NBC Warns Celebrity's If They Do a Show on CBS or ABC, Forget the "The Tonight Show"

 Newsflash from your Hollywood Attorney:

NBC is coming down like a hammer on celebs who want to get on Jimmy Fallon's show ... if they dare do a show on CBS or ABC ... they can forget about "The Tonight Show."

Sources connected to CBS, NBC and ABC tell TMZ ... the Peacock network believes Jimmy Fallon's ratings success gives them extreme bargaining power.  They put the word out to celebs, agents and publicists ... if they want to be on Fallon they can't appear on ANY other network ... and not just shows that go head-to-head with Jimmy, but morning shows as well.

We're told NBC is saying the stars who go on Fallon are also allowed to appear on "Today," "Dateline" and any similar shows they air, but that's it. 

A GMA source tells TMZ ... they've already gotten fallout from people they were trying to book.

Fallon is dominating late night .... crushing Jimmy Kimmel by bringing in more than twice the number of viewers.

Source....tmz

Stay Safe Out There - If You Need Help just Give Me a Call!

To schedule a free consultation and learn how we can help you, contact Beverly Hills DUI Attorney Jonathan Franklin today.

http://lawofficesofjonathanfranklin.blogspot.com/

Law Offices of Jonathan Franklin
Open Evenings and Weekends this Summer
Call Us Now (310) 273-9600    
 http://www.jonathanfranklinlaw.com

Declared War on TV's Most Powerful Woman "Judge Judy" vs CBS Lawsuit

A "Judge Judy" fan must have a cyber-death wish ... 'cause he's declared war on TV's most powerful woman over a series of YouTube videos ... and there's no way in hell he's gonna win.

Long story short ... CBS has filed a lawsuit against someone named Jessie Zaragosa, claiming the person ran multiple YouTube accounts called "JudgeJudyWorld," "JudgeJudyWorld1," "JudgeJudyWorld2" and "JudgeJudyWorld3."

According to the lawsuit, Zaragosa posted numerous episodes of "Judge Judy" on the accounts in order to rack up views ... in an effort to make money off the videos on his pages.

CBS claims it demanded YouTube take down the videos ... and YouTube complied ... but Zaragosa fired off a counter-notice demanding YouTube put it back up.

So CBS took the fight from the Internet to L.A. County Superior Court ... where Zaragosa will undoubtedly get crushed because he has absolutely no ownership rights to the "Judy" footage.

The lesson here -- don't mess with Judge Judy.

Source... http://www.tmz.com/2013/06/03/judge-judy-cbs-lawsuit-youtube/#ixzz2VB2HEFl8

A Group of Broadcasters (Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC) filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in Washington DC against a similar outfit to Aereo that is also offering re-transmission services to consumers.

Fox Television is going to war with Barry Diller, the man who helped found the network. On Thursday, Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, and several other television broadcasters filed two major copyright infringement lawsuits against Aereo, a service that's planning to launch in the New York area on March 14th to allow consumers the ability to watch broadcast television online through digital streaming.

Aereo announced it had raised $20.5 million in venture funding at a news conference last month.

In making the announcement of the forthcoming launch, Diller, who joined Aereo's board after his company IAC/InterActiveCorp provided major financial backing, told reporters that Aereo "pries over-the-air broadcast television out of [a] closed system.”

The broadcasters allege that the Aereo service infringes upon the copyright protection afforded to the content of broadcasters’ television programming.  In one lawsuit filed in New York federal court last week, the broadcasters say that the $12-a-month service will “provide unlimited streams of Plaintiffs’ television broadcasts over the Internet in direct competition with Plaintiffs.”  The broadcasters’ complaint also alleges “[c]opyright law does not permit Aereo to appropriate to itself the value of Plaintiffs’ television programming by retransmitting over the Internet without proper licenses” and “simply put, Aereo is an unauthorized Internet delivery service that is receiving, converting and retransmitting broadcast signals to its subscribers for a fee.” The broadcasters claim that statutory definitions and interpretations of a “public performance” render Aereo’s service impermissible as copyright infringement.  Currently, one group of broadcasters including Fox, Telemundo, and PBS, represented by Steven Fabrizio at Jenner & Block, is seeking a permanent injunction and statutory damages against Aereo. Another set of broadcasters including CBS, NBC, and ABC, represented by Bruce Keller at Debevoise & Plimpton, is after pretty much the same thing, though the cases are likely to be consolidated.

Broadcasters are not unfamiliar with battling companies that offer digital streaming services. In 2010, the same major broadcasters sued streaming television companies FilmOn and ivi, and were granted injunctions against both services.  Ivi’s strategy utilized Section 111 of the Copyright Act, which authorizes cable TV companies to make secondary transmissions of copyrighted works embodied in primary transmissions so long as a nominal statutory licensing fee is paid.  The Judge rejected this argument, holding “[n]o technology . . . has been allowed to take advantage of Section 111 to retransmit copyrighted programming to a national audience while not complying with the rules and regulations of the FCC and without consent of the copyright holder.”  Ivi has appealed this judgment, arguing that it only needed to pay a compulsory license fee.  The appeal will be heard at the 2nd Circuit later in March.  Broadcasters have well-founded reasons to fear the threat posed by startups like Aereo – Deloitte’s 6th edition of its report The State of the Media Democracy and other sources report a long term trend of increased “cord-cutting,” a term that refers to the choice by consumers to unsubscribe from cable services in favor of accessing programming content online.  Although current statistics are not dispositive, the proliferation of websites like Hulu has increased the usage of digital streaming services, especially for video content.

Aereo defends its service stating, “[c]onsumers are legally entitled to access broadcast television via an antenna and they are entitled to record television content for their personal use. Innovations in technology over time, from digital signals to Digital Video Recorders (“DVRs”), have made access to television easier and better for consumers. Aereo provides technology that enables consumers to use their cloud DVR and their remote antenna to record and watch the broadcast television signal to which they are entitled anywhere they are, whether on a phone, a tablet, a television or a laptop.”  The district court judge in the ivi case noted that when Congress enacted Section 111, it was doing so with an “understanding of the cable industry as a highly localized medium” and ivi’s service, in contrast, ”retransmits broadcast signals nationwide, rather than [to] specific local areas.” Alternatively, because Aereo is offering its initial service next month in New York, before expanding “a step at a time, a market at a time,” the company may avoid the pitfalls ivi encountered.  The Aereo lawsuit has the potential to provide substantive implications for the future of the Internet TV business and cord-cutting trend in the broadcast television industry.

Read More... http://www.ipbrief.net/2012/03/09/cord-cutting-culprit-fox-television-and-major-broadcasters-claim-aereo-broadcast-streaming-service-infringes-programming-copyrights/ 
and
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/aereo-barry-diller-stream-tv-online-296426

Lawsuit Filed Online-Only Soap Ads Won't Air

Producers behind the revived "All My Children" and "One Life to Live" hoped to buy ad time during broadcast soaps, but CBS and NBC refused to help tout the competition and ABC has since filed a lawsuit over one spot.

anceled TV soaps All My Children and One Life to Live are being revived online beginning April 29 by producer Prospect Park, but don't look for ads touting them on the major broadcast networks. Sources tells CBS, NBC and even ABC, which licensed the shows for a web revival, won't be running spots for the shows.

CBS, which has run ads for digital outlets Netflix and Hulu (which is distributing the revived soaps), declined comment. But a source tells THR the network views the digital re-launch as a direct competitor to its popular daytime dramas, including The Bold and the Beautiful.

NBC also declined to comment as did Prospect Park. However, a source says NBC refused to carry ads during its only remaining daytime soap, Days of Our Lives. The network was open to primetime spots, which Prospect Park declined to pursue. NBC did, however, sell ads on several of its cable networks.

A source close to the network said Prospect Park's buying agency made a preliminary request for information on budgets and availability, but never followed up. That source insists NBC never turned them down for ads because there was never any actual request, and no creative work related to possible ads was ever shown to them for approval by their standards and practices department (which would be necessary before they an ad could run).

If that sounds like as much of a soap opera as the shows themselves, it is just the beginning. The real drama  has been between Prospect Park and ABC.

ABC licensed AMC and OLTL to Prospect Park, run by Jeff Kwatinetz and Rich Frank, in a deal sources say is worth more than $8 million a year to the network, plus an annual royalty. The relationship hasn't gone smoothly, as Prospect revealed in a $25 million lawsuit filed April 18. The suit claims ABC breached its contract by failing to cooperate on the relaunch and by improperly using performers on General Hospital that were to be shared.

One of those actors is Roger Howarth, who played Todd Manning on the old OLTL. With Prospect's permission, he played the same character beginning in March 2012 on ABC's General Hospital but eventually was killed off. GH now plans to bring him back as another character, while he also is set to co-star in the revived OLTL.

Meanwhile, Horwath also shot scenes in Connecticut for the revival of OLTL as Manning. Those scenes will be parceled out throughout the first season.

ABC sources say the network was willing to accept ads within GH because of the licensing relationship, but on April 17 when Prospect submitted an ad for OLTL that included Howarth prominently. ABC refused it -- on the grounds that it would confuse the audience.

Prospect, after spending considerable time preparing the ad, balked at making changes shortly before it was to run. They did not want to take Howarth out of the ad and, already upset about its dealings with ABC, filed suit the next day.

Notes analyst Brad Adgate of Horizon Media: "The overriding reason to refuse is if they think it's a threat or something that's going to siphon off viewers from them, then they don’t think whatever they charge them would be worth it "

The CW Network did accept ads for the online soaps, which began running in such shows as Heart of Dixie and 90210 last week. Fox, according to a source, also was open to running the ads, but Prospect Park decided against running ads there because the network has only primetime programming and no history with soap operas.

Read More... http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/all-my-children-oltl-ads-444816

Judge Joe Brown Quit over CBS not paying him per Contract

Brown quit his syndicated TV show because he felt he had been promised an annual salary of $20 million but claims he has never gotten more than $5 million a year.

CBS Television Distribution produces and distributes both Judge Judy and Judge Joe Brown, which ranks as No. 2 in the ratings out of more than a dozen legal and court programs.

Judge Joe Brown comes to an end in May after 15 seasons because Brown could not reach an agreement with CBS on a new contract. There were widespread reports that the deal could not be concluded because of a “salary disagreement,” with CBS seeking to cut Brown’s compensation because ratings are down for his show.

But Brown says that there was no salary disagreement because he has not gotten a salary for the last seven years. He says that his deal was for a split of revenues with CBS. The problem, he says, came in defining how the money is to be split and how much in fees the distributor would get. “Hollywood trick economics and accounting will show something a little less,” charges Brown, “because they take a great deal out of it.”

Brown says some of the money his show made was plowed into the development of other CBS shows — including a court show with Nancy Grace — most of which, he says, “flopped.”

“The truth of the matter is they didn’t offer me a reduction in salary,” Brown tells THR. “They actually were offering me [improved terms] of a 50-50 split with them. The issue basically was the adjustments to gross income.”

By that, Brown means how CBS accounts for the revenue and the fees it takes to cover its costs, distribution and other fees.

Brown says his current show grosses about $100 million a year. CBS declines to comment but a syndication source says that $100 million figure seems high.

When Brown signed his last contract in 2010, he says he believed it meant he would be entitled to about $20 million a year. He says he has never received more than about $5 million a year.

“After I signed my contract with them for three years,” says Brown, “the week it was to go into effect they changed the categories and definitions. If you do it the way it was supposed to be done, you get awfully close to $20 million. When you change the categories and definitions, you come out with about $5 million.”

Adding insult to injury, Brown says, at the same time CBS Inc. was reporting record results for the company and for the division that includes its distribution arm, company executives were “telling everyone from camera crews to talent … that money was tight and everybody would have to take a cut and bite the bullet.”

Brown has other complaints. He says CTD put Judge Judy on top stations and combined multiple airings to come up with its ratings (a common practice). His show, he says, is mostly on lesser stations, gets only a handful of extra runs each day and has not received as much promotion as he believes was required.

Read More... http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/judge-joe-brown-slams-cbs-434900

CBS "Glass House" at War with ABC "Big Brother"

Last year, CBS went to war against ABC over the latter's strangers-living-together reality TV series Glass House, alleged to be a copycat of Big Brother.

A judge won't stop the network from pursuing claims that ex-'Big Brother' producers violated trade secrets by creating an alleged copycat show on ABC.

After a federal judge denied a request for a temporary restraining order that would have barred ABC from airing Glass House, the lawsuit was dropped. The fact that the series hadn't performed particularly well in the ratings likely contributed to CBS' decision to retreat.

But that doesn't mean the legal battle is over.

Even as CBS announced it was dropping its claim against ABC, the network said it would continue to fight Glass House producers alleged to have stolen trade secrets. Now, thanks a decision from a federal judge last week, Glass House executive producer Kenny Rosen, ABC vp alternative programming Corie Henson and Glass House producer Michael O'Sullivan could be in danger of having to pay a lot of money to CBS.

Although much of the attention paid to last year's CBS-vs.-ABC skirmish focused on the issue of copyright -- and formed the basis for U.S. District Judge Gary Allen Feess' denial of a restraining order -- the trade secrets aspect of the case arguably was more provocative, a rare instance in Hollywood where the flight of producers from one network to another instigated a battle over duties of secrecy.
After CBS dropped its case against ABC, the network announced it would proceed in arbitration, which caused Rosen, Henson and O'Sullivan to file a lawsuit against CBS, alleging that CBS was "using the 'litigation equivalent of war' " and has brought arbitration against them "as part of its campaign to prevent or, at the very least, disrupt and harass the production of "Glass House."
The producers demanded that CBS be ordered to cease the harassment. The producers argued that the network had given up its right to arbitration by suing them.
But on March 18, Feess rejected the producers' attempt to stop CBS, allowing the network to go ahead with arbitration.

Read the full ruling here... http://www.scribd.com/doc/132292027/Glasshouse

The judge analyzed the contract between the parties, in particular the provision that states “any effort by any party to enforce, interpret, construe, rescind, terminate or annul this Agreement, or any provision thereof” is to be resolved by binding arbitration.

Feess concludes that "challenges to its enforceability and its interpretation should be arbitrated," meaning it will be up to an arbitrator to decide whether the dispute is arbitrable (as funny as that might sound).

But Feess also provided the reason why the dispute likely will stick in arbitration, saying that even if this particular decision wasn't up to the arbitrator, "the result would not change."

"The dispute in the initial litigation was complex and involved not only Rosen but also ABC, which was not a party to the Arbitration Clause and could not have been forced into arbitration," the judge wrote. "Moreover, the suit included non-arbitrable claims, most notably the CBS claim that ABC’s Glass House infringed on CBS’ claimed copyright in its Big Brother reality series."

The judge concluded that the "relative brief" lawsuit brought by CBS last year didn't prejudice Rosen nor waive CBS' right to arbitrate.

Read More... http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/cbs-allowed-pursue-glass-house-430672

Don Johnson Gets $19 Million to End 'Nash Bridges' Dispute

Instead of another appeal, the parties resolve a high-profile dispute over money owed from the 1996-2001 CBS cop drama.

Don Johnson's fight over money from Nash Bridges is officially over.

Both sides could have continued the battle to a higher appeals court, but recent court papers submitted at the Los Angeles Superior Court reveal that at the end of January, Rysher wired nearly $19 million to Johnson's production company.

Johnson has now signed an acknowledgment of satisfaction of the judgment.

Johnson's lawsuit against Rysher became a big deal in the summer of 2010 when it went to a jury trial.

The actor claimed that his 1995 deal with Rysher entitled him to half-ownership of Nash Bridges if it lasted 66 episodes. The show lasted 122 episodes.

Johnson sued for 50 percent of the show's money. At trial, his attorneys pointed to the profits the 1996-2001 drama made from re-reruns.

A jury awarded Johnson $23.2 million, and then, the judge awarded interest, ballooning the total award to $50 million.

In October, a California appellate court said that the trial judge was right to throw the ambiguities of Johnson's contract to a trial, but also trimmed the $50 million down to $15 million because of a finding that both the judge and jury had improperly determined prejudgment interest.

Both sides could have fought at the California Supreme Court over issues including statute of limitations, whether the judge should have interpreted the contract himself and whether there was really any misconduct or error to abrogate the huge interest payments.

Instead, the dispute appears to have been solved. Rysher will now be getting some money back since it deposited nearly $44 million in January, 2011 with the Los Angeles County Treasurer to stay enforcement of the trial award pending appeal.

Reads More... http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/don-johnson-gets-19-million-420358