Billion Dollar Rewind: “It’s Not What You Knew, It’s What You Did” (Entertainment Law Update – Episode 189)
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
Subscribe/Follow Android | RSS
Entertainment Law Update – Episode 189
Record Date: March 25 2026
Location: Los Angeles, California & Dallas, Texas
Hosts: Gordon Firemark & Tamera Bennett
Welcome to Entertainment Law Update — the podcast by entertainment lawyers, about entertainment law, where we round up notable cases, news, and developments to keep you informed (and hopefully a little entertained).
We welcome your feedback, suggestions, and story ideas. Visit www.entertainmentlawupdate.com and use the voice widget, or email us at entertainmentlawupdate@gmail.com.
Supreme Court Limits ISP Liability — But Draws the Line at “Grokster Territory”
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/607/24-171
Opinion: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/607/24-171/case.pdf
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed a $1 billion verdict against Cox Communications, holding that contributory copyright infringement requires intent—not just knowledge.
Even with 160,000+ infringement notices, Cox was not liable because:
- It did not induce infringement
- Its service has substantial lawful uses
- It took at least some anti-infringement steps
But the Court reaffirmed a critical boundary:
If your business encourages, depends on, or is designed around infringement, you’re back in Grokster territory.
This is a major win for platforms—but also a warning shot.
Supreme Court Declines Siegel v. Salazar (Talent Agencies Act)
The Supreme Court declined to hear Siegel v. Salazar, leaving intact California’s long-standing approach to enforcing the Talent Agencies Act.
Key takeaway:
- The Labor Commissioner can continue to void contracts and order disgorgement
- Courts rely on illegality doctrine, not explicit statutory remedies
When read alongside:
- Wachs v. Curry (defining “procurement”)
- Marathon v. Blasi (allowing severability)
…the rule remains clear:
Cross the procurement line without a license, and your deal is legally vulnerable.
AI Corner: Thaler v. Perlmutter — Denied
The Supreme Court declined to hear Thaler v. Perlmutter, leaving intact the rule that:
AI cannot be an author under U.S. copyright law.
But the real questions remain:
- When does human prompting become authorship?
- How much human input is enough?
- Who owns AI-assisted works?
Courts are now grappling with hybrid creation models—and the answers are far from settled.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-declines-hear-dispute-over-copyrights-ai-generated-material-2026-03-02/?utm_campaign=29414270-Newsletter&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=406584896&utm_content=406584896&utm_source=hs_automation
https://kipcurriercopyright.blogspot.com/2026/03/us-supreme-court-declines-to-hear.html
https://copyrightlately.com/thaler-is-dead-ai-copyright-questions/
No Office? No Problem — Canadian Court Lets AI Lawsuit Proceed
A Canadian court held that OpenAI can be sued in Ontario—even without a physical presence.
Why?
Because:
- The plaintiffs are Canadian
- The content was created in Canada
- The harm was felt in Canada
- The service is accessible in Canada
Bottom line:
If your platform crosses borders, your legal exposure does too.
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/no-office-no-problem-canadian-courts-2516487
Britannica v. OpenAI — The Lawsuits Keep Coming
Encyclopaedia Britannica and Merriam-Webster have joined the growing wave of AI copyright lawsuits, alleging OpenAI used nearly 100,000 entries to train its models.
The global tally of AI copyright cases now exceeds 90.
At stake:
- Whether AI training is infringement
- Or protected as fair use
This remains one of the most consequential unresolved questions in copyright law.
https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/895372/encyclopedia-britannica-openai-lawsuit
OpenAI Sued for Practicing Law Without a License
Nippon Life Insurance has filed a lawsuit alleging ChatGPT:
- Gave legal advice
- Drafted filings
- Helped a user attempt to reopen a settled case
Claims include:
- Tortious interference
- Abuse of process
- Unauthorized practice of law
The case raises a serious question:
When does AI assistance cross the line into practicing law?
Afroman Prevails in Defamation Case
Rapper Afroman won a jury trial against police officers who sued him over songs and videos mocking a 2022 raid on his home.
The content included:
- Satirical lyrics
- Security footage from the raid
- Harsh (and creative) insults
The jury sided with Afroman after a short trial, reinforcing strong protections for expressive and satirical speech.
https://www.wowt.com/2026/03/19/rapper-afroman-wins-lawsuit-against-police-over-mocking-their-2022-raid-viral-music-videos/
https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/afroman-sued-ohio-deputies-music-video-showing-raid-home-says-got-free-rcna264138
https://www.acluohio.org/cases/cooley-v-foreman-aka-afroman-amicus/
https://reason.com/2023/06/12/ohio-cops-raided-afromans-house-looking-for-a-dungeon-because-of-a-bizarre-confidential-informant-tip/
https://www.npr.org/2026/03/19/nx-s1-5753563/afroman-lemon-pound-cake-trial
https://youtu.be/0pvJmxe7LdE?si=xZJQ5r185hjtsHMX
https://open.spotify.com/album/65guRv8rg6TwPqnDYKtXwj
Isaac Hayes Estate Settles with Trump Campaign
The Isaac Hayes estate has reached a confidential settlement over unauthorized use of
“Hold On, I’m Comin’” at campaign events.
The case reinforces a recurring theme:
Political use of music without permission is still risky business.
BMI Rate Hike Overturned
The Second Circuit rejected a 138% rate increase proposed by BMI for concert promoters, calling it unprecedented and unsupported.
The case highlights:
- Ongoing tension between PROs and promoters
- The continuing role of consent decrees
- Judicial limits on aggressive licensing strategies
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/23-935/23-935-2026-02-24.html?utm_source=summary-newsletters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2026-02-27-copyright-9432fd44ed&utm_content=text-case-title-1
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2026/02/25/bmi-rate-hike-overturned-appeals-court/
Live Nation Settlement Drama — But the States Push On
The DOJ reached a settlement with Live Nation/Ticketmaster—but 36 states refused to go along and are continuing the case.
The dispute now raises:
- Federal vs. state enforcement tension
- Questions about the strength of the settlement
- The future of antitrust regulation in live entertainment
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/mar/09/live-nation-settlement-antitrust-case
https://stereogum.com/2493140/donald-trump-personally-pushed-justice-department-to-settle-live-nation-antitrust-lawsuit-report/news
https://stereogum.com/2491684/live-nation-justice-department-reportedly-reach-settlement-in-antitrust-lawsuit/news
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/states-continue-antitrust-case-against-live-nation-and-ticketmaster-after-doj-settles
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2026/03/for-now-live-nation-deal-is-just-a-band-aid-says-antitrust-scholar/
https://whyy.org/articles/ticketmaster-live-nation-settlement-doj-trial/
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/10/politics/live-nation-ticketmaster-justice-department-settlement-controversy
https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-and-states-head-back-court-continue-fighting-better
Katy Perry vs. Katie Perry — Trademark Battle Down Under
Australia’s High Court ruled in favor of designer Katie Perry, reinstating her trademark despite the global fame of pop star Katy Perry.
Key principle:
Trademark rights are determined at the time of registration—not by later celebrity status.
A strong reaffirmation of “first in time” rights.
https://share.newsbreak.com/hnbv5s4l?s=i0
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/11/australia/katy-perry-katie-perry-australia-trademark-intl-hnk
About the Show / Contact
Website: www.entertainmentlawupdate.com
Special thanks to our volunteer contributors: Jon Janacek, Charles Thorn, and Alexis Allen. Interested in joining the ELU contributor team? Email entertainmentlawupdate@gmail.com..