The
nation
was
transfixed
by
the
December
murder
of
UnitedHealthcare
CEO
Brian
Thompson,
and
the
subsequent
arrest
of
Luigi
Mangione,
which
seemed
to
implicate
the
American
healthcare
system
as
a
motive
for
the
attack.
It
also
spurred
a
ton
of
vitriol
against
the
industry
—
and
UnitedHealthcare
specifically.
Now
the
company
is
fighting
back
against
social
media
posts
it
says
are
inaccurate.
The
company
has
hired
defamation
boutique
law
firm
Clare
Locke,
according
to
reporting
by
Bloomberg
Law.
The
firm
has
already
sent
a
demand
letter
to
a
doctor
that
is
using
her
social
media
platform
to
speak
out
against
the
company.
Dr.
Elisabeth
Potter
posted
on
Instagram
that
UnitedHealth
denied
a
patient’s
post-surgery
stay
saying,
“I
had
to
scrub
out
mid-surgery
to
call
United,
only
to
find
that
the
person
on
the
line
didn’t
even
have
access
to
the
patient’s
full
medical
information,
despite
the
procedure
already
being
pre-approved.”
According
to
Potter’s
legal
team,
they’ll
be
leaning
into
the
truth
as
a
defense:
One
of
Potter’s
attorneys,
Jessica
Underwood,
said
Potter
received
a
Jan.
13
letter
from
Clare
Locke
demanding
that
she
correct
her
posts,
apologize
to
UnitedHealth
and
condemn
threats
of
violence
that
the
law
firm
said
resulted
from
the
posts.
But
Underwood,
of
the
law
firm
Nix
Patterson,
said
Potter’s
statements
about
the
insurer
were
truthful.
“Dr.
Potter
will
not
be
silenced
by
UnitedHealthcare’s
attempts
to
threaten
and
harass
her,”
Underwood
said.
According
to
UnitedHealthcare,
“Dr.
Potter’s
claims
that
she
was
called
out
of
surgery
are
false.
There
are
no
insurance
related
circumstances
that
would
require
a
physician
to
step
out
of
surgery
and
it
would
create
potential
safety
risks
if
they
were
to
do
so.”
This
isn’t
the
first
time
post-Thompson’s
death
that
UnitedHealthcare
has
taken
an
aggressive
legal
stance.
But
even
the
best
lawyering
can’t
stop
the
zeitgeist.
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon
@[email protected].
There
a
bunch
of
administrative
shakeup
going
on
over
at
LSU.
The
most
discussed
aspect
was
when
LSU
managed
to
find
a
judge
that
sided
with
their
decision
to
pull
a
professor
from
class
over
some
lightly
seasoned
language,
but
it
isn’t
the
only
thing.
This
wasn’t
the
best
time
to
get
involved
in
protracted
legal
battles
as
the
school
will
be
on
the
lookout
for
a
new
General
Council
very
soon.
LSU
general
counsel
Winston
DeCuir
stepped
down
from
his
post
last
week,
according
to
a
copy
of
his
resignation
letter
the
Louisiana
Illuminator
obtained
Thursday.
DeCuir
wrote
in
his
letter
to
LSU
Board
of
Supervisors
Chairman
Scott
Ballard
that
his
resignation
will
be
effective
March
1.
He
took
the
job
in
2020
and
was
the
first
Black
attorney
to
serve
as
general
counsel.
DeCuir
will
transition
into
a
one-year
visiting
professorship
at
LSU
Paul
M.
Hebert
Law
School,
according
to
a
faculty
member
present
at
the
meeting
in
which
his
appointment
was
approved.
While
the
resignation
was
handed
in
around
the
time
that
LSU
decided
to
remove
Ken
Levy
from
his
class
over
a
couple
of
F
bombs,
no
clear
causal
relationship
between
the
backlash
and
DeCuir’s
decision
to
jump
ship
has
been
made
public.
And
while
that
may
have
been
the
last
straw,
he
could
just
as
easily
be
in
the
market
for
a
change
of
pace.
Teaching
is
one
hell
of
a
switch-up
from
reviewing
the
schools
contracts
and
providing
legal
advice.
Not
to
mention
that
law
schools
could
use
a
few
extra
hands
on
deck
—
the
boom
in
applications
could
also
signal
an
uptick
in
student
admissions.
Best
of
luck
not
having
to
deal
with
a
cohort
of
students
using
ChatGPT
to
skirt
past
the
work
they
should
be
doing
themselves.
While
it
can
be
conducive
to
a
learning
environment,
we’ve
also
seen
our
fair
share
of
when
keeping
it
AI
goes
wrong.
Enjoy
the
classroom!
And
if
LSU’s
current
legal
shenanigans
are
any
indication
of
how
they’ll
be
acting
in
the
future,
they
could
probably
use
your
legal
advice
a
year
from
now.
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.
Martin—who
riled
up
the
January
6
crowd
with
election
conspiracy
chants—just
signed
off
on
dropping
charges
against
January
6
rioter
Joseph
Padilla.
Padilla’s
defense
lawyer?
ED
MARTIN.
To
the
disappointment
of
the
aforementioned
law
professors,
this
doesn’t
make
for
a
good
exam
question
because
no
one
is
actually
dumb
enough
to
do
this.
And
yet
here
we
are.
In
the
best
of
circumstances,
lawyers
can’t
even
represent
parties
against
former
clients
in
different
cases
for
some
amount
of
time.
Switching
sides
in
the
same
case
is
a
cartoonish
ethical
breach.
Reuters
points
out
that
“Missouri’s
own
state
bar
rules
—
where
Martin
is
licensed
—
require
written
consent
before
any
such
involvement.”
Presumably
Padilla
would’ve
been
all
too
excited
to
agree
to
having
his
defense
lawyer
take
over
the
prosecution.
But
it
doesn’t
even
appear
as
though
Martin
took
this
simple
step.
On
Wednesday,
Martin
sent
an
office-wide
email
seen
by
Reuters
in
which
he
said
he
had
“stopped
all
involvement”
in
the
cases
more
than
a
year
and
a
half
ago,
that
he
had
handled
them
pro
bono,
and
said
he
was
“under
the
impression
that
I
was
off
the
cases.”
He
said
the
U.S.
Attorney’s
career
ethics
lawyer
asked
him
about
the
cases
last
week
and
complained
that
it
“immediately
leaked
to
the
media.”
This
leak,
he
said,
was
both
“personally
insulting”
and
professionally
“unacceptable.”
Yeah,
the
leak
isn’t
really
the
unacceptable
part.
It
doesn’t
matter
if
a
lawyer
thinks
they’re
“off
the
cases.”
They’re
privy
to
a
wealth
of
client
information.
And
while
Martin’s
role
as
U.S.
Attorney
is
letting
violent
criminals
go
if
they’re
on
Trump’s
side,
a
normal
prosecutor
isn’t
in
that
position.
In
the
abstract,
a
prosecutor
armed
with
a
defendant’s
confidential
defense
strategy
is
the
definition
of
a
conflict
of
interest
—
and
that’s
why
we
have
a
rule.
But
it’s
also
amazing
that
he
felt
the
need
to
add
that
it
was
pro
bono
as
though
that
makes
it
a
pretend
conflict
or
something.
And
note
that
he
says
the
ethics
lawyer
asked
him
about
the
case
last
week,
which
would
seem
to
confirm
the
Reuters
reporting
that
Martin
never
sought
advice
from
the
office
ethics
lawyer
in
his
office
before
thinking
he
could
drop
charges
against
his
old
client.
“I
find
it
alarming
that
a
lawyer
who
represented
a
client
in
private
practice
and
who
is
now
a
public
official
would
be
using
the
powers
of
the
new
office
for
the
benefit
of
his
former
private
client,”
said
New
York
University
law
professor
Stephen
Gillers.
Somehow
I
doubt
this
is
the
last
time
Gillers
is
going
to
find
something
alarming
about
the
new
DOJ.
Trump
put
a
conspiracy
theorist
who
represented
January
6
rioters
in
charge
of
the
office
that
prosecuted
January
6
rioters
and
he
fired
all
the
career
prosecutors
who
ran
those
cases
and
apparently
started
dropping
charges
against
his
own
clients.
Theoretically
the
Justice
Department’s
Office
of
Professional
Responsibility
could
hold
him
accountable
for
this.
But
they
won’t
because
there’s
nothing
left
over
there
but
a
pro-Trump
cleanup
crew.
Or
at
least
there
won’t
be
after
Elon
Musk
restaffs
the
whole
department.
Black
History
Month
feels
a
little
different
in
2025.
The
White
House
proclamation
announcing
the
annual
event
described
Black
history
as
a
celebration
of,
specifically,
Frederick
Douglass
and
Harriet
Tubman…
and
Thomas
Sowell
and
Clarence
Thomas.
I’m
sure
Douglass
and
Tubman
would
be
overjoyed
to
find
themselves
lumped
in
with
these
guys.
In
addition
to
these
four,
the
only
other
actual
Black
person
Trump
could
even
think
of
to
name
as
a
representative
of
centuries
of
Black
history
in
America
was
Tiger
Woods
because…
golf.
From
1619
until
today,
this
administration
came
up
with
mostly
guys
who
are
still
alive.
And
by
mostly,
we
mean
literally
3/5ths
of
Trump’s
statement.
But
some
law
firms
are
keeping
the
celebration
alive…
in
the
most
bewildering
way
possible.
Over
on
Reddit,
a
post
explains
how
a
firm
asked
a
minority
attorney
to
speak
at
its
Black
History
Month
event.
There’s
only
one
problem:
Firm
is
putting
together
a
black
history
month
event.
They
want
me
to
speak
at
it..
only
issue
is…
I’m
not
black??
I’m
not
sure
why
they
picked
me
(I
am
a
minority
but
I’m
not
black).
IMO,
I’m
not
the
person
that
should
be
speaking
at
this
event.
Idk
why
they
didn’t
select
a
black
attorney
to
run
the
event.
We
have
a
few
so
it’s
not
like
they
can’t
ask
them.
Some
people
are
just
so
disconnected..
like
I’m
glad
they
are
hosting
an
event
to
go
over
the
history
of
African
Americans..
but
wtf
why
do
yall
want
me
of
all
people
to
speak
on
it???
Just
bc
I’m
a
minority?
Like
who
even
approved
this
😭😭
The
assault
upon
DEI
efforts
both
within
the
government
and
the
private
sector
are
just
opening
moves
in
cultivating
a
legal
regime
to
favor
hostile
work
environments
for
women
and
minorities.
But
there’s
also
an
internal
attack
on
DEI
when
administrators
do
exactly
this
sort
of
thing
that
allows
conservatives
to
mock
DEI
initiatives.
A
genuine
commitment
to
DEI
on
the
occasion
of
Black
History
Month
should
—
at
the
very
least
—
involve
Black
people
instead
of
lumping
minorities
into
a
monolithic
group.
Such
actions
not
only
trivialize
the
distinct
histories
and
cultures
within
minority
groups
but
makes
DEI
look
comically
superficial.
Most
DEI
administrators
are
actually
good
at
their
jobs.
But
this
is
the
sort
of
misconception
that
can
multiply
whenever
one
of
these
projects
goes
awry.
It
doesn’t
take
many
missteps
to
birth
a
narrative.
Sure,
involving
an
outside
speaker
would
beat
having
overworked
attorneys
take
time
out
of
their
billable
day
to
take
on
the
mantle
of
“Mayor
of
Black
People”
for
the
day.
But
no
matter
how
bad
that
may
be,
it’s
not
as
bad
as
asking
the
random
other
minority
kid
to
serve
a
term
as
the
Mayor
because
the
firm
thinks
that’s
close
enough.
And
that’s
the
distinction.
It’s
not
improper
and
indeed
probably
good
to
involve
non-Black
folks
in
these
events.
But
it
matters
what
role
they
have
in
the
event.
It
probably
shouldn’t
be
“the
one
explaining
the
Black
experience.”
This
seems
a
bit
like
a
reverse
engineered
event,
where
the
firm
decided
on
the
format
before
figuring
out
who
would
be
doing
it
and
whether
or
not
the
whole
gathering
should
be
changed
based
on
who’s
available.
Effective
planning
will
require
flexibility
to
develop
the
curriculum
around
the
voices
interested
in
participating.
This
is
a
precarious
time
for
diversity
and
if
firms
want
to
make
it
to
the
other
side
of
this
administration,
they’re
going
to
have
to
make
sure
these
issues
carry
more
than
symbolic
value.
And
alienating
both
Black
and
non-Black
minorities
over
a
holiday
presentation
is
the
sort
of
thing
that
does
more
harm
than
good.
[Mitch]
McConnell
was
very
good
at
building
a
federal
judiciary
by
and
for
conservative
white
men.
His
twin
priorities
were
confirming
as
many
Republican
judges
as
possible,
and
blocking
as
many
Democratic
appointees
as
possible.
—
Madiba
Dennie,
writing
at
Balls
and
Strikes,
about
the
legacy
of
Senator
Mitch
McConnell,
the
Republican
leader
in
the
chamber
for
a
record
18
years.
In
a
recent
interview
McConnell,
who
famously
kept
the
late
Antonin
Scalia’s
Supreme
Court
seat
open
for
over
a
year
to
prevent
Barack
Obama
from
appointing
his
replacement,
defended
his
brazen
tactics,
saying
he
didn’t
“break
any
rules,”
and
there
was
“nothing
unconstitutional
about
it.”
Despite
the
current
state
of
the
Supreme
Court’s
ethical
quagmire,
the
mere
appearance
of
impropriety
or
lack
of
impartiality
is
a
real
problem
for
the
judiciary.
So
maybe
Petersburgh,
New
York
Town
Court
Justice
Richard
T.
Snyder
is
(or
more
accurately
*was*)
a
fair
and
impartial
jurist,
but
once
he
used
the
excuse
that
all
defendants
appearing
in
court
“did
something
wrong”
in
order
to
get
out
of
jury
duty,
well,
he
had
to
go.
As
reported
by
Law.com,
Snyder,
a
non-attorney
judge,
resigned
from
the
bench
after
10
years
of
service
on
December
31
and
agreed
to
never
seek
reelection.
His
jury
duty
excuse
led
to
an
investigation
by
the
New
York
State
Commission
on
Judicial
Conduct.
The
Commission
said
that,
had
Snyder
not
resigned,
he
should
have
been
disciplined
for
cause,
as
his
actions
“undermined
the
independence,
integrity
and
impartiality
of
the
judiciary,
and
otherwise
demonstrated
his
unfitness
for
judicial
office.”
Snyder
reportedly
stood
by
his
comments
even
after
the
investigation
into
his
comments
began:
The
incident
occurred
in
October
2023.
Snyder
had
introduced
himself
as
a
town
judge
to
the
presiding
jurist,
state
Supreme
Court
Justice
Laura
M.
Jordan.
He
advised
Jordan
that
he
could
not
serve
as
a
grand
juror
because
he
believes
anyone
who
comes
before
him
is
guilty
and
therefore
he
couldn’t
be
impartial.
Jordan
excused
Snyder,
but
on
July
16,
Snyder
was
summoned
to
the
misconduct
watchdog’s
Albany
office
to
testify
in
connection
with
its
investigation.
The
commission
said
he
demonstrated
bias
by
repeatedly
stating
his
belief
that
all
defendants
who
appear
before
him
“did
something
wrong,”
even
if
they
are
presumed
innocent
until
they
“come
to
court.”
He
cited
as
examples
motorists
accused
of
speeding,
or
defendants
who
broke
into
somebody’s
house
or
committed
a
crime.
Well,
it
sure
seems
like
Snyder
doesn’t
believe
that
whole
innocent-until-proven-guilty
thing
our
entire
justice
system
is
based
on.
Commission
counsel
and
administrator
Robert
Tembeckjian
noted
how
wildly
out
of
line
Snyder’s
behavior
was,
saying,
“It
is
bad
enough
that
a
judge
would
seek
to
avoid
such
a
fundamental
civic
responsibility
as
jury
service.
It
is
astounding
that
the
judge
would
claim
an
inability
to
be
impartial,
and
to
declare
under
oath
that
the
accused
must
be
guilty
or
they
would
not
be
in
court.
There
is
no
place
on
the
bench
for
someone
who
so
deeply
misunderstands
the
role
of
a
judge
and
the
administration
of
justice.”
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon
@[email protected].
Never
before
have
borders
been
blurrier.
Goods,
services,
and,
relevant
here,
art
freely
circumnavigate
the
globe
with
little
regard
for
where
one
nation
ends
and
another
begins.
When
I
listen
to
a
song
in
my
office
in
New
York
City,
the
singer
may
be
Italian
and
the
producer
may
be
Colombian
and
the
song
may
be
streaming
via
a
Swedish
platform.
That
song
recording,
though,
has
a
single
copyright,
one
that
attaches
as
soon
as
it
is
created.
Yet
courts
applying
Sections
203
and
304
of
the
Copyright
Act
to
such
songs
have
heretofore
foregrounded
national
borders
to
create
a
sprawling
multiverse
where
one
song
recording
has
as
many
copyrights
as
there
are
countries
in
the
world.
Sort
of
like
“Interstellar,”
but
for
copyrights.
We
may,
however,
be
shuffling
toward
clarity
with
a
new
ruling
out
of
Louisiana
in
the
case
styled
Vetter
v.
Resnick.
Sections
203
and
304
of
the
U.S.
Copyright
Act
relate
to
the
termination
right,
which
was
written
into
the
Copyright
Act
to
allow
artists,
who
often
receive
unfavorable
terms
when
they
first
transfer
the
copyrights
in
their
artwork,
to
recover
those
copyrights
once
35
years
have
passed
and
the
initial
recipient
has
had
the
opportunity
over
those
three-and-a-half
decades
to
exploit
the
copyrights
to
their
heart’s
and
wallet’s
content.
Cyrvil
Vetter
is
an
artist.
He
and
a
co-author
created
a
song
entitled
“Double
Shot
(Of
My
Baby’s
Love)”
that
rocked
so
hard
that
no
less
an
authority
than
Bruce
Springsteen
extolled
it
as
one
of
greatest
tunes
of
all
time.
Vetter
transferred
his
worldwide
rights
in
“Double
Shot”
to
his
label
and
those
rights
eventually
ended
up
owned
by
a
company
named
Resnik
Music
Group
(RMG).
Vetter,
35
years
after
his
transfer,
exercised
his
termination
right
to
recapture
the
“Double
Shot”
copyrights.
RMG,
though,
fought
the
notice,
claiming
among
other
things
that
the
termination
would
apply
only
to
the
U.S.
copyright.
In
other
words,
RMG
would
concede
the
domestic
portion
of
the
“Double
Shot”
copyright
but
claimed
that
it
also
had
a
massive
number
of
discrete
“Double
Shot’
copyrights
that
arose
under
the
law
of
every
non-U.S.
country
in
the
world
and
those
rights
were
not
subject
to
Vetter’s
termination
notice.
Notably,
Vetter
entered
into
a
single
“worldwide”
transfer
of
the
“Double
Shot”
copyright.
Once
that
transfer
was
terminated,
the
single
copyright
returned
to
Vetter.
But
RMG
argued
that
despite
“worldwide”
transfer’s
termination
only
the
U.S.
copyright
returned
to
Vetter.
RMG
claimed
that
it
thus
maintained
ownership
of
the
Brazilian
copyright,
the
Danish
copyright,
the
Estonian
copyright,
and
so
on,
despite
there
not
being
any
copyrights
other
than
the
one
that
came
into
being
when
Vetter
created
the
song
in
the
U.S.
RMG
was
attempting
to
exploit
the
“principle
of
territoriality,”
which
holds
that
copyright
laws
generally
do
not
have
extraterritorial
application.
This
principle
was
historically
applied
to
acts
of
purely
extraterritorial
copyright
infringement,
which
are
generally
not
actionable
under
the
U.S.
Copyright
Act.
For
example,
if
an
infringer
sold
without
your
consent
hoodies
bearing
your
original
surfing
llama
artwork
in
Portugal,
you
would
have
to
sue
them
in
Lisbon
because
those
acts
are
beyond
the
U.S.
Copyright
Act’s
purview
But
Vetter’s
copyright
case
addressed
not
infringement
but
ownership.
Courts
regularly
embrace
different
approaches
to
these
two
types
of
copyright
cases,
such
as
when
applying
the
statute
of
limitations.
The
Second
Circuit
recognized
this
in
Itar-Tass
Russian
News
Agency
v.
Russian
Kurier,
Inc.,
explaining
that
“the
nature
of
a
copyright
interest
is
an
issue
distinct
from
the
issue
of
whether
the
copyright
has
been
infringed.”
The
law
is
relatively
settled
that
issues
of
copyright
ownership
are
decided
by
the
laws
of
the
country
in
which
the
work
was
created.
Vetter
brought
an
ownership
case
for
a
work
that
he
created
and
owned
in
the
U.S.
and
the
rights
for
which
he
recaptured
in
the
U.S.
Vetter
thus
enjoyed
one
copyright
in
the
“Double
Shot”
recording
under
U.S.
law
and
that
copyright
was
recognized
in
other
countries
around
the
world
per
the
terms
of
the
international
treaty
known
as
the
Berne
Convention.
Members
of
Berne,
which
include
many
of
the
world’s
largest
markets,
must
treat
authors
from
other
member
countries
as
well
as
they
treat
their
own
so
if
an
author
terminates
a
transfer
to
recapture
ownership
under
U.S.
law,
that
ownership
must
be
recognized
by
all
Berne
countries.
Vetter’s
ownership
right,
arising
as
it
did
under
U.S.
law,
must
thus
be
recognized
by
other
Berne
nations.
RMG
argued
otherwise,
relying
on
language
in
Section
304(c)(6)(E)
of
the
Copyright
Act
that
says
that
“[t]ermination
of
a
grant
under
this
subsection
affects
only
those
rights
covered
by
the
grant
that
arise
under
this
title”
and
do
not
apply
to
“rights
arising
under
any
other
Federal,
State,
or
foreign
laws.”
This
language,
coupled
with
the
“principle
of
territoriality”
meant,
per
RMG,
that
there
is
a
universe
of
separate
copyrights,
each
living
its
own
life
in
each
country
around
the
world,
and
as
such
must
be
treated
individually.
But
the
domestic
rights
and
foreign
rights
in
“Double
Shot”
“arise
under”
the
Copyright
Act,
at
least
in
Berne
countries,
because
Vetter
created
and
reclaimed
ownership
of
the
copyright
in
the
U.S.
and
that
ownership
must,
per
Berne,
be
recognized
by
those
foreign
nations.
Indeed,
one
of
the
driving
forces
behind
Berne
was
to
avoid
a
system
where
each
foreign
nation
would
be
forced
to
separately
address
and
apply
its
laws
to
a
copyright.
RMG
further
averred
that
the
Copyright
Act’s
effect
hit
a
hard
stop
at
the
U.S.
borders
and
thus
had
no
application
anywhere
else
in
the
world.
But
the
Supreme
Court
had
already
addressed
and
rejected
such
a
contention
in
Kirtsaeng
v.
John
Wiley
&
Sons,
Inc.,
where
it
considered
whether
the
words
“lawfully
made
under
this
title”
in
the
Copyright
Act
included
a
geographic
restriction.
It
found
it
did
not,
ruling
that
the
phrase
“lawfully
made
under
this
title”
means
made
“in
accordance
with”
or
“in
compliance
with”
the
Copyright
Act.
The
language
reviewed
in
Kirtsaeng,
like
the
language
in
Vetter,
includes
“nothing
about
geography.”
And
as
in
Kirtsaeng,
it
would
be
improper
to
inject
a
geographic
restriction
into
Sections
203
and
304.
Vetter’s
copyright
ownership
rights
“arose”
under
the
Copyright
Act
because
he
created
the
work
in
the
U.S.
and
his
reclaimed
ownership
is
not
subject
to
any
geographic
restriction.
The
Supreme
Court
also
addressed
the
termination
right
in
Stewart
v.
Abend
and
that
time
too
did
not
set
out
any
geographic
restriction
on
the
artist’s
ability
to
reclaim
their
rights.
Considering
the
holder
of
a
transferred
right
that
was
terminated,
the
Court
concludes
that
“the
assignee
of
all
of
the
renewal
rights
holds
nothing
upon
the
death
of
the
assignor
before
arrival
of
the
renewal
period.”
The
Court
did
not
say
the
assignee
“holds
exclusive
rights
in
all
countries
other
than
the
United
States,”
the
Court
said
that
the
assignee
holds
“nothing.”
In
the
end,
the
Vetter
court
adroitly
found
there
to
be
one
copyright,
granted
by
the
country
in
which
the
work
was
created,
and
which
must
be
recognized
by
the
international
community
pursuant
to
treaty
obligations.
This
result
furthers
the
intent
of
Sections
203
and
304,
which
is
to
allow
artists
to
fully
recapture
their
rights.
There
will
likely
be
an
appeal,
as
record
labels
never
relinquish
rights
without
throwing
up
every
possible
obstacle,
but
this
a
very
positive
first
step
for
artists
everywhere.
Scott
Alan
Burroughs,
Esq.
practices
with Doniger
/
Burroughs,
an
art
law
firm
based
in
Venice,
California.
He
represents
artists
and
content
creators
of
all
stripes
and
writes
and
speaks
regularly
on
copyright
issues.
He
can
be
reached
at [email protected],
and
you
can
follow
his
law
firm
on
Instagram: @veniceartlaw.
The
MAGA-world
“Kraken”
lawyer
Sidney
Powell
will
not
face
any
discipline
from
the
Texas
Board
of
Disciplinary
Appeals.
Yes,
she
pleaded
guilty
to
to six
misdemeanor
counts of
conspiracy
to
commit
intentional
interference
with
performance
of
election
duties.
But
the
Texas
Board
of
Disciplinary
Appeals
confirmed
they
dismissed
the
motion
for
compulsory
discipline
brought
by
the
state’s
Commission
for
Lawyer
Discipline
in
June,
after
Powell’s
guilty
plea.
The
compulsory
discipline
action
happens
when
a
member
of
the
bar
has
been
convicted,
pleads
no
contest
or
has
been
put
on
probation
for
a
“serious
or
intentional
crime.”
As
reported
by
Law
360:
The
commission
argued
in
its
June
petition
that
Powell’s
offenses
qualified
as
both
intentional
and
serious
crimes
under
the
Texas
Rules
of
Disciplinary
Procedure.
Under
the
rules,
intentional
crimes
include
any
serious
crime
that
requires
“proof
of
knowledge
or
intent,”
while
serious
crimes
include
barratry,
misdemeanor
theft
or
embezzlement,
and
“any
felony
involving
moral
turpitude.”
But
Powell’s
team
pointed
to
the
fact
that,
according
to
the
plea
agreement,
the
misdemeanor
counts
“are
not
crimes
of
moral
turpitude.”
Something
Above
the
Law’s
own
Liz
Dye
pointed
to
back
in
2023
as
Powell’s
get-out-of-sanctions
card.
Powell’s
attorney, Robert
H.
Holmes,
said
of
the
dismissal,
“hopefully
the
lawfare
of
the Texas
Bar against
Ms.
Powell
has
ended.” Which,
seems
like
aggressive
posturing
given
the
varied
legal
issues
his
client
has
found
herself
in.
But
also
exactly
on-brand
for
the
Trump
II
reign.
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon
@[email protected].
With
its
recent
launch
of
CounselLink+™,
LexisNexis
has
provided
a
highly
comprehensive
tool
to
streamline
your
law
department’s
entire
workflow.
The
“+”
in
“CounselLink+”
refers
to
integration
—
users
of
the
system
now
have
access
to
all
of
their
organization’s
customizable
tech
stack,
as
well
as
all
of
the
additional
Lexis
products
they
subscribe
to,
with
one
password.
Perhaps
the
biggest
“+”
of
the
new
additions,
however,
is
the
full
integration
of
Lexis’
contract
lifecycle
management
system
into
CounselLink’s
Enterprise
Legal
Management
solution.
Before
CounselLink+,
the
system’s
CLM
component
was
a
loose
integration
—
it
linked
out
to
the
Parley
Pro
CLM
system,
and
then
to
its
successor,
CounselLink
CLM.
Now,
contracts
are
directly
integrated
into
the
matters
CounselLink
manages,
creating
one
unified
system
for
all
aspects
of
your
law
department’s
operations
—
from
work
intake
to
bill
review
to
performance
tracking.
We
recently
explored
some
new
capabilities
surrounding
work
intake,
matter
management,
integration
with
Microsoft
products,
and
other
areas
in
a
previous
article.
If
you’re
curious
about
this
product
and
would
like
to
book
a
demo,
you
can
do
so
here.
Feel
free
to
read
on
for
an
overview
of
the
CLM
and
data
reporting
features
of
CounselLink+.
Starting
Out
To
begin,
the
CLM
system
populates
a
legacy
dashboard
that
includes
every
contract
in
the
system,
divided
by
executed
contracts
and
in-progress
contracts.
If
you
drill
down
on
the
in-progress
contracts,
you’ll
find
numerous
metrics.
These
include
how
long
they’re
taking
to
negotiate,
where
they
are
in
the
process,
which
ones
involve
which
companies,
and
which
ones
are
most
active.
The
executed
contracts
dashboard,
meanwhile,
keeps
up
with
all
of
the
milestones
in
these
documents.
For
example,
a
“renewals
approaching”
section
will
show
how
far
off
all
of
the
renewals
are
and
flag
approaching
deadlines.
Users
can
then
drill
down
into
specific
executed
contracts,
and
CounselLink+
will
track
numerous
data
points.
For
example,
in
this
near-expiring
sample
contract,
the
system
shows
which
stakeholders
will
be
getting
automated
emails
about
upcoming
renewals.
Negotiating
Online
Without
a
cutting-edge
CLM
system,
negotiations
will
typically
involve
the
cumbersome
process
of
sending
a
Microsoft
Word
draft
of
a
contract
to
a
counterparty.
You
would
then
need
to
receive
a
redline
from
your
counterparty,
reconcile
various
versions,
send
back
your
revisions,
and
repeat
the
process
until
you
can
agree
to
a
final
version.
Now,
you
can
simply
invite
counterparties
into
the
same
system,
and
you
can
collaborate
on
changes
in
real
time.
(CounselLink+
does
also
support
the
traditional
redline
method.)
A
click
on
the
“in-progress”
contracts
tab
will
provide
an
overview
of
all
of
these
files,
including
which
ones
are
being
negotiated
as
redline
Word
docs
and
which
are
being
negotiated
through
the
online
system.
For
contracts
negotiated
through
its
system,
CounselLink+
provides
an
intuitive
interface
and
comprehensive
audit
trail,
saving
the
time
and
confusion
that
can
result
from
the
traditional
redline
process.
If
you
open
a
file
for
a
contract
being
negotiated
online,
you
are
taken
to
a
view
of
the
current
version
of
the
contract,
with
conversation
markers
that
appear
anywhere
any
text
has
changed
at
any
time
in
the
negotiation
process.
An
audit
trail
is
available
to
show
all
revisions
and
who
made
them.
If
you
want
to
find
out
who
is
responsible
for
specific
language
in
a
three-year-old
contract,
you
can
access
the
full
trail
with
the
click
of
a
button.
There’s
no
longer
a
need
for
the
time
consuming
task
of
hunting
down
several
versions
of
the
document
and
then
comparing
them
to
figure
out
what
happened.
The
platform
also
integrates
with
the
major
online
contract
execution
platforms.
It
can
also
integrate
with
Salesforce,
allowing
the
sales
team
to
directly
initiate
contracts
from
templates
in
the
system.
Custom
Powered
Templates
As
with
just
about
any
CLM
system,
the
organization
can
upload
its
various
contract
templates
and
store
them
there.
But
CounselLink+
brings
a
new
wrinkle.
It
incorporates
Lexis’
Practical
Guidance
—
a
proprietary
legal
AI
tool
that
provides
practice
notes,
contract
templates,
and
other
data-driven
guidance
to
subscribers.
This
means
that
if
you
need
a
custom
template
for,
say,
a
certain
type
of
lease
agreement,
you
can
use
Practical
Guidance
to
create
one
and
pull
it
directly
into
your
system.
A
CounselLink+
subscription
includes
Practical
Guidance
access
in
its
contracts
tool,
regardless
of
whether
the
organization
otherwise
subscribes
to
Practical
Guidance.
Tracking
Your
Data
While
the
integrated
CounselLink+
system
will
track
unprecedented
amounts
of
data
across
department
functions,
its
reporting
system
will
allow
you
to
leverage
it
efficiently
for
your
business
and
legal
needs.
The
system
is
organized
into
matters,
which
can
all
be
accessed
in
one
screen.
You
can
generate
lists
through
customizable
filters.
Need
to
compile
all
of
your
current
litigation
matters
for
a
company
meeting?
You
can
export
these
into
a
spreadsheet,
and
share
over
email,
with
a
few
clicks
within
the
system.
For
more
in-depth
data
analysis,
the
system
contains
an
embedded
business
intelligence
tool
leveraging
all
the
data
in
CounselLink,
populated
with
roughly
80
different
reports.
Many
CounselLink+
users
customize
their
reports,
leveraging
these
templates
to
track
the
ideal
metrics
for
their
organization.
If
you’re
using
a
separate
business
intelligence
tool,
the
data
can
be
exported
from
CounselLink
using
an
API.
CounselLink+
also
leverages
this
data
into
high-level
interactive
dashboards.
These
are
set
up
upon
purchase
of
the
system,
but
they
can
easily
be
customized
to
your
organization’s
needs.
The
result
is
one
place
where
your
lawyers
and
legal
operations
professionals
can
access
a
tremendous
amount
of
organizationwide
data
—
matter
intake,
contracts,
invoice
review,
tasks
in
progress,
vendor
performance,
and
more.
One
popular
feature
is
the
benchmarking
dashboards,
which
allow
you
to
compare
your
organization’s
metrics
with
CounselLink’s
benchmarks.
Users
that
opt
to
allow
their
data
to
be
used
will
have
access
to
the
benchmarking
system.
(All
data
is
anonymized.)
Need
to
know
the
going
rate
for
a
Biglaw
partner
or
associate
in
Chicago?
CounselLink+
can
provide
you
with
this
type
of
information.
The
filters
allow
a
level
of
granularity
that
can
provide
meaningful
comparisons
for
just
about
any
firm.
CounselLink+
subscribers
receive
access
to
this
tool
at
no
additional
cost.
See
for
Yourself
An
article
like
this
can
only
scratch
the
surface
of
the
capabilities
of
a
program
like
CounselLink+.
If
you’re
curious
about
this
product
and
would
like
to
book
a
demo,
you
can
do
so
here.
Several
attended
a
ROHR
meeting
ahead
of
the
Vigil.
Thanks
to
those
who
came
today:
Dickson
Chikwizo,
Shepherd
Gandanga,
Delice
Gavazah,
Jonathan
Kariwo.
Chido
Makawa,
Heather
Makawa
Chitate,
Chantelle
Manyande,
Philip
Maponga,
Patricia
Masamba,
Chido
Mazadza,
Mellisa
Mbavarira,
Ephraim
Tapa
and
Boniface,
Zengeni.
Photos:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/zimbabwevigil/albums/72177720323543371.
With
the
ZANUPF
2030
agenda
gathering
steam
and
its
movers
becoming
more
brazen
and
shameless
by
the
day,
Vigil
activists
met
this
Saturday
under
the
theme
‘NO
to
ZANU
PF’S
2030
agenda’
and
‘YES
to
CONSTITUTIONALISM’. Events
in
Zimbabwe
this
week
could
never
have
been
clearer
that
ZANUPF’S
evil
intentions
are
to
butcher
the
country’s
constitution
for
the
love
of
power
and
continued
looting.
Mnangagwa’s
cronies
and
his
family
seem
determined to
cling
on
power
to
further
enrich
seamless
pockets
and
in
the
process,
create
the
possibility
of
the
Mnangagwa
dynasty. Vigil
activists
noted
with
consternation
that
Zimbabwe
will
be
inching
closer
to
the
Mnangagwa
dynasty
with
every
day
that
passes
beyond
the
2028
term
expiry
of
Parliament
and
President.
Shepherd
Gandanga
was
non-apologetic,
roundly
slamming
the
idea,
with
Dickson
Chikwizo
agreeing
that
ZANUPF
and
Mnangagwa
must
be
stopped. Mellisa
Mbavarira
wondered
why
the
opposition
movement
could
not
trade
in
their
narrow
selfish
agendas
and
unite
to
fight
the
ZANU
PF
scourge. ‘We
need
leadership
and
the
Restoration
of
Human
Rights
(ROHR)
must
step
up
its
leadership
on
the
ground
in
Zimbabwe’,
said
Chido
Makawa.
Earlier,
during
the
monthly
ROHR
face
to
face-to-face
meeting,
a
resolution
was
made
calling
upon
ROHR
to
bring
the
civil
society
movement
together
and
help
build
a
democratic
alternative
if
ZANU
PF
was
to
be
stopped
in
its
tracks. Members
also
agreed
not
to
outsource
the
democratic
struggle
to
war
veteran
organisations
who
have
been
vocal
lately
arguing,
though
helpful,
they
remain
part
of
ZANU
PF,
which
is
devil
in
the
room.
Next
Vigil
meeting
outside
the
Zimbabwe
Embassy. Saturday
15th February
from
2
–
5
pm.
We
meet
on
the
first
and
third
Saturdays
of
every
month.
On
other
Saturdays
the
virtual
Vigil
will
run.
The
Restoration
of
Human
Rights
in
Zimbabwe
(ROHR) is
the
Vigil’s
partner
organisation
based
in
Zimbabwe.
ROHR
grew
out
of
the
need
for
the
Vigil
to
have
an
organisation
on
the
ground
in
Zimbabwe
which
reflected
the
Vigil’s
mission
statement
in
a
practical
way.
ROHR
in
the
UK
actively
fundraises
through
membership
subscriptions,
events,
sales
etc
to
support
the
activities
of
ROHR
in
Zimbabwe.
The
Vigil’s
book
‘Zimbabwe
Emergency’ is
based
on
our
weekly
diaries.
It
records
how
events
in
Zimbabwe
have
unfolded
as
seen
by
the
diaspora
in
the
UK.
It
chronicles
the
economic
disintegration,
violence,
growing
oppression
and
political
manoeuvring
–
and
the
tragic
human
cost
involved. It
is
available
at
the
Vigil.
All
proceeds
go
to
the
Vigil
and
our
sister
organisation
the
Restoration
of
Human
Rights
in
Zimbabwe’s
work
in
Zimbabwe.
The
book
is
also
available
from
Amazon.
The
Vigil,
outside
the
Zimbabwe
Embassy,
429
Strand,
London
meets
regularly
on
Saturdays
from
14.00
to
17.00
to
protest
against
gross
violations
of
human
rights
in
Zimbabwe.
The
Vigil
which started
in
October
2002
will
continue
until
internationally-monitored,
free
and
fair
elections
are
held
in
Zimbabwe.
Kathryn
Kathryn
