Well, there is a perfectly good explanation why you don’t know what movie we are referring to. The movie “Battleship” has been released in countries around the world,with the exception of the U.S. It is not scheduled to be released in the U.S. until later this month.

What is interesting about this movie is the fact that (1) the movie stars Rihanna who is known internationally as a performer but not an actor and (2) the movie has made more than $170 Million around the world but has yet to be released in the United States.

The movie cost over $100 Million to make, but reports have indicated that it has already made up to $170 Million,which is money in the bank for Universal Pictures. Many critics have complained that most of the movie is filled with cheesy lines and explosions and have given the movie bad reviews.

Nevertheless, the movie seems to be doing well in other countries, despite the horrible reviews it has received from industry critics. What is clear is that Universal Pictures’ strategy has paid off: release the movie across the world, make some money, and then and only then release in the United States. Thanks to Universal Pictures’ executives’ clever strategy, “Battleship” will not be considered a flip like the recently failed movie “John Carter.”

It all began when a debt collector employed by a nationwide collection company called Reliant Financial Associates (“RFA”), with offices in Orange County, California,  left her a voice mail message that seemed to indicate that she may lose her home if she didn’t pay on a debt. The voice mail stated:

“I’m calling in regards to a preliminary asset liability investigation. They are in the process of serving some court documents in regards to case 29369… They have some information now pending questions at the property,… Springdale Avenue, in Wheeling, West Virginia. It is in your best interests to contact the department. You are required to contact 866.764.9779.”

Ms. Mey immediately sent RFA a cease and desist letter in which she informed the company that she had no debt and to cease contacting her. Since Ms. Mey sent the letter via certified mail, post office records show when RFA signed for the letter. Exactly 23 minutes after RFA received Ms. Mey’s cease and desist letter, she began receiving crank calls which her caller ID identified as local government phone numbers. When Ms. Mey called the numbers listed on her Caller ID back, she got her local sheriff’s department and was informed that no one at the sheriff’s department was trying to reach her.

Only a few days later, she began to receive harassing phone calls during which she was called vulgar names and threatened with violence. Ms. Mey taped the caller making these threats and immediately called 911 to report the incident.

For those of you who have ever received a call from a collection company, you know the drill. They make it sound like they will walk right up to your house, take away your furniture, your car, or even your house.

For those of you that have spoken with a lawyer or have done some research on your own, you know that debt collectors actually need to serve you with a summons and complaint and go through the legal process to get a judgment against you. And even when they get a judgment against you, they still need to go through the process of collecting against you which requires them to locate you, your assets, and the proper procedures to collect through the sheriff’s department. There is no way the debt collectors can simply walk up to your home and take your things.

Last May, Ms. Mey filed a lawsuit against RFA for harassment and illegal collection practices. RFA failed to attend trial, and Ms. Mey testified on the stand regarding RFA’s actions. The Court found RFA’s actions to be “malicious” and awarded Ms. Mey the largest judgment against a debt collector ever: $10,860,000.

Although Ms. Mey may never collect on this judgment since it is against a corporation and corporations can easily find ways to avoid paying on judgments and often have no assets, the message is loud and clear: Courts will not allow debt collectors to engage in such extreme and outrageous conduct.

Teller had attempted to prevent Dogge, whose stage name is Gerard Barkardy, from releasing the methods of the illusion. Dogge has performed the trick on YouTube and has threatened to make the secrets of the trick public. According to Teller, his attempts to settle the matter were unsuccessful. Reportedly, Teller offered to pay Dogge not to reveal the secret of the trick, however Dogge wanted more money.

Illusion can be protected by copyright law. This can be done by fixing the trick “in a tangible medium of expression from which the work can be performed”. Such as a recording of the trick or a written explanation of the trick. This is referred to as “Pantomime” in copyright law. According to the complaint, Teller states that he has performed the trick thousands of times and that the trick is considered one of his most iconic illusions.

Lawsuits between magicians have occurred before. David Copperfield sued magician and author Hebert Becker in order to prevent Becker from revealing secrets of his illusions. Copperfield was unsuccessful in preventing the publishing of the book; however, when the book did hit the shelves it did not contain explanations of any of Copperfield’s tricks.

For more information on the lawsuit see Teller v. Dogge, U.S. District Court, District of Nevada, No. 12-00591.

ICM claims that they gained salary increases and bonuses for Pauly D, as well as negotiated options for the third, fourth, fifth and sixth seasons of the show. According to the complaint, Pauly D discharged ICM in May of 2011. Summarizing the complaint, ICM believes that they are entitled to payment for salary and bonuses that they negotiated as well as compensation for the seasons they negotiated the options for. ICM estimates the amount to be above $370,000 depending on bonuses received from MTV as well as profits from merchandising.

One of the more interesting aspects of the suit is that ICM lays out exactly what Pauly D was making on the show. According to the complaint, Pauly D is set to make $175,000 per episode for the twelve episode season. That does not include any bonuses paid to Pauly D or any pay for reunion or after shows which could drive his compensation higher. Pauly D’s lawyer told The Hollywood Reporter “We are surprised by ICM’s contention that it is due commissions after ICM was terminated in favor of William Morris Endeavor. ICM was paid for its services. It is even more disappointing that an agency like ICM would choose to take advantage of its former relationship with a client and disclose his confidential business affairs to the public in disregard of any duties it owes as a talent agency”.

Nomination of a guardian of the person should be made because it avoids intra-family disputes. A number of factors must be considered. The guardian typically should be someone who the child has had close and regular contact. The death of a parents or parents is a traumatic event and someone the child already has a close relationship with could help to provide stability. Another crucial factor is age of the guardian. The guardian will be legally responsible for raising the child up until the age of 18. The calculation should involve considering the age of the guardian and then adding the number of years when the child will reach the age of majority. A grandparent who is 65 and a minor who is 3, means that the child will be in that persons custody until the age 80. This situation would be less worrisome if the minor child was 15 and would only live with the grandparent for three years.

Many parents chose to name a guardian who is around the same age as the parents, typically married and perhaps even with children of their own. However, there can be many issues in this situation. First, do the guardians have the financial ability to raise another child or children? What is the state of the guardian’s marriage? These questions are often hard to answer. Things are not always as they appear, and one could imagine the awkwardness of even broaching the above mentioned issues. Further, if a guardian has children the money distributed to the minor child from the trust could breed resentment from the other children. Not all situations can be completely avoided however, a good estate plan that includes a designation of a guardian for a minor should at least consider theses possibilities and try to minimize their effects. Whomever is named as a guardian, the parents must continually reevaluate their choice because some considerations may change. People get divorced, people move, and relationships change.

The ad in the middle of all this controversy is one where a man is smiling and holding a woman who looks upset with the following words depicted in the ad “Unlike some people, Belvedere always goes down smoothly.” The premise of the ad of course being the woman refusing to “go down smoothly” and consent to whatever it is the male in the ad has in mind – not exactly a subtle ad.

In either event, Ms. Packard is now coming forward to say that she is the woman in the ad and she did not consent to Belvedere Vodka’s use of her photo. Ms. Packard’s complaint lists causes of action for (1) Violation of California Civil Code Sec. 3344 (Unauthorized Use of Another’s Photograph and Likeness for Advertising); (2) Common Law Misappropriation of Likeness; and (3) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.

California Civil Code Section 3344 prohibits the intentional use of another’s “name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person’s prior consent.” The common law misappropriation of likeness is broader than the California statute and basically prohibits use of the plaintiff’s identity (not just name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness), does not require proof that the use was “knowing,” and does not have to be directly connected with advertising or sales.

In her lawsuit, Ms. Packard makes clear that Belvedere Vodka has “yet to apologize to [Ms. Packard] , whose image she says was used without permission to sell vodka, and who has now been unwillingly made the face of the Belvedere advertising campaign that jokes about rape, and has been put front and center in the worldwide controversy.”

Ms. Packard claims that she has “suffered injuries to her reputation and her ability to market herself in the entertainment industry, and suffered tremendous anxiety and distress, fearing the effect of this unauthorized marketing and subsequent media firestorm on both her professional and personal lives.”

First, the recipients of your will or living trust typically do not pay tax on the gifts. There are some situations where this does happen such as income from a tax deferred account (Income in Respect of a Decedent or IRD). Because there is no income tax due generally, there is no need to consider the tax status of a possible beneficiary.

Second, some items will pass without inclusion in your will or trust. Items held as joint property such as vehicles, homes, etc. go to the other person who holds title. This can be an effective way of avoiding probate for some assets. However, you must be aware of this when planning your estate.

Third, you can specify specific items of sentimental value go to certain beneficiaries. Too often the focus is only where your most valuable assets go. While it is important to determine who gets the house or who gets the money in bank accounts, items of sentimental value can lead to the most turmoil between family members. This can be avoided by either spelling it out in the will or in a separate document referenced in the will.

Finally, all of your estate planning efforts mean nothing if the documents cannot be found. Typically, if a will is not found it is presumed that it was destroyed by the testator, meaning the testator intended to revoke the will. Some people choose to keep the documents in a fireproof safe at their residence, others in a safety deposit box at their bank. In any event it is necessary to let people know where they can find it. Especially if the document is an Advanced Health Care Directive, which is necessary for your agents to make decisions for you, in the event of your incapacity.

These cookies are sometimes called “zombie cookies” because they reappear even when Hulu users clear the data files of their internet browsers. In other words, these cookies are permanent and Hulu users cannot simply clear their internet browsing files as they would for any other cookie.

Although Hulu ceased using this tracking technology last year, Hulu users are seeking damages for the entire class of users who visited Hulu’s website for approximately a six month window last year during which Hulu utilized the zombie cookies.

To make matters worse, Hulu has been trying to get its insurer Hartford Casualty Insurance Company to provide coverage for these claims and defend Hulu in the class action lawsuit. However, Hulu’s insurance policy purchased in 2009 only provides general liability coverage up to $2Million and an umbrella coverage up to $10Million. The policies cover Hulu against “bodily injury and property damage” and “personal and advertising injury,” which Hartford claims does not apply to the class action lawsuit. Hartford also claims that Hulu’s insurance policy does not provide coverage for litigation expenses, criminal acts, injunctive relief, and statutory damages.

Hulu’s insurance company Hartford Casualty Insurance is taking a strong stance in refusing coverage for Hulu’s class action legal woes. If Hartford gets its way, the class action lawsuit could get very pricey very quickly for Hulu.

In the class action lawsuit, the Hulu users are now asserting that to fix the computers affected by Hulu’s zombie cookies would cost an estimated $500 to $1,000 per computer. Given the fact that Hulu is quickly becoming a household name and is used by millions of users each month, the damages awarded to the Hulu users could be enormous.

A company called Mavrix essentially takes photos of celebrities and, thus, owns a copyright in many of these photos. Mavrix Photo is an agency that calls itself the “premier source for celebrity images and photo-journalism.” This celebrity photo agency in recent years has taken a hard stance against third parties using Mavrix celebrity photos without its permission.

On March 19, 2012, Mavrix filed a lawsuit in California Federal Court against GG Digital, Inc. for the copyright infringement of various photos of Beyonce, Katy Perry, and Whitney Houston. Mavrix requested damages in the amount of $1,500,000.

On March 27, 2012, Mavrix filed a lawsuit against Intermedia Vibe Holdings, LLC also for copyright infringement. The photos causing all the commotion now are photos of Beyonce Knowles while pregnant. In that lawsuit, Mavrix requested damages in the amount of $600,000.

What is interesting is the fact that when many people think of copyrights, they think of protection for photographs involving artists and models, not necessarily paparazzi photographs of celebrities going about their day. What may also come as a shock to many is just how big the paparazzi celebrity photo business really is.

Mr. Van Ronkel is now suing German Director Uwe Boll for $1Million for “insulting” Mr. Von Ronkel by intentionally misspelling Mr. Von Ronkel’s name in the credits for the film In the Name of the King: Two Worlds. The film has been released in Canada and Germany, and it has recently been released in the United States only a few months ago on December 27, 2011.

Mr. Van Ronkel was an associate producer for the film and states he played a major role in convincing actor Dolph Lundgren to star in the film. According to Mr. Van Ronkel’s complaint, controversy began when Mr. Van Ronkel and Uwe Boll got into an argument about Mr. Van Ronkel’s producer fee. Mr. Van Ronkel alleges that he was initially stripped of his credit, but the parties compromised whereby Mr. Van Ronkel received credit as an associate producer. However, Mr. Van Ronkel claims that Mr. Boll got back at Mr. Von Ronkel by intentionally misspelling Mr. Von Ronkel’s name in the credits where Mr. Von Ronkel is listed as “Bob Van Runkel.”

To make matters worse, Mr. Van Ronkel’s name is also misspelled on packaging, marketing materials, and the film’s IMDb website (the true name is listed with the misspelled name alongside it in parentheses). IMDb is a valuable resource for many in the entertainment industry.

In fact, Mr. Von Ronkel’s alleges in his complaint against Mr. Boll that the Defendants “intentionally misspelled Mr. Van Ronkel’s name on his credit on the picture, knowing that a true and accurate motion picture production credit was very important in the entertainment industry and to Mr. Van Ronkel and was material to and specifically bargained for in the agreement. By misspelling Mr. Van Ronkel’s name, the value of the credit that he did receive was severely diminished and is insulting.”