Advice style answers (defamation, duty of care, contract)
Arts laws are the guidelines governing art related services and also they offer advice on the same issues. In the case study provided it is evident GOODTIMES Inc failed in manning entrance to the festival due to the laxity of the security guys and for this a dancer had suffered for it. However for any step to be taken there must be parties involved, and by parties we mean legal entities.
Legal entities are entities that have the ability to sue or either be sued. When the security guys left the door unmanned the group of people who had been barred from getting into the gig seized the opportunity and entered the stage. Duty of care is another consideration when a case of negligence is to be heard.
When we talk about duty of care we are referring to a legal requirement imposed on an entity and it requires a certain standard of care to be excised when performing any act or event that is likely to harm others and also the doers of the action. The two legal entities that is BADMOVIES and GOODTIMES Inc owe the participants a duty of care. In addition, GOODTIMES Inc owe even those who attended a duty of care as something may have happened during the event, for example a fight.
BADMOVIES owes duty of care liability to Leonie Twist. The duty of care act has provisions for employers to take the risks of any injury or loss that is incurred by employees while in the course of duty. It is the responsibility of all employers to ensure that their employees work in a safe and healthy environment. In this context, BADMOVIES has failed to ensure so. Furthermore, it is the negligence of the security guards of a company that had been hired by GOODTIMES an associate of BADMOVIES that led to the injury. The injury was not voluntary but only after the guards left their work stations and left the party vulnerable to intrusion of non-ticket holders who caused commotion that collapsed the stage which eventually hurt Leonie. Therefore, in the legal sense, she should sue her BADMOVIES for medical and severance compensation. Leonie can also sue GOODTIMES as she was working in an event that was organized by them. It was their responsibility to offer the required security for all the people who had attended the party. By failing to so. It left them liable for the injury caused.
When the security left the door unattended it resulted to a breach in their duty. The stage could not support all that weight and it collapsed injuring Leonie Twist. Leonie being an employee of BADMOVES, she is entitled to insurance and protection by the company she works for and also the sponsors of the concert as the incident happened when she was working for them. Therefore, it is only right when both parties joined together to compensate him.
Leonie can also build a case against local tradesperson, TJ Hammer who was hired to repair the events stage by GOODTIMES. She can argue that TJ failed to deliver on his mandate to ensure a stable stage for the event. However, this could end up not being successful as TJ will argue that once the stage was repaired, GOODTIMES ascertained that it was repaired to their satisfaction. Also the issue of non-ticket holders invading the party will give TJ the leverage as he will argue that the stage collapsed due to the excessive human capacity that it was forced to hold.
The first step of all this is to show that both the parties owed duty to the dancer. The dancer has to prove that the two involved parties were warranted to ensure the safety and well-being of the dancers. This is mainly through the contracts signed by the dancer and also the contract signed between the dancersâ€™ company and the sponsors of the event, GOODTIMES Inc. If she can prove that it was their duty to ensure safety, then she has a case and if not she will most likely cater for the hospital bill on his own. Also if she can prove that GOODTIMES Inc were negligent in manning the entrance and therefore leading to a breach of duty, she has a case.
In addition she has to prove that the harm done was foreseeable to the event sponsors and could have avoided. If the incident is not within the scope then the parties involved have no duty to attend to the issue. Leonie has also to prove that there was actually damages suffered from the negligence and in this case itâ€™s the broken leg. She has to prove that the negligence caused the broken leg and if no substantial evidence is laid she will likely lose the case and no compensation will be given.
In a nut shell she needs to prove the parties that owed her duty of care and the duty was actually breached. Afterwards, she needs to prove that the defendants actions caused the injury and if the defendant would have acted in due time the injury would not have been realized. In addition, she is required to prove that defendant had the means to foresee the harms that would emerge from their actions and finally, the damage caused by defendantâ€™s negligence should be shown and proven without a doubt that they took place within the time scope and within the vicinity.
Defamation is another crime and it is whereby oneâ€™s reputation is ruined by actions of another. From the case study it is evident that those who can be spotted on the poster, Darren and jude, have all the rights to sue GOODTIMES Inc for defamation. On the image with the label â€œdrugs, crime and dancingâ€ only the two can be recognized and going with the theme this could be very detrimental to their reputation. First and foremost, they have to analyze whether it falls into slander, blanket or libel category. Secondly, they have to prove that the statement was published, and in this case it was published as picture and promoted on the companyâ€™s website. It lays a very good foundation for the law suit.
The statement also has to be proved it was false and the fact that it was just a picture taken in the last outdoor concert and the parties were not involved in any of the substances in the theme proves that the statement was false. After that the two must prove that after the image was published, their image has been tarnished. This can be evidenced by being shunned or losing work or experiencing some sort of discrimination.
They also have to determine that the image is not protected by absolute and qualified privileges and also if the image caused injuries that can be valued itâ€™s an added advantage. Based on the fact that the image is available and it was published on the website, the two have a very strong case and one that has a lot of evidence aiding them and they are likely to emerge victorious if an arbitration is not reached between the plaintiff and the defendant. Therefore, the two who can be recognized have all the right to proceed to sue the company for defamation.
Performerâ€™s rights is one of the legal issues surrounding the film from Berlin. GOODTIMES infringes the copyrights of the Berlin film company when through their employee Fiona Footage, they first download the movie without rights and due authorization from the production or distribution company. In artistic work, this can be understood as piracy infringement that is prohibited in the copyrights and Intellectual property rights act.
Second there is the legal concern of performance rights. GOODTIMES air the Berlin film at WILDCHILD PARTY without due authorization. This raises legal interests as it is done for commercial purposes. GOODTIMES is a profitable organization that charged party patrons ticket money to attend the party. Under the copyright regulation, content creator of any artistic or literary work is supposed to benefit from any performance or exhibition of their work or recording. However, GOODTIMES does not share the proceeds from the event with the Berlin Company or notify them about the use of their work that leaves them legally liable for copyright infringement. GOODTIMES went further to distribute the DVD movies and images without any permission to do so.
So as to avoid any legal concerns, GOODTIMES should have first bought the FILM from an authorized distributor of the film instead of downloading it online that can attract piracy penalties. Second, GOODTIMES should have sought the permission of the Berlin film company before using their film in a commercial event that earned them income from work that did not belong to them or they did not have copy rights over. Lastly, they should have shared the proceeds from the film showing with the Berlin film company so as to give them the economic benefit of the work they created. In doing so, GOODTIMES would have absolved themselves from any legal liabilities from the Berlin Company.
Despite all the major evidence that GOODTIMES AND Sarah Strategy borrowed a lot form Jeff Noetâ€™s concert partyâ€™s ideas, his case might not hold enough legal water to surmount a serious legal challenge. This is mainly because Jeff had not patented the foresaid idea. Therefore, Jeff might face many legal hurdles in proving that the party idea was his as he did not have it in concrete written form and protected. Another challenge could be that Sarah and her partners could have some leverage as they added more elements to Jeffâ€™s idea. For example, they themed their idea for drug, crime and dancing which Jeff did not highlight in his idea. The fact that the idea was used for public interest could also trigger artistic craftsmanship in public places argument from the defendantâ€™s side to counter Jeffâ€™s case against them.
However, Jeff can sue BADMOVIES and Sarah for infringing his artistic work creation rights. This is because at the party, one of the dancers of BADMOVIES was heard shouting Jeffâ€™s Poem. This can be regarded as a performance which would have violated Jeffâ€™s performance rights for Intellectual property. Given that the dancer represented BADMOVIES, he created an employee-employer liability to BADMOVIES which can build Jeffâ€™s case against the company. The case builds more momentum as BADMOVIES was using the poem for commercial purposes where Jeff was not compensated for being the creator of the artistic work. Sarah can be sued by her mutual association with the publisher. By exposing the Poetâ€™s material to a third party for performance, she can be deemed to have violated confidentiality and privacy elements between author and publisher. He can therefore sue Sarah and the intended publisher for Privacy and contractual negligence.
The DJ can only sue to be compensated for $ 2000 by the repairer if the costs of the repairs accumulated to the same amount. However, the DJ can also sue for consequential costs that have been incurred as a result of contractual negligence from the repairer. The argument can be that the repairer violated the contract he committed to either verbally or in written to repair the equipment by March 5thonly to do so by March 10th when the concert was on March 7th. It is for this reason that the DJ can argue that she was left with no choice other than hire for a new equipment for the party. The DJ can build her case further by arguing that by not informing her early about their incapacity to repair the equipment after the deadline had already passed, the repairer acted in bad faith. Contractual obligations binds either of the party to reveal any underlying information that affects the contract in a manner that it does not disadvantage any of the parties. Clearly, the repairer did not hence he can be sued to compensate the $ 2000 incurred costs to hire the turntable equipment. On the other hand the repairer can also be sued for creating consequential losses.
The DJ can refuse to pay for the repairs. Contractual obligations are defined by a time frame. The agreement between her and the repairer was limited to a duration that expired on March 5th. She can argue that her commitment to paying the repairer elapsed on March 5th as agreed after which their contractual engagement expired. Furthermore, by failing to meet the agreed deadline, the repairer violated the initial agreement which rendered the contract null. Also by hiring a new equipment, her legal team can argue that she already incurred expenses for the occasion in consideration. Therefore, the repairerâ€™s services would not have served its intended purposes that was instead taken care of by the turntable the DJ hired. These rendered their services useless. It is in this light of matters that the DJ can refuse to compensate the repairer for the costs incurred in mending the equipment.
Performersâ€™ rights is the Copyright issue highlighted in the case study. GOODTIMES through their employee Fiona Footage infringes copyright rules by downloading an experimental movie made in Berlin that they use to fulfill their crime and drugs theme of the party. First it becomes a copyright issues under the performersâ€™ rights act which compels for one to ask for permission before airing or exhibiting the recorded performance of another party. In the case study, Fiona Footage downloaded the Film without seeking the permission of the film maker in Berlin. Secondly, it becomes a copyright issue as GOODTIMES used the film for commercial purposes. The party attendees paid ticket money with the movie being one of the benefits they were to enjoy in exchange. Therefore, it is true to say that the movie show generated income for GOODTIMES. This infringes the Intellectual property rights of the Berlin Company as the revenue generated is not shared with them.
Licensing Copyrights material are also brought in to question. BADMOVIES projects images of contemporary arts, magazines as well as pages they scanned from magazines and excerpts from DVD movies. Under copyright protection act, one can only use published material entitled to another party either by getting the license to do so and being granted permission to do so by the material copyright custody owner. It is debatable whether Jeff Noet Versus Sarah Strategy concert scenario is a copyright infringement but all facts indicates that Jeff had not protected his idea.
The other copyrights highlighted is when a BADMOVIESâ€™ dancer is heard shouting Jeff Noetâ€™s poem. This becomes a copyright issue as it was done so without the permission of Noet. Sarah Strategy who has a mutual relationship with the publisher Noet wanted his work published from violated Noetâ€™s artistic creation rights by giving his poem to BADMOVIES for the partyâ€™s performance. The question of whether or not the work had been published to make Jeff the legitimate owner of the work could be another issues of discussion on the courtâ€™s floor. Irrespective, Jeff has claims to the poem as he is the writer.Order Now