Looking forward to the next one.

Keep up the great work.

One note: I really agreed with what Esq. Fascheti said about the ethical burden for bloggers. Just a thought about the “surprising” nature of the decision, though: if the NYT loses a ten-million-dollar lawsuit, it pays, if the blogger loses, he/she just files bankruptcy. I think that’s a fair way to look at why the distinction exists in the way the NJ law is written.

Keep it going.

Short note about fantasy sports. I’ve played it, I’ve run leagues, I know that it is not a typical David vs. Goliath entertainment law situation. Most of the sites profiting from fantasy sports leagues are Sporting News, Yahoo, USA Today, and many other huge players in the media market. That’s one of the reasons why the plaintiffs (NFL, NBA, MLB, etc.) feel they can ask them to “contribute” for the use of the freely available information. But I agree with the “Celebrity Apprentice” analogy, and the following “slippery slope” argument, how long until the courtrooms start charging access fees for trial bloggers, printing fees for allowing FOIA documents to be freed to the media, etc. But one thing that has to be considered: the sports’ franchises labor agreements have already “priced in” to the future revenues this income stream; so would they be violating their own labor agreement if they didn’t continue to fight the fantasy leagues?

Tamera, Gordon, great job!

2. When there’s no agreement up front, and two or more people start developing a creative work, I think joint authorship is the ultimate consideration, not WMFH.

3. Another sticky question: when two (or more) people develop a creative work; there’s no agreement, so we’re talking joint authorship; but one person takes the physical media embodying the work — what duty does that person have to make that physical media available to the other joint author(s)? I think then we end up needing to employ state law theories of fiduciary duty among joint venturers, etc.