For quite some time the paparazzi in California has relied upon the use of drones – which are unmanned, aerial devices that are operated remotely by a user or operator – to capture photographs of celebrities from afar, usually by piloting the unmanned drones over the private property owned by the celebrities to capture the shot. A new California bill aims to provide celebrities with a little more privacy by prohibiting the use of drones over private property, the LATimes reports.

Drone regulation has been a high-popularized issue in the area of technology law lately, especially in California.  Not only have the paparazzi made quite a bit of use out of drones for photography purposes, but others have taken up flying the contraptions to take photos of the wildfires that have been ravaging California.  The drones have even interfered with firefighting efforts in the recent past.  There have also been problems with drones being used to transport contraband into prison environments. However, many civilians enjoy drone manipulation as a hobby, and do not use their drones to break the law.

New Bill Puts Stop to Paparazzi Invasion of Celebrities’ Privacy

The bill, AB 856, deems flying a drone onto the private property of another for the purpose of taking photographs of video to be a physical invasion of privacy that will not be tolerated.  While previous versions of the bill would have made flying a drone within 350 feet over private property without consent a trespassing violation, the final version of the bill, which will be signed by Governor Jerry Brown in the upcoming weeks, is not as extreme.

Trespass is codified in California Penal Code Section 602 et seq. and already covers a variety of very specific trespassing violations.  Adding another trespass provision for the use of drones to take pictures of someone else, particularly a celebrity, would add more provisions to the already jumbled and dense area of trespass crimes.

The governor rejected many earlier versions of the drone bill as they would have created new crimes by adding new trespassing provisions to the law along with new punishments. In addition, making drone flying for photography purposes would unduly place restraints on a burgeoning drone industry. Rather, the new bill sets out to redefine the existing law to better incorporate invasions of privacy committed with a drone camera.

What Are The Existing Laws on Invasion of Privacy?

Invasion of privacy is based in tort law, and in California case law has established four tort actions based on invasion of privacy:

1. Intrusion into private places, conversations or other matters,
2. Public disclosures of private facts,
3. Presentation of a person to the public in a false light, and
4. Appropriation of another’s image or personality.

Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc., 18 Cal.4th 200, 214 (1998). The use of drones to take unauthorized photos of celebrities in their homes and on their personal property would be an intrusion into a private place and under California Civil Code Section 1708.8, a person is liable for physical invasion of privacy when they knowingly enter the land of another person without permission for the purpose of capturing any form of visual image of the person whose privacy is being invaded.

This bill is yet another example of how the law must catch up at times to address the legal implications a new technology presents, and it highlights the importance of obtaining proper legal advisement while navigating the complicated world of technology.

If you are working with a new technology or other product/service and do not yet fully understand the legalities and implications of your venture, it is especially important to retain an experienced business attorney for advisement on how to limit your liability and protect any intellectual property rights.

Recently, Total Recall Technologies, a Hawaii-based company, filed a lawsuit in a California U.S. District Court claiming fraud, breach, and other allegations against Oculus VR Inc. The lawsuit involves reality glasses, a product that has been touted by Oculus VR over the past three years, according to news reports. In 2014, social media giant Facebook purchased Oculus for a reported $2 billion. Now, Total Recall Technologies alleges that patented information from the company was taken by Oculus founder Palmer Luckey during the time he was employed by the company to develop a prototype head-mounted display product.

Luckey signed a confidentiality agreement, according to the complaint which requests punitive and compensatory damages from Oculus. The lawsuit also alleges that Luckey developed the converted information in order to market the Oculus Rift, his own virtual reality headset, violating agreements with Total Recall Technologies. While Luckey may argue that he used his own plans and knowledge in the development of the virtual reality headset, news article say the dispute is quite complex and highly fact-specific, entailing a thorough discovery process in order to learn what Luckey knew and whether he did actually breach or violate any specific provisions in the contracts between the two companies.

Did Luckey develop his product in a way that is different and unique from the products he may have worked on when associated with TRT, based on his own knowledge and plans, or were the agreements of any contracts between the two companies violated? A Reuters article states that Luckey was hired in 2011 by TRT to build a prototype head mounted display; at that time, he signed a confidentiality agreement, however the founder of Oculus is accused of using information he learned from his partnership when launching the Facebook Oculus Rift VR (virtual reality) headset.

Total Recall Technologies is seeking an unspecified amount in compensatory and punitive damages in the lawsuit against Luckey and Oculus.

Strangely, it is a bit curious as to why TRT has waited so long to bring a lawsuit against Oculus VR and Luckey. Perhaps the company decided to go forward at a point when Facebook became the owner of Oculus? A representative for the company says that the case is “meritless,” and that Oculus will be vigorous in its defense against TRT.

The lawsuit claims, according to Polygon, that “Without informing TRT, Luckey took the information he learned from the partnership, as well as the prototype that he built for the TRT using design features and other confidential information and materials supplied by the partnership, and passed it off to others as his own.”

Of the current modern virtual reality headsets, the Oculus Rift is the most widely known according to a Forbes article, and is scheduled to become available in the market during the first quarter of 2016 following a hugely successful Kickstarter campaign that resulted in raising $2.4 million, a drop in the bucket when compared to the $2 billion Facebook invested.

As highly experienced Los Angeles business attorneys and intellectual property attorneys, we understand that working with new technological advances may complicate already complex industries. Yet the huge majority of costly lawsuits and conflicts such as these are avoidable with the help of an experienced legal professional. If you are a former employee or an employer facing similar circumstances, contact Spotora & Associates, PC for the best way to proceed today.

More than two decades after ‘What About Bob’ came out, Richard Dreyfuss is taking Disney to court over what monies may be owed after accountants refused to take a look at Disney’s books to see what may be owed. Dreyfuss has sued Walt Disney Pictures for breach of contract and additional claims after Disney allegedly refused to let Robinson & Company perform an audit for Dreyfuss and the widow of Raymond Wagner, producer of Turner & Hooch.

Why will Disney not allow auditors to review the ledgers related to Turner & Hooch and What About Bob? According to news reports, Robinson & Company is a particularly aggressive and effective auditor who typically recovers large damages for clients, according to a recent article at Deadline Hollywood. The filing, which includes seven filings made by Dreyfuss, claims that Disney is hostile regarding audits in general, and will not allow Robinson & Company, the auditor chosen by Dreyfuss, to audit the film giants’ ledgers; therefore, accounting under the supervision of the court is warranted. According to Dreyfuss, Wagner, and other plaintiffs in the case, Disney does not understand the intricacies involved in Hollywood accounting and only wants to use PricewaterhouseCoopers, Deloitte, KPMG, or Ernst & Young, the largest and most well-known accounting firms in the nation.

The filing claims that historically, motions picture companies abhor having to pay net and gross profit participants significant amounts, and have withheld substantial profits from those participants. Auditing companies who audit the entertainment industry including television and motion picture industries often fine that profit participants are owed monies, which is the reason for profit participation auditors.

Although there is reportedly a three year waiting list to perform an audit on Disney properties, Dreyfuss has apparently decided that he is a large enough talent to attempt to collect what is rightfully his in terms of profits. According to news reports, Turner & Hooch generated $72 million in revenue in the U.S., with What About Bob? generating $64 million in revenues in the U.S. and Canada since its release in May of 1991. In addition to movie theater revenues, international sales and home videos are thought to add up to a substantial amount for the two films in one way or another.

In the end, Dreyfuss and Wagner believe they have an opportunity to explore issues including how net profits are calculated by raising the issues of auditors. The complaint claims that the ‘Big Four’ accounting firms named above have no competence or reputation relevant to auditing such big names as Disney; Robinson, the auditing firm hired by Dreyfuss, is reported to be results-driven, tenacious, and tough.

As reputable LA entertainment attorneys, the staff at Spotora & Associates realize there are many complexities involved when it comes to profit participants and the entertainment world. Auditing is one small nuance of the overall picture, however when you have issues regarding whether monies are being paid out fairly, it is important to choose a Los Angeles business lawyer who is highly experienced and capable in these matters.

As experienced Los Angeles business attorneys we understand the issues franchisees often face in running a franchise.  Recently, a former 7-Eleven executive allegedly blew the whistle on company executives who put him in charge of ‘Operation Take-Back,’ a project that was designed to rid the franchise stores in New Jersey of South Asian and Indian franchisee owners, deemed no longer a part of the company’s vision.

According to a news article at NJ.com, Ian Shehaiber was hired by 7-Eleven as a district manager/field consultant in 2010.  Soon after, he was given a $1,500 cash reward and named 2011 Rookie Field Consultant of the Year.  However, all of that changed when his bosses placed Shehaiber in charge of the project in 2012.

Shehaiber filed suit against 7-Eleven in December in state Superior Court in Middlesex County, thereafter the company requested a change of venue to the U.S. District Court due to federal labor and discrimination law issues.  According to Gerald Marks, Shehaiber’s attorney, the franchise has taken action over the past two years to interrogate, dehumanize, and ridicule Indian franchisees in their effort to retake the 7-Eleven stores and resell them at a profit.

Margaret Chabris, a spokeswoman for 7-Eleven, said in a statement that “The allegations made in this complaint are false.”  She went on in the statement to say that the franchise is dedicated to protecting other franchisees, employees, and guests by terminating the relationship with franchisees who violate the franchise agreement or the law when appropriate, and that “a few” franchisees had been caught in violation of the law and/or their contractual obligations.  Shehaiber’s attorney did not comment on Chabris’ statement.

The lawsuit claims that Shehaiber was instructed to take part in the project in mid 2012, the goal being to identify franchisees who had stolen money from the franchise.  Shehaiber also claims in the suit that meetings regarding the take-back were fueled by aggressive anti-Indian tactics and racial remarks.  He said that he was constantly in fear that he would be terminated if he spoke up; Shehaiber also claims in the lawsuit that due to his Christian faith and his supervisor’s contempt for those who are non-Muslim, he was discriminated against and forced to work in a hostile environment.

Executives at 7-Eleven who were allegedly involved in ‘Operation Take-back’ claimed that franchise owners who were Indian made a habit of attempting to take advantage of others.

It will be interesting to learn how this all turns out, and whether 7-Eleven is able to put the stores in question under corporate control.

Whether you are a franchisor or franchisee, it is important to consult with a Los Angeles business attorney specializing in franchising when problems or issues surface that you are not certain how to deal with.  At Spotora & Associates, our staff has the skill, knowledge, and experience to successfully advise and handle any and all franchise issues.

Recently, Cupertino-based Apple Inc. has been hit with a slew of new patent infringement lawsuits after the company was ordered last week to pay more than $530 million for infringing on the patents of a Texas company, according to an article at the LA Times.

Texas-based Smartflash was awarded $532.9 million by a jury, then filed an additional lawsuit on February 25 alleging that Apple violated the company’s patents in relation to devices that debuted after the original lawsuit was already in court. In the midst of all this, Ericsson, a pioneer in the Swedish mobile phone industry, hit Apple hard when the company filed seven federal lawsuits against Apple in an ongoing patent dispute, along with two complaints filed with the U.S. International Trade commission alleging that Apple had infringed on more than 40 patents in relation to various technologies relevant to iPads and iPhones.

In January of this year, a licensing agreement between Apple and Ericsson regarding royalties to be paid to the Swedish technology company for its mobile technology expired. Since that time, the companies have traded lawsuits, with Apple filing a suit against Ericsson in January regarding a fair rate for the rights to Ericsson’s patents. A spokeswoman for Apple revealed a statement made by Apple saying, “We’ve always been willing to pay a fair price to secure the rights to standards essential patents covering technology in our products. Unfortunately, we have not been able to agree with Ericsson on a fair rate for their patents so, as a last resort, we are asking the courts for help.”

Some of the patents Ericsson is taking legal action against Apple for include 2G, 3G, and 4G/LTE high-speed wireless technology; complaints filed in federal court also indicate Ericsson has taken legal action in regards to GPS technology.

While the initial lawsuit filed by Smartflash against Apple claimed infringement on three patents including devices that use iTunes and iTunes software, the new lawsuit filed by Smartflash LLC accused Apple of continuing to infringe on patents such as those for payment for songs, games, and other data in addition to methods utilized to manage digital rights. Apple denies the allegations, saying that the company manufactures no products, has no presence in the U.S., creates no jobs, and has no employees, and that Smartflash is exploiting Apple’s patent system in order to claim royalties for technology that Apple actually invented.

Spotora & Associates is a skilled team of Los Angeles intellectual property attorneys highly experienced and knowledgeable in the areas of patents, trademarks, copyright, trade secrets, and other areas of Internet law. Contact us today for unsurpassed legal guidance, support, and representation in matters regarding intangible rights.

Recently, a $90 million award against ABM Security was overturned by a California appeals court after the court found that the facts of the case were indisputable. The security company provided security guards with regular rest breaks, and the guards took them. In question was whether it was lawful for the security company to require the guards to leave radios/pagers on during these breaks, in addition to responding to security issues as needed while on break.

Essentially, plaintiffs in the case, which went to trial almost three years ago, claimed that ABM Security was not in compliance with California law because the company required guards to remain “on call” even during rest breaks. Plaintiffs maintained that during rest breaks, they should be relieved of all duties and not be required to respond to security issues, or leave pagers and radios on during these breaks. Following a lengthy court battle, plaintiffs in the case, Augustus v. ABM Security, which included thousands of former and current security guards with the company, were awarded a summary judgment.

The appeals court found that while meal breaks, or breaks that are unpaid, do not require security guards to remain on call, rest breaks do not require that employees are relieved of being on duty, only that security guards are relieved of performing actual work while on rest breaks under state law. The appeals court determined that being on call did not mean that employees perform work, however being available to work was not one and the same as performing actual work. The Court also noted that security guards for ABM engaged in activities such as making personal telephone calls and surfing the Internet while on rest break.

Ultimately, the California appeals court specified that meal breaks required that guards or employees are relieved of all duty in regards to work, while the definition of rest breaks contained no similar language.

What did this mean for employers? The bottom line is that while Department of Labor Standards Enforcement opinions and prior court rulings do not agree in regards to the extent of control employers have over employees during rest breaks, employers are not required to relieve employees of all duties during these breaks, but cannot require that security guards or other employees perform actual work.

As experienced Los Angeles employment lawyers, we realize the issues employers face in regards to employment policies and issues. For unsurpassed legal guidance and support, trust the skilled and dedicated staff at Spotora & Associates.