estimated duration of five to seven days, according to the California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, website. All these things are fairly typical for an employment dispute, but one recent event has the potential to change everything between now and May. As reported by multiple outlets in early January 2013, the Qatari-based broadcaster Al-Jazeera acquired Current TV in a deal estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.[2]

Given the recency of the transaction, the impact of the purchase on Olbermann’s lawsuit remains to be seen. Nonetheless, a few possibilities may emerge. First, the parties could continue the present course and head towards trial just after Memorial Day. Going to trial carries significant risk for both parties. Specifically, either side could lose. And based on the allegations raised by Olbermann in his Complaint and by Current in its Cross-Complaint, a loss by either party after a jury trial could amount to a verdict totaling tens of millions of dollars. The upside, of course, is that either side could win tens of millions of dollars if the jury rules in their favor. A jury could also pick the middle ground. It could find that both parties were at fault, or that neither was at fault, and award no damages to either side.

A couple of months ago, a jury trial seemed to be where this case was heading. After all, each party had the financial resources to wage a war of words against the other. Had Al-Jazeera not entered the picture, a jury trial appeared inevitable. However, Al-Jazeera (and not Current, Al Gore, Joel Hyatt, etc.) is now calling the shots, and it may opt to pursue another route: settlement. While this was always a road the parties might have traveled, the fact is that now, Al-Jazeera might want to sever all ties with Current once and for all. It could settle the case as a way to tie up loose ends from Current and move forward with bringing Al-Jazeera into American households. However, settlement presents one primary drawback for Al-Jazeera: it will cost a significant amount of money to settle the case. Considering that Olbermann’s Complaint estimated his damages to be $50 million to $70 million, it is highly unlikely he will accept anything less than tens of millions of dollars to dismiss his claims. A related complication for Al-Jazeera is that Olbermann’s attorneys will certainly know that the company might be interested in settling the case. This could give Olbermann some added leverage to drive up the settlement price. In the end, it will cost Al-Jazeera a significant sum of money to settle the case if it chooses to do so.

Although predicting the future can be tricky business, the more likely outcome here is that Al-Jazeera and Olbermann will settle for a number that will not be revealed to the public. Both parties would then walk away from the case somewhat satisfied: Olbermann gets some money and a little redemption, while Al-Jazeera gets the benefit of tying up the remaining loose ends from Current. Al-Jazeera’s purchase of Current TV is a prime example of how surprises often arise during litigation. Just as Olbermann’s attorneys might try to use the Al-Jazeera purchase as leverage in settlement negotiations, using surprises to one’s advantage can be a difference maker in reaching a satisfactory resolution to a case. And if there are any more surprises in the Olbermann case, we’ll be here to keep you informed.

This article’s primary purpose is to educate and inform readers and provide them with a general overview of the topics discussed. The information it contains should not be construed as providing legal advice and should not be relied on for that purpose. If you have specific legal questions, the authors suggest seeking the advice of a qualified attorney.

Fernando M. Pinguelo, a Partner at Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A,. and Chair of its Entertainment Law and Cyber Security & Data Protection groups, is a trial lawyer who devotes his practice to complex business lawsuits and employment matters. Fernando represents TV news anchors, reporters, meteorologists, and sports casters, including Emmy Award-winning talent, concerning employment and agency agreements, contract disputes, and cyber security/privacy issues concerning talent’s Internet reputation. His representative clients include on-air talent who broadcast out of local and affiliate TV stations across the U.S., including in Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and Philadelphia markets. To learn more about Fernando, visit www.NYLocalLaw.com or email him at info@NYLocalLaw.com. To receive timely articles about how technology impacts lawsuits, subscribeto Fernando’s ABA Journal award-winning blogs, eLessons Learned – Where Law, Technology & Human Error Collide ® and eWhite House Watch – Where Law, Technology & Politics Collide ® (www.eWHWblog.com)

Timothy D. Cedroneis an associate with the law firm of Apruzzese, McDermott, Mastro & Murphy, P.C., where his practice focuses on all areas of labor and employment law. Tim is the Vice Chair of the Entertainment, Arts & Sports Law Section of the New Jersey State Bar Association, as well as an Executive Committee member of the Labor & Employment Law Section. Tim is also an Adjunct Professor at Seton Hall University, where he teaches Sports Law. He has authored or co-authored three full-length, published law review articles in the areas of sports and entertainment law, and he previously was a law clerk for the National Football League and New Jersey Sports & Exposition Authority. He is admitted to practice in New York and New Jersey.

[1]Al Gore Set to Be Deposed in Keith Olbermann’s Current TV Mess, E! Online, July 10, 2012, http://www.eonline.com/news/328938/al-gore-set-to-be-deposed-in-keith-olbermann-s-current-tv-mess.

[2]Keith Hagey & John Jannarone, Al-Jazeera to Buy Current TV, Wall Street Journal, Jan. 3, 2012, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324374004578218043102095584.html.

5-Mar-13 6:00 PM

Olbermann Broadcasting Empire v. Current TV, LLC – A Three-Part Series Uncovering the Legal Battle Between Two Media Titans

Fernando M. Pinguelo, Esq. - noemail@nyemmys.org — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 22:30:00 GMT

Olbermann Broadcasting Empire v. Current TV, LLC – A Three-Part Series Uncovering the Legal Battle Between Two Media Titans

By Fernando M. Pinguelo and Timothy Cedrone

Part II: Current TV Counterpunches

But what has Current done in response to Olbermann’s lawsuit? While the answer to that question is simple (Current countersued), the reality is that Current’s response is no less explosive than the bombshells launched by Olbermann in his initial complaint.

Current’s response to Olbermann’s Complaint actually includes two court filings. The first is Current’s Answerto the Complaint.[1] The Answer is noticeably short – only four pages. In its Answer, Current “generally denies each and every allegation of the Complaint and further denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to relief whatsoever.”[2] This denial is interesting in that it technically denies all facts alleged in the Complaint, including some basic, indisputable facts (such as that Olbermann and Current were parties to an employment agreement). Following the general denial, Current raises thirteen affirmative defenses, which Current submits will relieve it of liability even if everything that Olbermann alleges in the Complaint is proven true. Affirmative defenses raised by Current include: (1) Olbermann breached the contract first; (2) Olbermann prevented Current from performing on the contract; and (3) Olbermann failed to mitigate his damages.[3]

Some of Current’s affirmative defenses dovetail with Current’s Cross-Complaint,[4]which is the more detailed of the two responses to Olbermann’s Complaint. The twenty-eight-page Cross-Complaint, which Current filed simultaneously with its Answer, broadly alleges that Current justifiably and legally terminated Olbermann’s contract. In support of this broad claim, Current begins the Cross-Complaint with a bold statement: “Current had every right to terminate Mr. Olbermann’s services, rather than continuing to pay a princely sum while receiving a pauper’s performance in return.”[5]

From there, the Cross-Complaint attempts to paint the picture of what truly transpired between Current and Olbermann, or at least Current’s version of the truth. Current first details its process of hiring Olbermann and its reasons for doing so. Then Current claims Olbermann “failed to deliver on his contractual promises” and “waged a campaign to breach, undermine, frustrate, and ultimately strip Current completely of the benefit of its bargain.”[6] Current supports these statements with four specific examples: (1) Olbermann “intentionally leaked the financial terms” of his contract to the media; (2) Olbermann “failed to work with Current to promote the network, despite a contractual obligation to do so”; (3) Olbermann “repeatedly absented himself from the show by taking unauthorized days off”; and (4) Olbermann “refused to participate in Current’s 2012 caucus and primary election coverage specials.”[7] Current concludes its introductory allegations by stating that it had complied with all its obligations under the parties’ contract.[8]

Following its initial claims of misconduct against Olbermann, Current’s Cross-Complaint lays out more specific details about the relationship between the parties and how it went south. For example, Current alleges that Olbermann focused solely on his “Countdown” show at the expense of other projects;[9]communicated with Current employees in an inappropriate manner;[10]refused to promote his “Countdown” show and the Current TV network;[11]and disparaged Current through public statements.[12] While not nearly as long as Olbermann’s Complaint, the Cross-Complaint is nonetheless very detailed in its own right.

After articulating its factual allegations, Current requests various forms of relief: first, that the court declare that Current no longer has any obligations to Olbermann under the contract;[13] second, that the court award monetary damages for Olbermann’s breach of contract;[14] and third, that the court award monetary damages for Olbermann’s breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing that is implied in every contract.[15] Finally, Current attaches to its Cross-Complaint the termination notice it sent to Olbermann (which is largely similar to the allegations in the Cross-Complaint).

So now that the parties have filed their initial pleadings, where do they go from here? As in any lawsuit, the parties have begun the discovery (i.e., the mandatory exchange of relevant information) phase of the case. During this stage, the parties exchange information that relates to the case and they will do this through various litigation discovery tools available, including depositions, document demands, and interrogatories. In fact, Olbermann’s attorney has already served a notice to take the deposition of Current Media co-founder Al Gore.[16]

Look for other key witnesses to also be deposed, including Olbermann and Joel Hyatt, the executive vice chairman and other co-founder of Current Media. At the end of the discovery process, either party could move to have the case dismissed entirely; however, that time is far off into the future.

For now, we are left to prognosticate on what will happen. To find out more about that, check back with us soon for Part III, where we take a look at where this case may go as it careens towards trial.

This article’s primary purpose is to educate and inform readers and provide them with a general overview of the topics discussed. The information it contains should not be construed as providing legal advice or relied on for legal advice. If you have specific legal questions, the authors suggest seeking the advice of a qualified attorney.

Fernando M. Pinguelo, a Partner at Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A. and Chair of its Entertainment Law and Cyber Security & Data Protection groups, is a trial lawyer who devotes his practice to complex business lawsuits and employment matters. Fernando represents TV news anchors, reporters, meteorologists, and sportscasters, including Emmy Award-winning talent, concerning employment and agency agreements, contract disputes, and cyber security/privacy issues concerning talent’s Internet reputation. His representative clients include on-air talent who broadcast out of local and affiliate TV stations across the U.S., including in Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and Philadelphia. To learn more about Fernando, visit www.NYLocalLaw.com or email him at info@NYLocalLaw.com. To receive timely articles about how technology impacts lawsuits, subscribeto Fernando’s ABA Journal-award winning blog, eLessons Learned – Where Law, Technology & Human Error Collide.®

Timothy D. Cedroneis an associate with the law firm of Apruzzese, McDermott, Mastro & Murphy, P.C., where his practice focuses on all areas of labor and employment law. Tim is the Secretary of the Entertainment, Arts & Sports Law Section of the New Jersey State Bar Association, as well as Co-Chair of the ADR Committee of the Labor & Employment Law Section. Tim is also an Adjunct Professor at Seton Hall University, where he teaches Sports Law. Tim has authored or co-authored three full-length, published law review articles in the areas of sports and entertainment law, and he previously was a law clerk for the National Football League and New Jersey Sports & Exposition Authority. He is admitted to practice in New York and New Jersey.

[1]Answer by Defendant Current TV, LLC, Olbermann Broadcasting Empire v. Current TV, LLC, No. BC-482335 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Apr. 5, 2012), available at http://ellblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Answer-Copy14.6.12.pdf.

[2]Id.

[3]Id.

[4]Cross-Complaint by Defendant Current TV, LLC, Olbermann Broadcasting Empire v. Current TV, LLC, No. BC-482335 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Apr. 5, 2012), available athttp://ellblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Cross-Complaint-Copy14.6.12.pdf.

[5]Id. at ¶ 1.

[6]Id. at ¶ 6.

[7]Id.

[8]Id. at ¶ 7.

[9]Id. at ¶ 19.

[10]Id. at ¶ 20.

[11]Id. at ¶¶ 28-31.

[12]Id. at ¶¶ 32-33.

[13]Id. at ¶¶ 40-41.

[14]Id. at ¶¶ 42-43.

[15]Id. at ¶¶ 44-45.

[16]Al Gore Set to Be Deposed in Keith Olbermann’s Current TV Mess, E! Online, July 10, 2012, http://www.eonline.com/news/328938/al-gore-set-to-be-deposed-in-keith-olbermann-s-current-tv-mess.

26-Oct-12 5:30 PM

Olbermann Broadcasting Empire v. Current TV, LLC – A Three-Part Series Uncovering the Legal Battle Between Two Media Titans

Fernando M. Pinguelo, Esq. - noemail@nyemmys.org — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 14:00:00 GMT

Olbermann Broadcasting Empire v. Current TV, LLC – A Three-Part Series Uncovering the Legal Battle Between Two Media Titans

By Fernando M. Pinguelo and Timothy Cedrone

Part I: The History and the Histrionics

When Keith Olbermann joined Current TV in 2011 as its Chief News Officer and newest broadcaster, former Vice President Al Gore, now the chairman and co-founder of Current TV-owner Current Media (collectively, “Current”), proclaimed, “Keith Olbermann is a gifted thinker, an amazing talent and a powerful communicator, and having him tap Current as his new home is exciting and very much in line with the core vision we founded this network on: To engage viewers with smart, provocative and timely programming.”[1] Joel Hyatt, the executive vice chairman and other co-founder of Current Media, was similarly effusive in his praise for Olbermann, saying, “Keith Olbermann is one of our society’s most courageous talents. He speaks truth to power. He calls them as he sees them. He speaks his mind. Our society needs his kind of thoughtful analysis and commentary. Keith Olbermann is not afraid of dissenters.”[2] Despite this promising beginning, it now seems that Olbermann’s willingness to speak his mind ultimately resulted in Current terminating his contract and hurtled the parties down a litigious path from which there will be no return.

The lawsuit between Olbermann and Current technically began on April 5, 2012, when Olbermann filed a civil complaint in the California Superior Court shortly after Current terminated his contract. In his complaint, Olbermann alleges eight claims against Current, including a breach-of-contract claim and various claims for declaratory relief (i.e., a determination of rights without a damages award). Before examining these claims in more detail, it is worthwhile to examine the history between the two litigants so that the current lawsuit can be viewed in the proper context.

Current is a television and online network founded in 2005 by Al Gore and Joel Hyatt.[3] According to its website, Current “features the very best in political commentary, news analysis, and thought provoking programming. . . . Current shines a light where other networks won’t dare and boldly explores provocative subjects – opening minds, sparking conversations and forming deep connections with its viewers.”[4] Current TV is Current Media’s television broadcast network.[5] A significant amount of Current’s programming is dedicated to political commentary, which, for most of 2011, included “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.”[6]

Olbermann, who has been described as an “outspoken liberal news anchor,”[7] has had a wide-ranging career in broadcasting. His stops have included television stations in Boston and Los Angeles, ESPN Radio, ESPN SportsCenter, Fox Sports Net, ABC Radio, and MSNBC.[8] While at MSNBC, he hosted “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” which became one of the station’s highest-rated shows.[9] This success drew Current to Olbermann, and in early 2011, Olbermann left MSNBC to join the fledgling channel.[10] However, the honeymoon ended quickly for the two, and the relationship abruptly ended on March 29, 2012, when Current terminated Olbermann’s contract.[11]

After his contract was terminated, Olbermann did what many do when they think they are wrongly terminated: He sued. Specifically, six days after being terminated, Olbermann filed an eight-count, 137-paragraph, 43-page complaint.[12] Counts One and Two, respectively, allege breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.[13] Counts Three through Eight seek declaratory relief related to claims involving failure to promote, disparagement, unauthorized absences, an unauthorized guest host, refusal to consult, and disclosure of confidential terms.[14] Claiming that Al Gore, Joel Hyatt, and Current management “are no more than dilettantes portraying entertainment industry executives,” Olbermann alleged that the complaint was “necessary” because Current had “repeatedly and willfully breached its written agreement with Olbermann.”[15] The complaint cites a litany of breaches of the employment contract by Current, ranging from sweeping accusations such as “broadcasting advertisements containing Olbermann’s likeness without his consent” to detailed claims such as “incorrect settings for DVRs that precluded such devices from finding and recording” Olbermann’s show.[16]

The most salacious allegations are contained in paragraphs one through ten of the complaint. After that, the majority of the complaint describes Current’s failures and misdeeds in excruciating detail. Despite the interminable nature of the complaint, Olbermann’s breach-of-contract claim boils down to nine specific claims: Current (1) terminated Olbermann “without basis”; (2) disparaged Olbermann; (3) publicly disclosed confidential terms of Olbermann’s contract; (4) used Olbermann’s likeness in promotions without permission; (5) used Olbermann’s name and goodwill in endorsements without consent; (6) refused to grant Olbermann editorial control over certain programs; (7) refused to permit Olbermann to stream his show on the show’s website; (8) used an unapproved guest host on Olbermann’s show without his consent; and (9) failed to consult with Olbermann on the “lead out” to his show.[17] The remaining counts essentially flow from and replicate the breach-of-contract count.

So what does Olbermann have to prove to prevail over Current? From a legal standpoint, Olbermann must establish four things: (1) he and Current had a contract; (2) he performed his contractual obligations or his performance was excused; (3) Current breached the contract; and (4) he suffered damages.[18] The key to Olbermann’s case will be elements two and three: whether Olbermann performed as obligated under the contract and whether Current failed to perform its obligations or prevented Olbermann from performing his. These are the elements on which Olbermann’s attorneys will likely focus during the discovery phase of the lawsuit, when the parties are in the process of exchanging and disclosing all relevant facts. More specifically, their discovery strategy will likely first involve attempting to document Current’s failures as alleged in the complaint. The second part of the strategy will include deposing all the key witnesses involved in the conduct allegedly constituting the breach, with Al Gore and Joel Hyatt being likely witnesses.

If Current is to be believed, Olbermann will have an uphill battle in establishing his claims. But if he can, he could be in line for a large payday, if his claimed damages of $50 to $70 million are even close to being accurate. Check back with us soon for Part II, where we discuss Current’s answer to Olbermann’s Complaint and its counter-suit against Olbermann.

Fernando M. Pinguelo, a Partner at Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A. and Chair of its Entertainment Law and Cyber Security & Data Protection groups, is a trial lawyer who devotes his practice to complex business lawsuits and employment matters. Fernando represents TV news anchors, reporters, meteorologists, and sports casters, including Emmy Award-winning talent, concerning employment and agency agreements, contract disputes, and cyber security/privacy issues concerning talent’s Internet reputation. His representative clients include on-air talent who broadcast out of local and affiliate TV stations across the U.S., including in Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and Philadelphia. To learn more about Mr. Pinguelo, visit www.NYLocalLaw.com or email him at info@NYLocalLaw.com. To receive timely articles about how technology impacts lawsuits, subscribeto Fernando’s ABA Journal-award winning blog, eLessons Learned – Where Law, Technology & Human Error Collide.®

Timothy D. Cedrone is an associate with the law firm of Apruzzese, McDermott, Mastro & Murphy, P.C., where his practice focuses on all areas of labor and employment law. Tim is the Secretary of the Entertainment, Arts & Sports Law Section of the New Jersey State Bar Association, as well as Co-Chair of the ADR Committee of the Labor & Employment Law Section. Tim is also an Adjunct Professor at Seton Hall University, where he teaches Sports Law. Tim has authored or co-authored three full-length, published law review articles in the areas of sports and entertainment law, and he previously was a law clerk for the National Football League and New Jersey Sports & Exposition Authority. He is admitted to practice in New York and New Jersey.

[1] “Keith Olbermann to host major new nightly primetime news and commentary show on Current TV,” Press Release, Current Media, February 8, 2011, available at http://i2.crtcdn1.net/images/ed/2011/02/08/179189.pdf (“Olbermann Press Release”).

[2] Id.

[3] “About Current,” Current.com, http://current.com/s/about.htm (last visited May 2, 2012).

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Complaint ¶ 2, Olbermann Broadcasting Empire v. Current TV, LLC, No. BC-482335 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Apr. 5, 2012), available at http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/obevcurrent_tv.pdf (hereinafter “Olbermann Complaint”).

[7] Keith Olbermann Sues Current TV Over Ouster, Chicago Tribune, April 5, 2012, http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/sns-rt-us-keitholbermann-lawsuitbre8341cg-20120405,0,5680802.story

[8] Biography for Keith Olbermann, IMDB.com, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0646021/bio (last visited May 2, 2012).

[9] Id.

[10] Olbermann Press Release, supra note 1.

[11] Olbermann Complaint, ¶ 79.

[12] Id.

[13] Id. at ¶¶ 102-113.

[14] Id. at ¶¶ 114-137.

[15] Id. at ¶ 1.

[16] Id. at ¶ 4.

[17] Id. at ¶¶ 35, 104.

[18] Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal.4th 811, 821 (Cal. 2011).

6-Aug-12 9:00 AM

Bloggers Beware! News Reporter’s Privilege May Not Protect Posts On Message Boards

Fernando M. Pinguelo, Esq. - noemail@nyemmys.org — Mon, 14 May 2012 22:45:00 GMT

Bloggers Beware!

News Reporter’s Privilege May Not Protect Posts On Message Boards

By Fernando M. Pinguelo, Esq.and Andrew D. Linden, Esq.

In today’s digital world, blogs, discussion boards, and message boards are becoming increasingly more popular and accessible. These media are used not only for socializing, but also, for many of us, a means of acquiring and disseminating “news.”

Recently, in Too Much Media v. Shellee Hale, the Supreme Court of New Jersey considered whether the state’s Shield Law– which allows news reporters to protect the confidentiality of their sources and the news or information gathered during their investigations – applied to an individual who posted several allegedly defamatory message board entries.

Defendant, a self-described journalist, contended that she was investigating and reporting on corruption in the adult entertainment industry. In particular, she focused on Too Much Media, LLC (TMM), a company that produces software used in the adult entertainment industry. Defendant posted Internet messages alleging that a breach in TMM’s software exposed the personal information of TMM customers who believed they were accessing pornographic websites anonymously. Claiming she had conducted a probe on the alleged breach, defendant posted that TMM violated New Jersey’s identity theft protection act, threatened people who questioned its conduct, and profited from the alleged breach.

TMM sued, alleging that her posts were defamatory and made in a false light. When TMM sought to depose her during discovery, Defendant moved for a protective order, asserting she was a reporter entitled to the protections of New Jersey’s Shield Law.

Addressing whether defendant could invoke the Shield Law to protect the identity of her sources, the court explained that the law affords broad protections to news media, defined as “newspapers, magazines, press associations, news agencies, wire services, radio, television or other similar, printed, photographic, mechanical or electronic means of disseminating news to the general public.” Thus, the Shield Law’s protections are not limited to traditional news outlets such as newspapers and magazines. However, the court noted that “[t]he existence of new technology merely broadens the possible spectrum of what the Shield Law mightencompass ….Form alone does not tell us whether a particular method of dissemination qualifies as ‘news media’ under the statute.”

In other words, information delivered electronically might qualify as news, but that is not necessarily the case. A self-appointed newsperson is not necessarily a reporter entitled to Shield Law protections. “The person seeking to invoke the privilege must demonstrate that the means by which he or she is disseminating the news is similar to traditional news sources, such as newspapers, magazines, and the like.”

With this standard in mind, the court described Internet message boards as “virtual forums for people to communicate with each other about topics of interest.” In the context of news media, the Court likened message board posts to letters to the editor, but with this limitation: “[M]essage-board posts are actually one step removed from letters that are printed in a newspaper because letters are first reviewed and approved for publication by an editor or employee whose thought processes would be covered by the privilege.”

Defendant’s entries were posted on Oprano, a message board regarding the adult entertainment industry, which allowed users to post comments and participate in discussions, without filtering or prescreening. Attempting to demonstrate that her posts did disseminate news, defendant claimed that she had conducted a probe about the alleged breach of TMM’s database, had spoken with government officials, and had attended trade shows as part of her investigation of the pornography industry.

While noting that some media outlets screen comments and edit or delete certain posts, the court said that by contrast, “defendant’s comments on an online message board would resemble a pamphlet full of unfiltered, unscreened letters to the editor submitted for publication – or, in modern-day terms, unedited, unscreened comments posted by readers on NJ.com.”

The court did not believe that the Legislature “intended to provide everyone who posts a comment on Oprano or a response to an article on NJ.com an absolute reporter’s privilege under the Shield Law.” Thus, despite defendant’s claims, the court found she had failed to show that she was entitled to the law’s protection.

However, the court, did acknowledge that in certain instances, statements on a website could qualify for the privilege. For example, a California court found that the reporter’s privilege (under both state statute and federal case law) was applicable to an individual claiming to operate an online news magazine devoted to publishing information about Apple computers and compatible software. That site was “conceptually indistinguishable from publishing a newspaper” and was unlike “the deposit of information, opinion, or fabrication by a casual visitor to an open forum such as a newsgroup, chat room, bulletin board system, or discussion group.”

Similarly, a Washington, D.C. federal court found that Matt Drudge, the creator of the Drudge Report, qualified for the reporter’s privilege under the First Amendment. Although the website had started as a gossip column covering Hollywood and Washington, D.C., it “now contain[ed] breaking news items and links to various articles.” While not a conventional news outlet from the start, the Drudge Report has since evolved into a forum sharing characteristics similar to traditional news media. In contrast to defendant’s posts on Oprano, these websites demonstrated that they were recognized as means of disseminating information to the public.

Too Much Media provides a cautionary tale for any blogger who believes claiming to be a reporter provides Shield Law protection, and as a result, an unlimited license to express himself or herself on the Internet. The apparent anonymity of using the Internet often fuels people to speak off-the-cuff. Users of message boards, however, such as users of any form of electronic communication, must be careful about what they say. Before you launch into your next online rant, pause to consider the consequences. Remember that you may find yourself as a defendant in a defamation lawsuit and will not be able to avail yourself of the Shield Law unless your blog or message board has a sufficient nexus to traditional news media.

This article’s primary purpose is to educate and inform readers and provide them with a general overview of the topics discussed. The information contained herein should not be construed as providing legal advice and should not be relied on for that purpose. If you have specific legal questions, the author suggests seeking the advice of a qualified attorney.

Fernando M. Pinguelo, a Partner at Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A. and Chair of its Entertainment Law and Cyber Security & Data Protection groups, is a trial lawyer who devotes his practice to complex business lawsuits and employment matters. Fernando represents TV news anchors, reporters, meteorologists, and sports casters, including Emmy Award-winning talent, concerning employment and agency agreements, contract disputes, and cyber security/privacy issues concerning talent’s Internet reputation. His representative clients include on-air talent who broadcast out of local and affiliate TV stations across the U.S., including in Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and Philadelphia. To learn more about Mr. Pinguelo, visit www.NYLocalLaw.com or email him at info@NYLocalLaw.com. Andrew D. Linden, an associate lawyer with the firm, practices in the Litigation and Appellate practice groups.

14-May-12 5:45 PM

New Year, New Resolutions: Do I Need an Agent? A Lawyer? A New Contract?

Fernando M. Pinguelo, Esq. Pinguelo, Esq. - noemail@nyemmys.org — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 15:30:00 GMT

New Year, New Resolutions: Do I Need an Agent? A Lawyer? A New Contract?

By Fernando M. Pinguelo, Esq.

At the beginning of each New Year, I receive a flurry of calls from my clients who work in the media industry seeking legal guidance on issues concerning their career. Most questions concern contract obligations and pre- and post- employment negotiations. Increasingly, these queries also involve the cyber world where identity theft, reputation disparagement, and cyber squatting run rampant.

I share with you three of the most common questions I received this year as I suspect you or your colleagues may be dealing with similar issues.

Do I need an agent?

While I could spend hours discussing the pros and cons of a response to this question, the bottom line is that reputable agents, who pay attention to talent, offer invaluable services such as identifying job opportunities in competitive positions and providing career counseling. However, if you have managed to find desirable jobs on your own, are relatively established in your career, have been in the media business long enough and maintained your relationships with others in the industry, or your needs are limited to needing an attorney to review and negotiate contracts (either employment or agency agreements), then retaining an experienced lawyer may be the better option. I find that many media professionals are enterprising talent who have a knack for finding jobs on their own, and these professionals opt to hire lawyers to service their legal needs and review and negotiate their contracts (or get them out of poorly negotiated ones).

Is my contract enforceable?

Contracts are not always enforceable, at least not when it comes to some restrictive covenants (commonly referred to as non-competes) and some “evergreen” clauses that automatically extend a contract period beyond its initial term. Indeed, both employers and employees often have misconceptions about the enforceability of their contracts.

Non-competes appear in nearly every contract of employment I negotiate. They are often ignored or not negotiated by talent because of the perception that they are "non-negotiable." Generally, non-competes are enforceable only to the extent that they are reasonably necessary to protect narrowly-defined, well-recognized employer interests. In rare instances, including under New York law, broadcast industry employers are prohibited from including certain non-competes in employment contracts.

Many contracts contain evergreen clauses. Talent rarely negotiate these automatic renewal clauses, and often, unwittingly, find themselves in a longer-than-expected period of commitment to their agent or employer. Fortunately, some jurisdictions have specific laws limiting the use of such clauses. Depending on the jurisdiction, if you find yourself on the hook for an additional period of time and the other party to the contract did not adhere to certain requirements, you may be able to argue that the automatic renewal period is unenforceable.

If you find yourself struggling to meet your contractual obligations, or feel that you are not receiving the benefits you expected when you signed the contract, then it may be worth it to you to explore whether you may have a defensible argument that at least part of the contract is unenforceable.

What is this going to cost?

Typically, an attorney’s product includes his or her time and experience. The spectrum of legal fees associated with a complete legal review of a contract can run anywhere between $900 (review of a relatively simple four-page contract) and $3,500+ (review of a complicated, multifaceted contract plus negotiations with the employer intended to resolve the dispute without a lawsuit). If you wish to pursue a lawsuit (or arbitration, if your contract so provides), then legal fees associated with a full-blown lawsuit that seeks relief from contract obligations could be considerable. Legal fees are a function of the complexities of the case, the recalcitrance of the adverse party, the burdens and requirements imposed by a court and – ultimately – the extent to which one wishes to litigate uncompromising positions.

I am sure that many employees in the media business struggle with these or similar issues. As with most legal predicaments, the devil is always in the details, and a careful review of your particular circumstances and the contracts you've signed (or are contemplating) is required in order to provide you with appropriate guidance.

Fernando M. Pinguelo, a Partner at Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A. and Chair of its Entertainment Law and Cyber Security & Data Protection groups, is a trial lawyer who devotes his practice to complex business lawsuits and employment matters. Fernando represents TV news anchors, reporters, meteorologists, and sports casters, including Emmy Award-winning talent, concerning employment and agency agreements, contract disputes, and cyber security/privacy issues concerning talent’s Internet reputation. His representative clients include on-air talent who broadcast out of local and affiliate TV stations across the U.S., including in Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and Philadelphia.To learn more about Mr. Pinguelo, visit www.NYLocalLaw.com or email him at info@NYLocalLaw.com.

2-Mar-12 9:30 AM

Is Your Business Venturing into the Cloud? Beware of the Fine

Fernando M. Pinguelo, Esq. - noemail@nyemmys.org — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 16:00:00 GMT

As we discussed in our last installment about “the Cloud,”[1] cloud computing is a computer networking model that gives users on-demand access to shared software applications and data storage. The Cloud offers businesses a flexible, low cost alternative to hardware-heavy IT infrastructure traditionally needed to operate a technology system. For example, by storing your data off-site, you may be able to drastically reduce the size of your server room, realizing cost savings in HVAC expenses and in physical hardware and upgrades, while also reducing your company’s carbon-footprint. Further, off-site storage offers more rapid disaster recovery, allowing your business to get back up and running in a matter of hours or days rather than weeks or months. The Cloud also takes the guess work out of determining what your IT needs will be in the future – as your business grows (or contracts) you can adjust your Cloud needs accordingly and with relative ease and low cost.

Nevertheless, an important consideration before leaping head-first into a cloud services agreement is negotiating the finer points of the contract. This article sets forth some of the more important contractual provisions you’ll want to be aware of, namely:

1. Liability for Stolen Data

Your company is entrusting the cloud provider with the safety and security of its valuable information. As we reported recently, data security breaches are becoming common and adversely affect more than just the company whose system was compromised. Indeed, the recent Epsilon data breach shows that stored data remains highly vulnerable to cybercriminals. Data involving your clients’ personal information is particularly appealing for hackers. An invasive hacking event that results in the theft of customer data could have a disastrous effect on the company’s goodwill, while also requiring the company to comply with potentially expensive state and federal data breach notification laws, expose the company to civil lawsuit, and perhaps cause the company’s eventual demise. Despite these dire consequences, many cloud providers limit their liability for stolen data. Experienced counsel should be hired to assist your company in negotiating an indemnification clause for losses that are caused by the cloud provider’s negligence or the wrongdoing of its employees.

2. Release of Data

Cloud providers are allowed to release your company’s stored data pursuant to a government order. While it may be impossible to prevent such disclosure, your company can demand a contract term that requires the cloud provider to promptly notify your company when someone seeks access to your company’s stored data.

3. Physical Back-up

We all know that technology may, at times, fail. Whether it is a natural disaster, sabotage, or simple negligence, cloud providers’ data systems are not fail-safe, and alternatives are needed in case your cloud provider’s system crashes. Thus, it is important that your company negotiates a contract term that requires physical copies of your stored data to be maintained. These physical copies could take the form of paper, tape, or disc backup, and may be maintained at a third-party warehouse or on your company’s site.

4. Modification of Content

Cloud providers may also modify data that your company stores in their cloud, which could negatively affect your company’s ability to switch to another cloud provider at a later date. It is therefore necessary to negotiate contract terms to ensure that your company’s data remains in a form that is accessible to you.

There are many other considerations that may be relevant to your business[i]particular use of the Cloud including insurance coverage, international restrictions on cross-border data transfers, employment issues, etc. Simply signing a boilerplate cloud services agreement without first negotiating the small print could have disastrous consequences for your company. Hiring experienced counsel to negotiate the terms of your Cloud contract is therefore advisable.

Fernando M. Pinguelo, a Partner at Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A. and co‐Chair of the Response to Electronic Discovery & Information Group at the firm, is a trial lawyer who devotes his practice to complex business lawsuits with an emphasis on how technology impacts them. Mr. Pinguelo founded and contributes to the ABA Journal Award‐winning blog, eLessons Learned– Where Law, Technology, & Human Error Collide (www.eLLblog.com). To learn more about Mr. Pinguelo, visit www.NYLocalLaw.com or email him at info@NYLocalLaw.com.

Bradford W. Muller, an Associate with Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A., and a member of the Litigation and Internet Law groups, has been published in scholarly journals on numerous topics, including cloud computing, real estate, and appellate practice. He, along with Mr. Pinguelo, spoke at a symposium on their article titled “Virtual Crimes ‐Real Damages: Challenges Posed By Cybercrimes in the U.S. and Efforts to Combat Cybercriminals,” at the University of Virginia School of Law, in conjunction with “A Primer on Cybercrimes In The United States and Efforts to Combat Cybercriminals ‐50 State and Federal Cyber Law and Proposed Legislation Survey,” University of Virginia School of Law’s Virginia Journal of Law and Technology. Download a complimentary copy by clicking SSRN

[1] Fernando M. Pinguelo and Bradford W. Muller, Avoid the Rainy Day: Survey of U.S. Cloud Computing Caselaw, 2011 B.C. Intell. Prop. & Tech. F. 011101, available at SSRN.

17-Jun-11 11:00 AM

Epsilon Breach: Small Businesses Who Get “Hacked”

Fernando M. Pinguelo, Esq. - noemail@nyemmys.org — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 15:00:00 GMT

If you have a credit card or bank account, then you may have received an ominous e-mail alert discussing the data breach that recently occurred at Epsilon, a third-party vendor which provides marketing services to many companies. Luckily, the stolen information appears to have been limited to the names and e-mail addresses of only some customers. Apparently, no account numbers or other confidential information was compromised. Nevertheless, names and e-mail addresses are powerful tools for certain types of cybercriminals known as “phishers” who use social engineering to target potential victims and lure them into exposing confidential financial information.

Users of the Sony Playstation Network may not be as lucky, as upwards of 10 million credit card accounts may have been accessed by hackers in the recent network attack. Sony has been criticized for its response to the incident, and recently put in place a $1 million identity theft insurance policy to cover affected gamers.

The danger posed by such data breaches has resulted in the federal government and many states adopting data breach notification laws. If you operate a small business, you may not be aware of your responsibilities under these laws. Further, although many of the state laws are similar, small business owners must be aware that if they have customers in multiple states, they must comply with the data breach laws of each of those states. This begs the question: what are your responsibilities if cybercriminals hack into your company’s computer system and steal sensitive customer data?

Legal Requirements

Here are some state law requirements you should know:

Was customers’ personal information accessed by an unauthorized person? (In certain states, these data notification laws broadly define the personal information protected to include that of employees. Therefore, even data breaches only involving the personal information of employees may be subject to the notice provisions of these laws.)

If so, disclosure of the breach must be made to the customers in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay. In some instances, disclosure to a customer is not required if the business establishes that misuse of the information is not reasonably possible.

If you are required to disclose, some states mandate that in advance of the disclosure to the customer, the business must report the breach to law enforcement authorities for investigation or handling. Similarly, some states require reporting to the state Attorney General’s Office.

Finally, the business must notify the individual customers affected by the breach. Depending on the state, such notification may be provided by one of the following methods: (a) written notice; (b) electronic notice; or (c) substitute notice if the business can demonstrate that the cost of providing notice would exceed certain monetary levels or that the affected class of customers exceeds certain numbers, or the business does not have sufficient contact information. Substitute notice may consist of: (i) e-mail notice when the customer has an e-mail address on file; (ii) conspicuous posting of the notice on the Internet web site page of the business; and (iii) notification to major statewide media.

Also note that despite these specified methods of notification, for a business that maintains its own notification procedures as part of an information security policy, and the policy is otherwise consistent with the requirements of the state law, some states deem those businesses to be in compliance with the notification requirements as long as the business notifies customers in accordance with its policies. Additionally, in the event of a data breach involving more than 1,000 persons at one time, some states provide that the business must notify, without unreasonable delay, all consumer reporting agencies of the timing, distribution, and content of the notices.

Every federal and state notification law has its own nuances, but the general principles are similar: If you’re hacked, notify your customers.

Fernando M. Pinguelo, a Partner at Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A. and co‐Chair of the Response to Electronic Discovery & Information Group at the firm, is a trial lawyer who devotes his practice to complex business lawsuits with an emphasis on how technology impacts them. Mr. Pinguelo founded and contributes to the ABA Journal Award‐winning blog, eLessons Learned–Where Law, Technology, & Human Error Collide (www.eLLblog.com). To learn more about Mr. Pinguelo, visit www.NYLocalLaw.com or email him at info@NYLocalLaw.com.

For a comprehensive survey of federal and state legislation concerning cybercrime, see Virtual Crimes – Real Damages: A Primer on Cybercrimes in the United States and Efforts to Combat Cybercriminals, Virginia Journal of Law and Technology. Download a complimentary copy by clicking SSRN

17-Jun-11 10:00 AM

Apple v. Amazon.com – The War for “App”

Fernando M. Pinguelo, Esq. - noemail@nyemmys.org — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 15:00:00 GMT

Apple’s recent lawsuit against Amazon opens a new front in the war for app dominance. Apple, it seems, could not abide Amazon’s launch of its own mobile app marketplace – Amazon Appstore. Yet this was not the first shot fired in this battle, as Microsoft last year opposed Apple’s attempt to register the APP STORE brand name with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

So, why all this attention? Why are the app “super powers” – Amazon, Apple, RIM/Blackberry, Google, Microsoft – shifting their strategy from development and consumer marketing to the legal battle‐field?

As the mobile phone market continues to undergo tremendous growth, the app creates a lucrative revenue stream that connects to consumers through their mobile phones, smartphones, and other devices connected wirelessly. In recent years, the smartphone has all but eliminated the basic mobile device and, more recently, downloadable software applications or “apps” have become the new technology craze.

Consumers the world over love the fact that with the right app they can get information about almost anything wherever and whenever they want. There are travel apps, news apps, weather apps, game apps, social networking apps – the list goes on and on. Apple leads the app marketplace with over 300,000 apps available at its own App Store. Google Android follows with over 60,000 apps. BlackBerry’s App World features over 10,000. Many apps are free. A number, however, are only available for purchase from the applicable device’s or operating system’s app “store.”

Apple launched its App Store in July 2008. Microsoft opened its Windows Marketplace for Mobile in October 2009. Google launched its Google Apps Marketplace in March 2010. Enter Amazon.com whose strategy seems to be to strike a balance between the open Google Android platform and the limits and restrictions that Apple places on its platform. Amazon.com recently launched the “amazonappstore Developer Portal” and began selling apps for the Google Android in what it dubbed the “amazonappstore.” After several failed attempts to persuade Amazon to stop using “appstore,” Apple filed a complaint in federal court in California on March 18, 2011, alleging trademark infringement and dilution under the federal Lanham Act as well as related California state law provisions.[1]

What follows is a general overview of the protections granted by federal trademark registration, the Apple, Inc. v Amazon.com, Inc. lawsuit, and the elements of a federal trademark infringement suit.

Trademark and Federal Trademark Registration

A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or any combination thereof, that identifies and distinguishes the source of goods of one party from those of others. Trademark rights can be established under either state or federal law, but unlike a patent do not require registration. Since the establishment of the Lanham Act in 1946, most trademark law has been focused on federal rights; however, state law still plays a role in many trademark actions.

Rights in a mark may be established simply through the sale of a product or service in connection with the mark at issue. Federal registration, however, does provide several additional protections: (1) public notice of a claim of ownership of the mark, (2) a legal presumption of ownership of the mark and the exclusive right to use the mark nationwide on or in connection with the goods/services listed in the registration, (3) the ability to bring an action concerning the mark in federal court, (4) use of the U.S. registration as a basis to obtain the mark in foreign countries, (5) the ability to record the U.S. registration with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Service to protect importation of infringing foreign goods, (6) the right to use the federal registration symbol ®, and (7) listing in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s online databases. There are also other procedural advantages that grow from registration rights. For all of those reasons, while a federal registration is not always necessary, it can often be exceptionally useful in protecting a brand.

Of course, not every word, trade dress or logo can be the subject of trademark rights. Common or generic terms (such as “car” for automobiles) cannot be registered, and a registered mark may be cancelled at any time if it becomes generic. A mark that is “merely descriptive” describes the qualities or characteristics of a good or service, and this type of mark may be registered only if the registrant demonstrates that it has become distinctive of the applicant’s goods in commerce. Suggestive marks, arbitrary marks (such as “Apple” for computers), and fanciful marks (such as “Google”) are presumptively registrable if the user is first to market.

Apple, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

In its complaint,[2]Apple alleges that Amazon has begun to use Apple’s own “APP STORE” mark in connection with Amazon’s mobile software developer program, and believes it intends to also improperly use its mark in connection with Amazon’s mobile software download service.

Apple’s “APP STORE” service allows users of Apple’s iPhone, iTunes software, iPod, and iPad to, what Apple calls, “license a wide range of third party software programs.” Importantly, Apple intentionally avoids in its complaint describing these “software programs or products” by their common name, “apps.”

Apple claims that it created this type of service, and that the wild success of Apple’s “APP STORE” prompted competitors to offer their own services, but that these competitors, barring Amazon, have used distinctive terms to brand their services without using “APP STORE,” such as with Microsoft’s “Marketplace.”

Apple seeks to enjoin Amazon from using the “APP STORE” mark, as well as Amazon’s profits, damages to Apple, and cost of its suit.

The Lanham Act and Trademark Infringement

Apple’s first cause of action is taken directly from Section 43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act. Apple claims that Amazon’s use of APP STORE constitutes “a false designation of origin and/or a false and misleading description or representation of fact that is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive as to (a) the affiliation, connection, or association of Amazon with Apple and/or (b) the origin, sponsorship, or approval of Amazons’ goods, services, or commercial activities by Apple.”

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, whose views will govern Apple’s suit, assesses the likelihood of confusion by analyzing a number of non-exclusive factors on a case-by-case basis. These factors include (1) strength of the mark, (2) similarity of the marks, (3) marketing channels used, (4) proximity or relatedness of the goods, (5) likelihood of expansion of the product lines, (6) type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser, (7) evidence of actual confusion, and (8) defendant’s intent in selecting the mark. These are known as the Sleekcraft factors after the case that inspired them, AMF, Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats.[3]According to another Ninth Circuit decision, Interstellar Starship Services, Ltd. v. Epix, Inc.,[4]the three most important Sleek-craft factors in the web context are: (1) the similarity of the marks, (2) the relatedness of the goods and services, and (3) the parties’ simultaneous use of the Web as a marketing channel.

The factual support presented in Apple’s complaint seeks to establish that “APP STORE” is a strong mark. The critical issue, however, is that “Apple” is a strong mark in and of itself. Although the word “apple” has an alternative meaning (i.e., the fruit), “Apple” as a brand identifies a technology giant. “APP STORE” without “Apple” as a modifier is a much weaker mark. The term “software download,” as described by Apple, is the technical term for what the general consumer today commonly refers to as an “app.” Compared to a unique identifier such as “Xerox” or “Kodak,” which have no alternative meaning and whose use by another would be al‐most certain to cause confusion, “APP STORE” without the “Apple” designation is understood by the general consumer to be a “place to buy apps.” This is Amazon’s exact position. In its answer filed on April 25, 2011, Amazon states that “the words ‘App Store’ together denote a store for apps, such as the app stores operated by Amazon and Apple.”

The Lanham Act and Dilution

Apple bases its second claim on Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act. Apple alleges that Amazon’s use of “APP STORE” for its developer portal and online marketplace are also likely to cause “dilution by blurring” or “dilution by tarnishment” of the “APP STORE” mark. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Amazon’s use of “APP STORE” is likely to re‐duce the distinctiveness of that mark by whittling away at the general consuming public’s association of the mark with Apple’s services. Unlike Section 43(a), dilution does not focus on consumer confusion. The harm caused by dilution is that a new association is created between the consumer and a different product or service.

The Ninth Circuit uses a four prong test to assess dilution claims: (1) whether the mark is famous, (2) defendant puts the mark to commercial use in commerce, (3) defendant puts the mark to use after the plaintiff’s mark became famous, and (4) there exists a likelihood of dilution of the distinctive value of the mark. There are two types of dilution: blur‐ring and tarnishment. Blurring occurs where another’s use of a mark creates a threat that a product will lose its ability to serve as a unique identifier. Tarnishment, by comparison, occurs where a famous mark is improperly associated with an inferior or offensive product or service.

Although Apple may claim its app service is superior to RIM/BlackBerry’s App World and other competitors’ apps, its dilution claim likely centers on blurring. The question becomes, has “APP STORE” been blurred and its distinctiveness harmed? If the general consuming public views “APP STORE” as a “place to buy Apps” and has already lost its association of “App” to “Apple,” then a court (or other governing body) could view “APP STORE” as a generic term. If so, Apple could lose its trademark protection of “APP STORE” altogether.

This is Amazon’s main line of attack. In its answer and counterclaim,[5]Amazon states that its use of “APP STORE” will not cause confusion, dilution, or unfair competition; and that in any event, these claims are barred because of the doctrine of fair use – “APP STORE” is a store that sells apps, nothing more.

While there is little doubt that these tech giants are unlikely to fold in this game of high stakes trade‐mark poker, the outcome remains very much in question for all parties. For Apple, however, any result other than a finding that APP STORE is a strong, protectable mark will be an ugly one, and we will be left with a sour Apple, indeed.

Fernando M. Pinguelo, a Partner at Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A. and co-Chair of the Response to Electronic Discovery & Information Group at the firm, is a trial lawyer who devotes his practice to complex business lawsuits with an emphasis on how technology impacts them. Mr. Pinguelo founded and contributes to the ABA Journal award-winning blog, eLessons Learned– Where Law, Technology, & Human Error Collide (www.eLLblog.com).

Recently, Mr. Pinguelo published Virtual Crimes ‐Real Damages: A Primer on Cybercrimes In The United States and Efforts to Combat Cybercriminals 50 State and Federal Cyber Law and Proposed Legislation Survey,” University of Virginia School of Law’s Virginia Journal of Law and Technology. Download a complimentary copy by clicking SSRN

To learn more about Mr. Pinguelo, visit www.NYLocalLaw.com or email him at info@NYLocalLaw.com.

Stacey A. Hyman is an Associate in the Commercial Litigation Group at Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP and may be reached at Stacey.Hyman@dbr.com.

[1]Apple, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 11‐CV‐ 01327, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2011).

[2]Id.

[3]599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979).

[4]304 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2002).

[5]Apple, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 11‐CV‐ 01327, Answer and Counterclaim (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2011).

17-Jun-11 10:00 AM

Are YOU a Public Figure? Defamation claims and how today’s world of instant celebrity can convert average citizens into public figures.

Fernando M. Pinguelo - noemail@nyemmys.org — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 01:00:00 GMT

Considered the worst act of bioterrorism in U.S. history, the 2001 anthrax mailings that followed the 9/11 attacks killed at least five individuals. Since then, litigation and investigations surrounding the anthrax mailings has spawned and taken unexpected twists and turns over the past few months. Bruce E. Ivans, the primary suspect in the anthrax investigation, committed suicide just before the Justice Department was about to file sweeping, but circumstantial, charges against him for his suspected role in the 2001 anthrax attack. Before that, the Justice Department settled a Privacy Act suit brought by former army scientist Steven J. Hatfill, who worked with Ivans at Fort Detrick, for $4.6 million where Hatfill claimed the Justice Department ruined his career when it leaked information about him to the media during the anthrax investigation.

And several months ago, a federal appeals court dismissed Hatfill’s lawsuit against the New York Times and its reporter, Nicholas Kristof, for defamation allegedly caused by a series of articles Kristof wrote about Hatfill’s status as a “person of interest” in the 2001 anthrax investigation. Hatfill’s lawsuit against the New York Times was among many litigated against the Justice Department and various media outlets before the investigation was declared “solved” by the FBI in August 2008.

The appeals court’s decision to dismiss Hatfill’s lawsuit against the New York Times ultimately turned upon its determination that Hatfill was a “public figure”; and therefore he had to meet a heightened legal standard by proving “actual malice,” which the court found he could not do. Hatfill’s designation as a “public figure” stands as a beacon to journalists and a warning to private citizens as to how fickle defamation suits can be; and how, in today's fast-paced media world, ordinary citizens who thrust themselves into the public realm of the news do so at the risk of diluting their legal rights.

What follows is a general overview of Hatfill v. New York Times and the legal elements of a defamation suit, with a particular emphasis on the heightened standard required when one is deemed to be a “public figure.”

Hatfill v. New York Times

Hatfill’s designation as a “public figure” was supported, in part, by evidence of his career expertise and media presence even before the 2001 anthrax attacks took place. In 1996, Hatfill obtained a research fellowship from the National Institute of Health (NIH) where he developed a reputation within the scientific community as an expert in the field of bioterrorism and gave multiple public lectures on preparing the country in the event of a bioterrorist attack. Upon completing his fellowship, Hatfill continued his research at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick. Hatfill authored multiple articles discussing his career in bio-defense and occasionally offered his expertise to the public through televised interviews.

On September 18, 2001 and October 9, 2001, an unidentified person mailed letters laced with anthrax to members of Congress and several news organizations. Within the first few weeks of its investigation into these attacks, the FBI considered Hatfill a “person of interest.” A televised search of Hatfill’s apartment and press coverage of the FBI’s investigation drew wide attention to Hatfill. During this time, Hatfill voluntarily met with reporters including Judith Miller of the New York Times, Tom Connelly and Ted Koppel of ABC News, and Jim Stewart and Mark Datov of CBS News to discuss the attacks.

Seven months after the attacks, and with the FBI investigation on a “slow track,” Kristof authored a series of articles published in the New York Times criticizing the investigation. As one example of its shortcomings, Kristof noted the FBI’s failure to properly investigate a scientist (who Kristof referred to as “Mr. Z” in early reports) who the scientific community thought warranted investigation. On August 13, 2002, after Hatfill publicly denied any involvement in the anthrax attack, Kristof acknowledged in his column that Hatfill was the “Mr. Z” to whom he previously referred.

Almost a year later, in federal court Hatfill filed suit on July 13, 2004 against Kristof and the New York Times for defamation. Hatfill argued that Kristof’s columns implied that he was the anthrax mailer and that Kristof wrote the columns to impute guilt to Hatfill in the minds of reasonable readers. On July 28, 2005, the trial court dismissed Hatfill’s action, concluding as matters of law that the columns did not suggest that Hatfill was guilty of the attacks and that the columns accurately reported questions raised in the investigation. An appeals court reversed the trial court’s dismissal and allowed Hatfill’s claims to proceed.

After Hatfill was allowed access to information from Kristof and the New York Times in order to help support his claims, Kristof and the New York Times filed another motion seeking to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that since Hatfill was a “public figure,” he had to meet a heightened standard and prove the “actual malice” element of a defamation claim (i.e., that Kristof knowingly published false statements), and that the evidence did not support such malice. The trial court agreed that the facts warranted that Hatfill be considered a “public figure,” and dismissed the case, declaring that there was no evidence that Kristof knew his statements were false, and therefore Hatfill could not prove “actual malice.” On appeal, Hatfill argued that he was not a “public figure”; but the appellate court disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Hatfill’s claims.

The outcome of Hatfill’s lawsuit reminds journalists and private citizens alike of a fundamental issue in defamation claims brought by seemingly “average citizens”: Under what circumstances will an average citizen be deemed a “public figure”? In Hatfill’s case, his expertise and media presence before and after the anthrax investigation vaulted him into the “public figure” category and limited his legal recourse.

The Foundation of a Defamation Claim

Defamation is the communication of (1) a false statement (2) of fact (3) about an individual, (4) to another, (5) which tends to harm the individual’s reputation. Some examples of defamatory statements include: statements accusing a person of committing a crime, of having a contagious disease, or of being unfit for his or her employment. Generally, individuals need only show that the published statements were both false and defamatory (i.e., tending to harm the individual’s reputation).

In 1964, the Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan explored defamation claims in the context of a public official and held that public officials were required also to prove actual malice (i.e., that the defendant had a “subjective awareness of the probable falsity” of the publication) in defamation suits. Three years later, in Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, the Supreme Court extended the actual malice standard to include “public figures” (i.e., a designation that is broader than “public officials” (politicians, celebrities, etc.) and includes either people involved in “high profile” conduct of public concern or people who engage in conduct which generates publicity within a narrow area of interest).

Public figures and public officials are held to a higher standard because, it is reasoned, they have exposed themselves to the risk of injury from defamation claims by assuming public roles and have a greater opportunity to publicly defend themselves. Therefore, they are less likely to be harmed by false statements than private individuals who generally lack that opportunity. Thus, the law affords greater protection to private individuals by not requiring proof of “actual malice.”

By adding an “actual malice” element to certain individual’s defamation proofs, these two Supreme Court cases made it significantly more difficult for one deemed to be a “public official” or “public figure” to prove a defamation claim. Proving that a publication was not only false and harmful, but also that one was aware that the publication was false and published it anyway, is extremely difficult. So, under what circumstances will one be considered a “public official” or a “public figure”?

Public Official & Public Figure Status

The law defines a “public official” as one whose government role is of such importance that the public has an independent interest in his or her fitness for office beyond a general interest in the fitness of all government employees. A person who is running for or holds a public office is generally categorized as a “public official.”

Whether one qualifies as a “public figure” requires a fact-specific inquiry. Hatfill v. New York Times reminds us that in today’s world of instant news and celebrity, average citizens can be converted into public figures in an instant. A “public figure” can be categorized as either an “all-purpose public figure” or a “limited-purpose public figure.”

An “all purpose public figure” is one who has a continuous and powerful influence on public matters and is always subject to the “actual malice” standard. A “limited purpose public figure” is one who voluntarily thrusts himself or herself into a particular public controversy and is thereby deemed to be a public figure only for purposes of that controversy (e.g., an anti-war activist would be considered a public figure only if the particular controversy is war).

To determine whether one is to be deemed a “limited purpose public figure,” courts look at whether the (1) person had access to channels of effective communication; (2) person voluntarily assumed a role of special prominence in a public controversy; (3) person sought to influence the resolution or outcome of a controversy; (4) controversy existed prior to the publication of the defamatory statement; and (5) person retained public-figure status at the time of the alleged defamation.

Weighing Factors: When an Ordinary Citizen Becomes a “Limited Purpose Public Figure”

When contemplating a defamation lawsuit, an individual should consider whether he or she could be categorized as a “limited purpose public figure.” A few things he or she should generally think about include: (1) the nature of the individual’s media presence, (2) the nature of the particular controversy, and (3) when the controversy arose in relation to the alleged defamation.

The nature of the individual’s media presence depends upon a variety of factors, including the ease at which one can command attention from the media and whether the individual had an opportunity to publicly refute the defamatory statement. In Hatfill v. New York Times, the court supported its conclusion that Hatfill was a “public figure” with evidence that he was an expert in the field of bioterrorism and frequently appeared in the media to discuss his research in the field. Further, the court determined that Hatfill attempted to “influence the outcome of the controversy” by criticizing the government’s lack of preparation for a bioterrorist attack.

The nature of the particular controversy depends on how narrowly or broadly the court reads the “particular controversy.” Hatfill argued that the particular public controversy in his case was: “Who committed the antrax attacks in 2001,” and that he never publicly participated in the resolution of that issue. The trial court disagreed, however, and adopted a broader context of the particular controversy—that of the threat of bio-terrorism in general.

Another important issue is to recognize when the particular controversy arose in relation to the republication of the alleged defamation. In order to be held to the higher standard, the controversy must exist prior to the publication, and the individual must qualify as a public figure at the time of the defamation. If the individual participates in the public controversy only after the alleged defamation was published, he or she will not be held to the higher standard. Further, if the controversy develops after the publication, then the private individual standard will apply. In Hatfill, the court determined that the controversy over bioterrorism clearly existed prior to Kristof’s columns and that Hatfill commented on the controversy before the columns were printed. Thus, the public controversy existed at the time of the defamation and Hatfill retained “public figure” status at the time of the defamation.

Lessons Learned

Ordinary citizens who thrust themselves into the public realm of the news do so at the risk of being labeled a “public figure” and thereby limit their legal rights. Knowing your status before bringing a defamation claim can significantly help you determine whether filing a claim is in your best interest.

This article is written to provide readers with a very general overview of “public figure” status and defamation claims. The information contained herein should not be construed as providing legal advice and should not be relied on for that purpose. If you have specific legal questions, the authors suggest seeking the advice of a qualified attorney.

[1] Fernando M. Pinguelo, a partner and Chair of Norris McLaughlin & Marcus’ Entertainment Law Group, has extensive experience in all facets of litigation in both the federal and state courts, and devotes his practice to electronic discovery, entertainment law, complex litigation, and employment matters. In the broadcasting sector, he represents Emmy Award-winning clients. Fernando also serves as a regular article contributor for the National Association of Television Arts and Sciences (New York Chapter), TVSpy, Next Generation TV, and Shop Talk. He has published several articles and lectures on a variety of topics including copyright, contracts, entertainment, employment law, and information technology. Fernando has appeared on television several times as a legal commentator on various high-profile trials, and has been quoted in many newspapers and magazines, and on radio and television broadcasts regarding high-impact cases he has handled. He is an Adjunct Professor of Law at Seton Hall University School of Law and creator of eLessons Learned, an eDiscovery best practices blog. Visit www.eLLblog.com and learn more.

[1] Melissa Szymansky is a student at Seton Hall University School of Law. She is the Vice President of Entertainment for SHU Law’s Entertainment and Sports Law Society, and is also a member of SHU Law’s Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law. Prior to attending law school, Melissa received her BS in film and television from Boston University College of Communication and interned for the E! Entertainment Network and Boston’s CW56. Melissa interned for Sony BMG Music Entertainment this past summer.

Fernando and Melissa welcome questions and/or feedback on any related issues and can be reached either by phone, (908) 722-0700, or via email, fmp@nmmlaw.com. They invite you to visit the following website to learn more about similar topics: http://www.nmmlaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=140&Itemid=29

6-Apr-09 8:00 PM

Death Of The Noncompete For NY Broadcasters?

Fernando Pinguelo - noemail@nyemmys.org — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:00:00 GMT

Death Of The Noncompete For NY Broadcasters?

February 2009

By Fernando M. Pinguelo, David T. Harmon, and Andrew D. Linden

For years, broadcast industry employees such as news anchors and radio disc jockeys saw their opportunities in the job market severely limited because their employment agreements contained noncompete clauses.

Upon the expiration or termination of the individual’s employment contract, a noncompete clause within that contract prevented employees from working for their former employer’s competitors or within their former employee’s market for a specified period of time.

Courts regularly enforced these noncompete clauses if their restrictions were reasonable in scope, duration and geographic range.

In August 2008, however, New York enacted the Broadcast Employees Freedom to Work Act (BEFWA), which prohibits broadcast industry employers from including certain noncompete clauses in employment contracts.

The statute’s enactment was due in part to successful lobbying by prominent entertainment labor unions including the American Federation of Television & Radio Artists (AFTRA). AFTRA’s members testified at legislative committee hearings and sent hundreds of letters and emails in support of the statute to state legislators and New York Governor David A. Paterson.

The enactment of the BEFWA is a major victory for New York broadcast employees because it vastly expands the job market for many of them. As a result, the number of broadcast industry employees leaving New York in order to find work that did not violate their previous employment agreements will be reduced significantly.

This is a win-win for broadcast industry employees who now have expanded job opportunities as well as New York because it will keep jobs within its borders.

It may appear that the only losers are the broadcast industry employers whose ability to restrict former employees’ post-employment actions has been curtailed significantly. Employers, however, may also benefit because this should provide an increased pool of talent available for hire.

Here are three things employers and employees should know about the BEFWA:

What Does It Say?

The BEFWA states that a broadcast industry employer may not require as a condition of employment that a broadcast employee (or prospective employee) refrain from obtaining employment: in any specified geographic area, for a specific period of time, or with any particular employer or in any particular industry, following the conclusion of his or her employment with the broadcast industry employer.

If a broadcast industry employer were to violate the BEFWA, it would be civilly liable for not only the broadcast employee’s damages, but also attorney’s fees and costs.

Moreover, the BEFWA expressly provides that its protections cannot be waived, and that any attempt to do so shall be null and void and unenforceable in court.

The BEFWA carves out the following exception to its general provisions: “[The BEFWA] shall not apply to preventing the enforcement of such a covenant during the term of an employment contract.”

This should be an obvious conclusion as any employer should have the right to enforce the breach of a restrictive covenant violated while the employee is working for that employer.

Therefore, noncompete agreements concerning an employee’s actions during the term of employment may still be enforceable (based upon the particular circumstances, such as when the employer is in breach of the employment contract).

Other covenants limiting the post-employment rights of the broadcast employee are similarly unaffected.

Does BEFWA Concern Me or My Company?

The BEFWA broadly defines “broadcast employee” as both “on-air” and “off-air” employees. Yet that term is not all-encompassing in that management employees do not constitute broadcast employees for the purposes of the statute.

Accordingly, noncompete agreements concerning management employees remain enforceable and are subject to the traditional “reasonableness” test. Similarly, independent contractors do not reap the benefits of the BEFWA.

The statute’s definition of “broadcast industry employer” is expansive and includes TV stations or networks, radio stations or networks, cable stations or networks, Internet or satellite-based services similar to a broadcast station or network, any broadcast entity affiliated with the aforementioned employers, or any other entity providing broadcasting services such as news, weather, traffic, sports or entertainment reports or programming.

What Lies Ahead?

As with any new law, the courts will be left with the challenge of interpreting the parameters of the BEFWA and how it applies.

It will be no surprise to see the statute’s more ambiguous terms, such as “management employee” and “other entity providing broadcasting services,” as the basis for litigation when parties seek clarification of the meanings of those terms in order to determine whether the statute governs their conduct.

Additionally, broadcast industry employers may seek to hire independent contractors, rather than “broadcast industry employees,” in order to bypass the prohibitions of the BEFWA.

Finally, employers may “beef up” other lawful post-employment restrictions, such as rights of first refusal, non-solicitation, nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements, in an attempt to compensate for the loss of the ability to enforce post-employment noncompete provisions.

These considerations demonstrate the significant impact the BEFWA is expected to have on New York’s employment landscape within the broadcast industry.

11-Feb-09 3:00 PM

Thirteen to be Honored as our 2013 Governors' Award Recipient

noemail@nyemmys.org — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 18:00:00 GMT

THE NEW YORK CHAPTER OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF TELEVISION ARTS AND SCIENCES ANNOUNCES ITS 2013 GOVERNORS' AWARD RECIPIENT Thirteen to be Honored at the Black-Tie Gala New York, NY, March 1, 2013- Each year, the Board of Governors of the New York Chapter of the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences may choose to recognize an individual, company, or organization with the prestigious Governors' Award. This honorary Emmy acknowledges outstanding achievements in the television industry. This year the Board of the New York Chapter unanimously selected Thirteen as the recipient of the 2013 Governors' Award, to recognize its exceptional contributions to our region over the last 50 years. Since 1962, the Governors' Award has honored those that have made a substantial impact and demonstrated an extraordinary use of television. The feats and accomplishments of these individuals, companies and organizations are remarkable and unique, falling beyond the...

55th Annual New York Emmy Awards

noemail@nyemmys.org — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:38:06 GMT

THE NEW YORK CHAPTER OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF TELEVISION ARTS AND SCIENCES ANNOUNCES RESULTS OF THE 55th ANNUAL NEW YORK EMMY AWARDS New York, NY, April 1, 2012- MSG was the big winner tonight at the 55th Annual New York Emmy Awards which took place at the Marriott Marquis' Broadway Ballroom. Following MSG with 14 Awards was WNBC-TV, which won 11 New York Emmy Awards. WNJU Telemundo 47's Tormenta de Nieve 2011 took home the Emmy for best Evening Newscast (Under 35 Minutes) for its January 7, 2011 broadcast. WCBS-TV took home the Emmy for best Evening Newscast (Over 35 minutes) for its Irene Aftermath. The Governors' Award, the New York Chapter's highest honor, was presented to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg for his efforts to advance television in New York City and the successful Made in NY program. Presenting the award was Charlie Rose, Emmy Award-winning journalist and co-anchor of CBS This Morning. The numerical breakdown of winners,...

55th New York Emmy Awards Nominations

noemail@nyemmys.org — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:00:00 GMT

THE 55TH ANNUAL NEW YORK EMMY AWARD NOMINATIONS ANNOUNCED THIS MORNING! MSG Network Gets the Most Nominations with 57 New York, NY - Thursday, February 16, 2012. The 55th Annual New York Emmy Award nominations took place this morning at the studios of CUNY-TV. Hostingthe announcement was Jacqueline Gonzalez, Executive Director, NY NATAS. Presenting the nominees were Emmy Award-winner N.J. Burkett, Correspondent, WABC-TV and President of NY NATAS; Emmy Award-winner Marvin Scott, Senior Correspondent, PIX11News at 10, and Anchor, PIX11News Closeup, WPIX-TV; Emmy Award-winnerElizabeth Hashagen, Anchor, News 12 Long Island; Emmy Award-winner Virginia Huie, Reporter, News 12 Long Island. Total Number of Nominated Entries MSG 57 Neighborhood Journal 2 WNBC-TV 50 ...

54th Annual New York Emmy Awards

noemail@nyemmys.org — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 05:08:03 GMT

THE NEW YORK CHAPTER OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF TELEVISION ARTS AND SCIENCES ANNOUNCES ITS 54TH ANNUAL NEW YORK EMMY AWARDS GALA TO BE HELD SUNDAY, APRIL 3, 2011 New York, NY, April 1, 2011- The New York Chapter of the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences proudly announces its 54th Annual New York Emmy Awards Gala will be held on Sunday, April 3, 2011 at the Marriott Marquis, Times Square. The New York Emmy Awards honor content created primarily for the New York region. In attendance will be over 800 of the top professionals representing all facets of media, including familiar faces from news, entertainment, sports, production and advertising. Ernie Anastos, Anchor of WNYW FOX 5's Fox 5 News at 10:00 p.m., will receive a special Emmy for Lifetime Achievement known as our prestigious GOVERNORS' AWARD for his outstanding contributions to television. Joan Lunden, Emmy Award-winning journalist and the longest-running host of early morning...

New York Student Television Awards

noemail@nyemmys.org — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:00:00 GMT

MSG VARSITY AND THE NEW YORK CHAPTER OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF TELEVISION AND ARTS AND SCIENCES TO HONOR LOCAL HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS MSG Varsity V Awards to Celebrate Student-Produced Television Content BETHPAGE, N.Y., March 24, 2010 –– MSG Varsity and The New York Chapter of the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences (NY NATAS) have teamed up to present the first-ever MSG Varsity V Awards. This award is designed to celebrate high school student achievement for the original content they produce for television and to foster the next generation of broadcast professionals. Open for all high school students in Cablevision’s service area, MSG Varsity V awards will be awarded in nine categories – News, Sports, Arts & Entertainment, Best Original Production, Sports – Full Game, Editing, Writing, Sports/News Reporter and Best Overall School Coverage. The Best Original Production category will be a viewer’s choice category –...

2009 NY Emmy Awards Nominations

noemail@nyemmys.org — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:00:00 GMT

THE 52nd ANNUAL NEW YORK EMMY® AWARD NOMINATIONS ANNOUNCED THIS MORNING! MSG Network Gets the Most Nominations With 45 New York, NY – Thursday, February 12, 2009. The 52nd Annual New York Emmy® Award nominations took place this morning at the studios of CUNY-TV. Hosting the announcement was Jacqueline Gonzalez, Executive Director, NY NATAS. Presenting the nominees were Shelly Palmer, Host of MediaBytes and President of NY NATAS; Emmy® Award winner Marvin Scott, Senior Correspondent, PIX News at 10 and Anchor, PIX News Closeup, WPIX-TV; Emmy® Award winner Elizabeth Hashagen, Anchor, News 12 Long Island; and Emmy® Award winner John Bathke, News Reporter and Host/Producer of On the Scene, News 12 New Jersey. Total Number of Nominated Entries by Station: MSG – 45 WGRZ-TV – 5 NYC TV – 35 CUNY TV ...

COMPOSERS CAF to launch October 25th with Elliot Lawrence and Jamie Lawrence

noemail@nyemmys.org — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 19:00:00 GMT

On Thursday, October 25, 2007, The National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, New York Chapter and Local 802 AFM, Associated Musicians of Greater New York, will present the inaugural COMPOSERS CAFÉ, a new series of programs featuring prominent composers presenting their life’s work through stories, playing their music, and video clips. Launching this new series on October 25th will be Elliot Lawrence and his son Jamie Lawrence. The event will be moderated by John McDaniel. Elliot Lawrence has been the Music Director of the Tony Awards show since its television inception. He was composer/conductor for the Oscar winning film Network and the opening sequence for The French Connection. He served as conductor and orchestrator for a host of fondly remembered original Broadway productions, among them Bye Bye Birdie, How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying (winning a Tony Award for music direction), The Apple Tree, Here's Love, Golden Rainbow, Golden Boy, and Sugar. He is...

National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, NY (The Emmy Awards) Elects New Officers

noemail@nyemmys.org — Thu, 31 May 2007 21:00:00 GMT

Shelly Palmer, President -- Jane Hanson 1st VP -- Karen Scott 2nd VP New York, NY, May 18, 2007 -- Shelly Palmer, host of Media 3.0 with Shelly Palmer was elected President of the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, NY (the organization that bestows the Emmy® Award) by a unanimous vote of its Board of Governors. Palmer succeeds past President, Jane Hanson. The new executive committee includes: President: Shelly Palmer, host of Media 3.0 with Shelly Palmer 1st Vice President: Jane Hanson, host of Jane's New York 2nd Vice President: Karen Scott, News Director, CW11 Secretary: Denise Rover, Account Manager, WNJU-TV/Telemundo 47 Treasurer: Chris Pizzurro, VP Digital Media, Turner Entertainment Sales The New York Chapter of The National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences is dedicated to the advancement of the arts and sciences of television and media, and the promotion of creative leadership for artistic, educational and technical achievements within the television...

The Governors' Award

Mon, 20 May 2013 19:04:22 GMT

The Governors' Award Each year, the Board of Governors of the New York Chapter may choose to honor an individual, company, or organization with the prestigious Governors' Award. Members of the Board of Governors nominate, for consideration by the Board, the individuals, companies and/or organizations which they consider merit this distinguished recognition. Since 1962, the Governors' Award, an Honorary Emmy, has been presented in recognition of the extraordinary and unique contributions made in the television industry. Historically, the feats and accomplishments of these recipients are exceptional, falling beyond the scope of our annual awards. See below for a full list of our Governors' Award recipients. BOARD OF GOVERNORS AWARD HISTORY 2013 Thirteen For its significant contributions to our region and its commitment to creating and broadcasting educational and inspiring programming that has touched the hearts of viewers for the past 50 years. 2012 ...

The NY Emmy Awards Nominees

Thu, 16 May 2013 19:50:21 GMT

1st Annual New York Emmy Awards 26th Annual New York Emmy Awards 2nd Annual New York Emmy Awards 27th Annual New York Emmy Awards 3rd Annual New York Emmy Awards 28th Annual New York Emmy Awards 4th Annual New York Emmy Awards 29th Annual New York Emmy Awards 5th Annual New York Emmy Awards 30th Annual New York Emmy Awards 6th Annual New York Emmy Awards 31st Annual New York Emmy Awards 7th Annual New York Emmy Awards 32nd Annual New York Emmy Awards 8th Annual New York Emmy Awards 33rd Annual New York Emmy Awards 9th Annual New York Emmy Awards 34th Annual New York Emmy Awards 10th Annual New York Emmy Awards 35th Annual New York Emmy Awards 11th Annual New York Emmy...

The NY Emmy Awards Winners

Thu, 16 May 2013 19:48:54 GMT

The 2012 New York Emmy Awards

Thu, 16 May 2013 19:46:40 GMT

Our 55th Annual New York EmmyAwards Gala was held on Sunday, April 1, 2012, at the Marriott Marquis Times Square. The WNJU Telemundo 47 News Team accepting their award for Best Evening Newscast Under 35 Minutes. CONGRATULATIONS TO OUR WINNERS! The 2012 New York Emmy Awards were held on Sunday, April 1, 2012. The black-tie gala began with an exciting reception where nominees enjoyed cocktails and conversation. Mayor Bloomberg, received a special Emmy known as our prestigious GOVERNORS' AWARD for his outstanding contributions to advance television in New York City. Charlie Rose, Emmy Award-winning journalist and co-anchor of CBS This Morning, presented the Award. PHOTO ALBUMS Press Tip Sheet Emmy Statuette Order Form 55th Annual New York Emmy Awards DVD Order Form The 55th Annual New York Emmy Awards Nominees' Cocktail Party was held on Tuesday, March 20, 2012! Dr. Max Gomez, Jacqueline Gonzalez,...

Thu, 16 May 2013 19:39:26 GMT

Our 56th Annual New York Emmy Awards Gala was held on Sunday, April 14, 2013, at the Marriott Marquis Times Square. CONGRATULATIONS TO OUR WINNERS! The WXTV Univision 41 News Team accepting their award for Best Morning Newscast. The 2013 New York Emmy Awards were held on Sunday, April 14, 2013. The black-tie gala began with an exciting reception where nominees enjoyed cocktails and conversation. The 2013 Governors' Award was presented to Thirteen for its significant contributions to our region and its commitment to creating and broadcasting educational and inspiring programming that has touched the hearts of viewers for the past 50 years. Dick Cavett, Emmy Award-winning TV host of The Dick Cavett Show presented the award. Press Tip Sheet Emmy Statuette Order Form 56th Annual NY Emmy Awards DVD Order Form If you worked on a winning entry and would like your name added to the list of winners, we offer a Post-Gala Name Addition opportunity. Click here for additional...

Thu, 16 May 2013 19:37:54 GMT

Our 55th Annual New York EmmyAwards Gala was held on Sunday, April 1, 2012, at the Marriott Marquis Times Square. The WNJU Telemundo 47 News Team accepting their award for Best Evening Newscast Under 35 Minutes. CONGRATULATIONS TO OUR WINNERS! The 2012 New York Emmy Awards were held on Sunday, April 1, 2012. The black-tie gala began with an exciting reception where nominees enjoyed cocktails and conversation. Mayor Bloomberg, received a special Emmy known as our prestigious GOVERNORS' AWARD for his outstanding contributions to advance television in New York City. Charlie Rose, Emmy Award-winning journalist and co-anchor of CBS This Morning, presented the Award. Visit our PHOTO ALBUMS to see pictures from all recent EMMY events!

Thu, 16 May 2013 19:37:07 GMT

Our 56th Annual New York Emmy Awards Gala was held on Sunday, April 14, 2013, at the Marriott Marquis Times Square. CONGRATULATIONS TO OUR WINNERS! The WXTV Univision 41 News Team accepting their award for Best Morning Newscast. The 2013 New York Emmy Awards were held on Sunday, April 14, 2013. The black-tie gala began with an exciting reception where nominees enjoyed cocktails and conversation. The 2013 Governors' Award was presented to Thirteen for its significant contributions to our region and its commitment to creating and broadcasting educational and inspiring programming that has touched the hearts of viewers for the past 50 years. Dick Cavett, Emmy Award-winning TV host of The Dick Cavett Show presented the award. Photo Albums The 56th Annual New York Emmy Awards Nominees' Cocktail Party was held on Thursday, April 4, 2013! Special thanks to the ZEPHYR, New York Water Taxi & Circle Line Downtown, for hosting our official cocktail party honoring this...

Membership

Tue, 14 May 2013 02:28:32 GMT

Membership Welcome and thank you for your interest in joining the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, New York Chapter! The New York Chapter of the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences (NY NATAS) is the leading professional service organization dedicated to all television and media professionals. We promote the highest standards of quality in professional, technical and personal achievement by conferring the coveted Emmy Awards. We invite YOU to join this dynamic, networking organization. Perks include over 100 free events per year, including films, seminars, Play Readings, passes to TV shows, (live and taped), leading edge advanced media panels, open bar networking events, professional development workshops, camaraderie and contacts! NY NATAS OFFERS SEVERAL DIFFERENT MEMBERSHIP TYPES: PROFESSIONAL/ACTIVE MEMBERS A professional who is actively engaged in the profession of television or related advanced media fields. ...

Downloadable Forms

Thu, 09 May 2013 21:18:01 GMT

Click on the links below to download an order form:

© NY NATAS

Lorem ipsum survey

noemail@nyemmys.org — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 21:13:03 GMT

Objectives:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diem nonummynibh euismod tincidunt ut lacreet dolore magna aliguam erat volutpat. Ut wisis enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tution ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis te feugifacilisi.

Duis autem dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum zzril delenit au gue duis dolore te feugat nulla facilisi.

Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci taion ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex en commodo consequat. Duis te feugifacilisi per suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex en commodo consequat.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diem nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut lacreet dolore magna aliguam erat volutpat.

Ut wisis enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci

Release Date: 22-Feb-06 3:13 PM
Expiration Date: 22-May-06 3:13 PM

Ut wisis enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci

519C1492 (Small)

Wed, 22 May 2013 06:11:48 GMT