Podcast Episode: The Supreme Court, NCAA and NIL Revolution

The Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in NCAA v. Alston handed a massive victory to student athletes, and a conclusive rebuke of the NCAA’s anticompetitive practices.

You can click here to read the Court’s opinion.

Tuk's Rules Returns!

In this episode, Attorney Tuk discusses the #FreeBritney case, guardianship in Pennsylvania in general, and the NCAA name, image and likeness rules.

What You Should Know About the Britney Spears Conservatorship Battle

There was an absolutely astonishing article published last week in the New Yorker written by Ronan Farrow and Jia Tolentino which details allegations surrounding the court-imposed conservatorship over the legal affairs of singer Britney Spears. Click here to read the entire article. The abuses alleged - if true - are absolutely shocking.

If you are wondering how a court can effectively strip an adult of their legal capacity to conduct their own business, you are not alone. Many people are unaware that each state has a mechanism by which a court can impose such an arrangement after a petition has been filed in court, followed by a streamlined litigation process. In Pennsylvania, this mechanism is called Guardianship. A guardianship, if granted, essentially strips an adult of the ability to make decisions over their own financial, business and health matters.

Fortunately, the rules of court that govern Guardianship litigation (known as the Orphans Court rules) are fairly robust and designed to prevent abuse of the system. However, a Guardianship matter is an extremely serious one and if you are involved in such a matter either as a Petitioner or an Alleged Incapacitated Person, you should seek legal advice immediately.

How Will the Copyright Claims Board Work?

The creation of the Copyright Claims Board (the “Board”) under the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2019 (the “CASE Act” or “Act”)) is one of the unexpected byproducts of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021. What follows is a brief summary of the major points of the Act. 

There were advocates on both sides of this legislation. Supporting the legislation was Copyright Alliance. Opposing the legislation was the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

As of right now, until the Board is firing on all cylinders, the only way to prosecute a copyright infringement claim is to file a lawsuit in the US District Court. A claimant should be represented by legal counsel who can navigate the federal rules of civil procedure and move the matter forward. 

It would seem logical to think that a purpose behind the CASE Act is to create an alternative dispute resolution system for copyright claims to be resolved outside of the federal court system. On the surface, it sounds like a reasonable idea. So far, so good. However, like everything else, the devil is in the details.

You can read my detailed analysis over at Tuk’s Copyright Law Reporter.

For the relevant statutory language, please see below:

CASE Act Excerpt 12292020 by Bryan Tuk on Scribd

Federal Court Denies PA Governor Wolf's Motion for Stay; Restrictions Are Unconstitutional

Since the Governor has unilaterally ruled that gatherings are banned indefinitely, legal challenges in court have followed all over the Commonwealth. While the Pennsylvania state courts have upheld the Governor’s authority, the legal challenges in federal court have focused on constitutional questions.

One restriction in particular that has drawn legal scrutiny is the restriction on gatherings of more than 250. The first Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right of the people to peaceably assemble. This was an issue in the case of County of Butler, et al. v. Thomas W. Wolf et al. (USDC W.D. Pa., Docket 2:20-cv-00677), in which Judge William S. Stickman ruled recently that the Governor’s open ended restriction on gatherings was unconstitutional.

The Governor’s legal team filed a motion for a stay of Judge Stickman’s order. That motion was denied this afternoon. What this means is that the Governor’s restrictions are, as of this minute, unconstitutional and should not be enforced in my personal opinion. This decision will be appealed by the Governor to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

That doesn’t mean that the covid risk has gone away, but what it means is that people and businesses have to exercise their own restraint, versus being dictated to by Harrisburg.

More analysis on this to follow.