Author: Brandon Prior

An appellate court recently has found that the creator of a TV show reasonably interpreted a producer’s informal statement “OK, OK, I get it,” as an acceptance of his offer and that an agreement the parties reached was not indefinite as to the categories included in determining net royalties. The case turned on comments made during negotiations by Richard C. Davis, founder of Trademark Properties Inc., a company specializing in buying, remodeling and selling houses for profit. He discussed whether his business could be the fodder for a reality television series with Charlie Nordlander, an A&E Executive.  Their negotiations led the parties to agree to jointly develop and produce the television series “Flip This House.”  The parties agree specifics of their agreement were never written down.  Still, the series pilot and thirteen episodes of Flip This House were filmed.  Then Davis and A&E disputed how to divide the show’s net revenues. And from there sprang a lawsuit.  Davis claimed he and A&E should split all net revenues 50-50; A&E denied it had agreed to the terms claimed by Davis. He filed a state-court action against A&E for breach of oral contract.  A&E got the action moved to federal court. A jury found in Davis’ favor, awarding $4 million in damages for half of all net revenues from the show. A&E appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, contending the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of a...

A longstanding law barring public broadcast television stations from airing paid political or public-issue ads has been deemed unconstitutional by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which, in a 2-1 vote, ruled that prohibition violated the free speech clause of the First Amendment.  The court stated: “Public issue and political speech in particular is at the very core of the First Amendment’s protection … Public issue and political advertisements pose no threat of ‘commercialization.'” The issue was initially raised by Minority Television Project after the FCC  levied a $10,000 fine on the California nonprofit for running paid advertisements from companies such as State Farm Insurance, General Motors and Chevrolet on a San Francisco public television channel. The FCC argued in court that if public broadcasters become dependent on paid ads, they would reduce their educational and public service programming, replacing these with offerings that would draw wider audiences and enhance advertising revenue. But  Judge Carlos Bea, writing for the majority (Minority Television Project Inc v. FCC, Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 09-17311,) replied: “There is no evidence in the record — much less evidence which was in the record before Congress — to support Congress’s specific determination that public issue and political advertisements impact the programming decisions of public broadcast stations to a degree that justifies the comprehensive advertising restriction at issue here.” The appellate court’s April 12 decision left intact the $10,000 fine against the Minority...