The Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Blog

The Metropolitan Black Bar Association's Entertainment & Sports Law Committee and the Entertainment Arts and Sports Law Section's Committee on Diversity of the New York State Bar Association present an interactive networking experience where a panel of seasoned music executives and artist managers will edify attendees by sharing their professional experiences representing A-list musicians and entertainers in the business. This open format event is intended for attorneys, law students, and creative professionals in the music business who are interested in obtaining key insights on how technology and culture have impacted the evolving management landscape, business development tactics, marketing maneuvers, essential creative deal points, and trending contractual matters.

Confirmed speakers include Professor Jayson Jackson of the NYU Clive Davis Institute of Recorded Music, Emily White of management and consulting firm Whitesmith Entertainment, and Rob Love of marketing and management firm Launchpad Worldwide.

For this open format event, attendees are also encouraged to come prepared with questions.
Light refreshments will be served.

Tuesday, November 12, 2014
6:30 p.m.-8:00 p.m.

Black Wax Creative Space NYC
2 W 46th Street, #1601 (between 5th Ave & Avenue of the Americas) New York, NY 10036

Should you have any questions about this program, please email the Entertainment & Sports Law Committee at info@mbbanyc.org

*Please Note: No CLE credit will be provided for this event.
RSVP Required | Space is limited!

RSVP link: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/mbbas-entertainment-sports-law-committee-co-sponsor-presents-luminaries-lighting-the-path-for-tickets-14146782407

By Martha Nimmer

Cutting it Close on Constitutionality

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will rehear a case disputing the constitutionality of the 1976 California Resale Royalties Act (CRRA). The suit, brought by artists Chuck Close, Laddie John Dill, and the estate of the sculptor Robert Graham, challenges "the rejection of their class action lawsuit against Sotheby's, Christie's and online auction giant eBay for violating the California law that entitles artists to claim five percent of resale royalties on any work sold for more than $1,000, so long as the seller resides or the transaction happens in California."

The law has received little attention since it went into effect over 40 years ago, but that changed in 2012 when U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Nguyen dismissed Close, Dill and the Graham Estate's claims, saying they ran "afoul" of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In that vein, Judge Nguyen wrote, "the following example illustrates the CRRA's problematic reach. Assume a California resident places a painting by a New York artist up for auction at Sotheby's in New York, and at the auction a New York resident purchases the painting for $1,000,000." Accordingly, even though the sale took place in New York and the artist is a New York resident, the mere fact that the seller is a California citizen could end up "spark[ing] a lawsuit over royalties." As a result, the judge determined "that the 'practical effect' of the law was controlling interstate commerce even though it may have some 'effects within the State.'"

Undeterred, the artists appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit, which heard oral arguments last April. In the newest development for the case, it was announced late last month that a fuller panel of appellate judges on the Ninth Circuit would rehear arguments in December. What makes that move unusual, according to The Hollywood Reporter, is that "no opinion from the Ninth Circuit ever came after that April hearing." Instead, it appears that the appellate circuit has chosen to proceed directly to the en banc hearing.

www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/why-chuck-closes-legal-fight-745406

He Belongs to the Ages

The U.S. Supreme Court declined earlier this month to hear a case brought by the estate of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. The suit alleged that authors who sought to publish stories about the famous detective Sherlock Holmes were required to pay the estate a licensing fee. The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the appeal will leave in place a June decision by Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner; in his opinion, Judge Posner held that most of Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories are no longer protected by copyright, and are, in fact, in the public domain.

The legal drama over whether Sherlock Holmes was in the public domain began sometime last year, when Doyle's estate "demanded a licensing fee from the publisher Pegasus, which had planned to release an anthology called In the Company of Sherlock Holmes, edited by Laurie R. King and Leslie S. Klinger." After being met with the licensing fee demand, Klinger sued the Doyle estate and later won.

Now that the Supreme Court has refused to take up the case, Doyle's estate is "out of options," at least in the U.S. Although the lower court's decision does preserve copyright on 10 later Sherlock Holmes stories by Doyle, the decision "leaves most of the author's work and characters in the public domain." This development means that viewers of the BBC hit television series Sherlock can also breathe a sigh of relief: according to the Los Angeles Times, "Holmes fans can occupy themselves by writing their own stories while they're waiting for the fourth season of the BBC hit "Sherlock," which likely won't debut for more than a year."

touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-81863326/

Dismissing the Dictator

Citing concerns over free speech, Judge William Fahey of Los Angeles Superior Court has dismissed former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega's lawsuit against Activision Blizzard, Inc. over his depiction in its video game "Call of Duty: Black Ops II." Judge Fahey granted the defendant's special motion to strike the case under a California statute that "seeks to prevent lawsuits stifling free speech," writes Reuters.

The former Panamanian dictator and ex-federal prisoner initiated the suit in July, accusing the video game developer of portraying him as "the culprit of numerous fictional heinous crimes," such as kidnapping and murder. Noriega claimed that Activision had "infringed his right to his own publicity, and sought unspecified damages." Activision countered, saying the depiction of the former Central American strongman was protected by the First Amendment. Jude Fahey agreed, adding that the plaintiff's right of publicity was "outweighed by the defendants' First Amendment right to free expression, and that there was no evidence of harm to Noriega's reputation."

www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/28/usa-videogames-noriega-idUSL1N0SN2NK20141028

Making the Merger Work

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Richmond, Virginia-based Media General, Inc. would divest of "several" television stations located across the country as the company seeks to complete its proposed $1.5 billion acquisition of LIN Media. Media General, which currently owns 31 television stations located in 29 metropolitan areas, announced its plan in March to purchase Austin, Texas-based LIN Media. LIN owns, operates or provides programming or sales services to over 50 television stations across 23 metropolitan areas.
Citing concern over advertising competition, the DOJ intervened earlier this year in the proposed merger. Specifically, the DOJ was concerned that the deal would "substantially lessen competition for spot advertising certain markets." Spot advertising, according to Entertainment Law Digest, "consists of those ads that are sold in the local market served by an individual television station;" those ads are typically purchased by advertisers who want to target potential customers in a specific geographic area.

In a complaint filed earlier this year in the District of Columbia's federal court, the Justice Department voiced concern over whether the merger would "combine stations that are either close substitutes or vigorous competitors in markets with limited alternatives." Representatives for the two media companies were able, however, to reach an agreement with the DOJ: Under the terms of its agreement with the DOJ, Media General will sell stations in Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Wisconsin. According to Bill Baer, assistant attorney general for the department's Antitrust Division, this sale "will ensure that these stations remain vigorous competitors in their designated market areas."

www.entlawdigest.com/2014/11/03/3462.htm

By Andrea L. Calvaruso

In a postscript to SDNY Judge Naomi Buchwald's ruling last March favoring Harper Collins in its copyright infringement suit against Open Road over control of e-book rights to "Julie of the Wolves", Judge Buchwald had determined on summary judgment that "a plain reading" of Harper's 1971 publishing agreement with the author demonstrated that digital rights (even though not yet in existence) were encompassed within the broad language of the publishing contract's grant clause, and therefore Open Road's 2011 e-book license with the author was invalid. As a result of this ruling, Harper sought over $1,000,000 in damages and attorneys' fees against Open Road on the ground that its decision to proceed with the e-book, without Harper's consent, was "objectively unreasonable."

In this latest ruling summarized below by "Publisher's Weekly," Judge Buchwald denied Harper's request and limited the award to the $30,000 statutory maximum, plus $7,000 in costs. www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/content-and-e-books/article/61471-judge-rules-for-harpercollins-in-open-road-e-book-dispute.html

By Andrea L. Calvaruso

In a postscript to SDNY Judge Naomi Buchwald's ruling last March favoring Harper Collins in its copyright infringement suit against Open Road over control of e-book rights to "Julie of the Wolves", Judge Buchwald had determined on summary judgment that "a plain reading" of Harper's 1971 publishing agreement with the author demonstrated that digital rights (even though not yet in existence) were encompassed within the broad language of the publishing contract's grant clause, and therefore Open Road's 2011 e-book license with the author was invalid. As a result of this ruling, Harper sought over $1,000,000 in damages and attorneys' fees against Open Road on the ground that its decision to proceed with the e-book, without Harper's consent, was "objectively unreasonable."

In this latest ruling summarized below by "Publisher's Weekly," Judge Buchwald denied Harper's request and limited the award to the $30,000 statutory maximum, plus $7,000 in costs. www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/content-and-e-books/article/61471-judge-rules-for-harpercollins-in-open-road-e-book-dispute.html

The following case selection first appeared in this week's Center for Art Law newsletter:

• U.S. v. Ramnarine (S.D.N.Y. 16 Oct. 2014) - J. Koeltl, sentenced Brian Ramnarine, former owner of Empire Bronze Art Foundry in Long Island City to 2 ½ years imprisonment and ordered to pay $34,250 in restitution after pleading guilty to selling and attempting to sell fake sculptures that he falsely attributed to such artists as Jasper Johns, Robert Indiana and Saint Clair Cemin.

• Schiffman v. Stewart, 2:2014cv06901 (C.D. Cal., 4 Sept. 2014) - Celebrity photographer Bonnie Schiffman filed a copyright infringement suit against musician Rob Stewart for using a promotional picture, which she claims is "substantially similar" to one she took in 1981. The original picture taken by Schiffman was used on the cover of Stewart's album "Storyteller," and she is seeking $2.5 million in damages.

• MAFG Art Fund, LLC v. Gagosian, 653189/2012 (N.Y.S.2d, Sept 2014) - In ongoing litigation between the plaintiff billionaire financier Ronald O. Perelman and the defendant art dealer Larry Gagosian over the sale of a Cy Twombly painting, Perelman subpoenaed major players in the art business, including galleries, art dealers, auction houses, and artists, seeking information relating to transactions of which Gagosian has been a party. Gagosian's lawyers assert that these actions are all an effort to "harass Gagosian and disparage the gallery."

• Franco Fasoli (A.K.A. "Jaz") v. Voltage Pictures, LLC, 1:14-cv-06206 (N.D.Il. 2014) - The plaintiffs, visual artists "Jaz," "Ever," and "Other", filed a copyright infringement claim alleging that multiple identified and unidentified Hollywood defendants blatantly misappropriated the artists' collaborative mural, protected under Argentina's copyright law, by creating an "infringing work" on the set of the film The Zero Theorem, which was filmed in Romania in 2012. The plaintiffs seek relief in the form of a preliminary and permanent injunction, impoundment and disposition of infringing articles, an order of accounting of gains and profits, and monetary damages. The plaintiffs are represented by Foley & Lardner LLP.

• Marguerite Hoffman vs. L&M Arts, et. al, 3:10-CV-0953-D (N.D. Tex 2014) - When Marguerite Hoffman quietly sold her Rothko, she 'bargained for confidentiality' because the painting was promised to the Dallas Museum of Art. Shortly thereafter the painting turned up for a public auction, and Hoffman sued the dealer and the subsequent buyer for not keeping her sale secret, per terms of the sales agreement. On September 4, 2014, a Texas district court dismissed Hoffman's claim against the buyer and ruled that she can only recover benefit-of-the bargain damages from the seller. https://casetext.com/case/hoffman-v-l-m-arts?utm_source=Center%20for%20Art%20Law%20General%20List&utm_campaign=e8afc68020-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_022731d685-e8afc68020-346773625

The Center for Art Law strives to create a coherent community for all those interested in law and the arts. Positioned as a centralized resource for art and cultural heritage law, it serves as a portal to connect artists and students, academics and legal practitioners, collectors and dealers, government officials and others in the field. In addition to the weekly newsletter (cardozo.us2.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=78692bfa901c588ea1fe5e801&id=022731d685), the Center for Art Law subscribers receive updates about art and law-related topics through its popular art law blog (itsartlaw.com/blog/)and calendar of events (itsartlaw.com/events/). The Center for Art Law welcomes inquiries and announcements from firms, universities and student organizations about recent publications, pending cases, upcoming events, current research and job and externship opportunities. To contact the Center for Art Law, visit our website at: www.itsartlaw.com or write to itsartlaw@gmail.com.

"Caution: Children At Work," What You Need to Know about Child Employment in the Entertainment Industry

Thursday, November 13, 2014 | 4:00pm - 7:30pm with Reception to Follow
Loeb & Loeb LLP| 345 Park Avenue (between 51st & 52nd) | New York, NY 10154-1895

This program is accredited for up to 3.5 MCLE Credit Hours in Professional Practice.

Entertainment, Arts & Sports Law Section and Labor & Employment Law Section Member Rate: $50.00
NYSBA Member Rate: $90.00
Non-NYSBA Member Rate: $125.00

The glamour and privileges for children in the entertainment industry are historically accompanied by unsafe, inappropriate and abusive working conditions, a lack of proper educational instruction and supervision, and historically, a misappropriation of their earned funds. This fall program will present a panel of speakers, which is scheduled to include, Mark Knox, Esq. of the New York State Department of Labor, Alan Simon and Karin Farrell of On Location Education, Doreen Small, Esq., of Marquart and Small, Avram Morell of Pryor, Cashman LLP., Michael Maizner of Kauff, McGuire and Margolis and Diane Krausz, Esq. The discussion will cover the new regulations that apply to models as well as child performers, education requirements and licensing, general work laws and permits, and court approval procedures pursuant to Article 35.03 of the NYS Arts and Cultural Affairs Law in New York Courts. You will benefit from this program whether you are new to this area of practice or are an experienced attorney looking to compare your knowledge and techniques with those of the faculty members.

This program is co-sponsored by the Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Section (www.nysba.org/Sections/Entertainment_Arts_Sports/Entertainment_Arts___Sports_Law_Section.html) and the Labor and Employment Law Section (www.nysba.org/LaborEmployment/) of the New York State Bar Association (www.nysba.org/membership/).

For questions about the program please contact Beth Gould: bgould@nysba.org

To register over the phone or to join NYSBA call our State Bar Service Center at 1-800-582-2452

By Daniel Oresajo

Baseball was once America's favorite pastime, so many wonder why baseball's popularity has faded. One possible answer is that little has changed since baseball's inception; even the once beloved nostalgia of baseball, still in its "purest form," seems outdated. While many players long for the days of playing for the love of the game, some players, such as minor league baseball (MiLB) players, do not make enough money to sustain playing solely for the love of the game.

Lucas Mann of Slate describes the minor leaguers' plight, writing, "[[m]inor leaguers are] paid just like they were paid half a century ago. They find off-season work to get them from September to March, just like major leaguers did before their salaries exploded." 

"Over the course of a five month season, the average MiLB player earns between $3,000 and $7,500, a salary well below the federal poverty level of $11,490. By comparison, the average fast food worker earns between $15,000 and $18,000 per year, which is two to three times greater than a minor league player's salary." 

As a result of this seemingly unjust scenario, three former MiLB players, Aaron Senne, Michael Liberto and Oliver Odle, have sued Major League Baseball (MLB), which governs the MiLB, MLB Commissioner Bud Selig, the Kansas City Royals, Miami Marlins, and the San Francisco Giants in a California district court for an alleged violation of antitrust laws, and in particular, wage and overtime laws. Through this action, the plaintiffs mean to "expand the lawsuit into a class action on behalf of thousands of former minor league players." Id.

The plaintiffs argue that the MLB violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state laws guaranteeing citizens minimum wage and overtime pay. According to the United States Department of Labor,"[t]he FLSA establishes minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and youth employment standards affecting employees in the private sector and in Federal, State, and local governments."  Moreover, "[c]overed nonexempt workers are entitled to a minimum wage of not less than $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009," as well as "[o]vertime pay at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay is required after 40 hours of work in a workweek." Id.

Players work between 60 and 70 hours per week, which includes playing six or seven games per week and participating in conditioning. Yet they earn meager wages. In addition, the players' wages do not cover participating in instructional leagues and extended spring training. Thus, "[t]he players believe that they, and other current and former minor leaguers, are owed back wages for uncompensated and under-compensated labor."  At first glance, it is difficult to dispute the plaintiffs' arguments. However, the MLB has a number of defenses at its disposal.

First, the MLB can argue that it possesses an FLSA exemption, which "does not require amusement and entertainment businesses operated on a seasonal basis (seven months or less) to pay its employees minimum wage or overtime pay."  As the span of a MiLB season is five months, which includes spring training (team mandated workouts), the MLB can argue that minor leaguers' status as seasonal employees precludes them from FLSA coverage. However, sports law expert Nathanial Grow states that "the decision will come down to which side of the argument the court favors: that baseball is a year-round business or that it is a seasonal operation that does most of its business during a baseball season." Id.

Second, baseball has historically been allowed an antitrust law exemption, which the MLB will contend might give it legal authorization to continue paying MiLB players such low wages. As distinguished sports attorney Michael McCann writes, "[t]he exemption allows baseball to unilaterally set salaries and working conditions for minor league players. Without this exemption, minor league players could theoretically sue under the Sherman Act, and argue that big league and minor league owners have conspired to unreasonably limit salaries."

A third argument that the MLB may present is that MiLB players cannot form a union. The lack of a union leaves no formal representative body to "advocate for higher player compensation and hold leverage through the power to strike."  Further, unless they have appeared on a MLB team's 40-man roster, MiLB players are also not members of the MLB Players' Association, which is another missing layer of protection.

Additionally, the MLB may argue that MiLB players voluntarily agreed to the terms of their employment by signing their contracts. MiLB players can't argue that they are disadvantaged in negotiations because they have the power to retain agents. In addition to their agents, the MLB Players Association negotiates on behalf of current and prospective MiLB players.

Finally, the "MLB plans to argue that the hours worked and salaries of players are not uniform and therefore should be considered by the court on an individual basis."  However, even if a court disregards this argument, and allows for a class action, "[t]he statute of limitations [for FLSA lawsuits] could limit the ability of minor leaguers who have been retired for several years from joining a class." 

The court has not yet determined whether the class action can go forward. Nevertheless, this case has the potential to significantly impact the MLB's and MiLB's future. If the MiLB players succeed in raising wages, will MLB teams find cheaper alternatives for training their prospects? Increasing MiLB players' salary and benefits could translate into higher ticket prices for fans, which could cause some MiLB teams to file for bankruptcy, taking away the very means by which these players earn a salary (small may it be) in the first place. Put simply, by succeeding, MiLB players could unintentionally end the system they are trying to fix. One thing is clear, America's once favorite pastime may never be the same.

By Rachele Morelli

In a recent decision, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States granted to television broadcasters a sigh of relief under the Copyright Act of 1976. 573 U.S. __ (2014). The Supreme Court held Aereo, the internet-based broadcast television streaming service, infringed copyright holders' exclusive right to "perform" their works "publicly" within the meaning of the Transmit Clause of the 1976 Copyright Act. Id.

Prior to the 1976 amendment, the 1909 Copyright Act (the 1909 Act) granted copyright owners the right to publicly perform their works. Am. Broad. Cos. v. Aereo, Inc., 874 F. Supp. 2d 373 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). However, under the 1909 Act, to perform a copyrighted work publicly required a literal performance of the work. Id. The United States Supreme Court decided two cases under the 1909 Act that discussed cable television systems which received broadcast signals through antennas and then retransmitted those signals to its subscribers via coaxial cable. Id. Ultimately, the Court found that the defendants, the cable television systems, were not infringing the copyright holders' exclusive right to publicly perform, because the systems were not actually "performing" the copyrighted works through their transmittals. Id. Congress was extremely dissatisfied with the outcome of these cases and began efforts to amend the 1909 Act to account for the rapid advances in technology. Id.

In 1976, the Copyright Act (the 1976 Act) was amended with the intention of encompassing cable system providers within its scope. The 1976 Act provided that a copyright owner has the exclusive right to perform his/her copyrighted work publicly. See 17 U.S.C. §101; 17 U.S.C. §106(4). Further, the 1976 Act clarified that to "perform" an audiovisual work means "to show its images in any sequence or to make the sounds accompanying it audible." Id. Further, the addition of the Transmit Clause clarified that an entity performs a work "publicly" when it transmits or otherwise communicates a performance of the copyrighted work to the public. Id.

A significant case decided under the 1976 Act was "Cablevision". Cartoon Network LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2008). There, the court found that Cablevision's transmission of a recorded program to an individual customer through its remote server Digital Video Recorder (RS-DVR) system was not a public performance, but rather more similar to a private performance. Id. at 137-40. The court premised its holding on two major facts: 1) that the RS-DVR system created unique copies of every program, and 2) that the transmission of the recorded program to each specific customer was produced solely from that unique copy. Id. at 137. The court reasoned that each private performance created a one-to-one relationship, because each user made an individual copy that was viewable only by that user. Id. The court found that the RS-DVR's private performances did not violate any rights because the 1976 Act only protects the right to make a public performance of a copyrighted work. Id.

In light of the Cablevision holding and the explosion of innovative portable Internet enabled devices, numerous services have emerged that offer online streaming of live broadcast television. Most services have formulated their streaming in accordance with the Cablevision case rationale and have devised systems that attempt to create a one-to-one relationship with each user to ensure that the performances would remain "private" rather than "public." These novel progressive services have produced widespread implications for the future of all broadcast television.

Aereo, Inc. is a part of this group of services that allows users to stream live broadcast television from any Internet-enabled device without giving proper compensation to the owners of the copyrighted material it transmits. The television producers, marketers, distributors and broadcasters that own the copyrights in many of the programs Aereo streams sued Aereo for infringing on their right to "perform" their copyrighted works "publicly." Aereo, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2498, 2503 (2014). The case was first decided in July 2012 by the District Court for the Southern District of New York (Aereo, Inc., 874 F. Supp. 2d at 373), and affirmed in April 2013 by the Second Circuit (WNET, THIRTEEN, Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., 712 F.3d 676). Both lower courts declined to find infringement because they analogized Aereo's service to the RS-DVR in Cablevision. Aereo, Inc., 874 F. Supp. 2d at 382-96; Aereo, 712 F.3d at 684-95.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari and heard Aereo unsuccessfully argue that its streamed Internet transmissions were not made "publicly" under the 1976 Act. Aereo, Inc., 573 U.S. at __. Aereo attempted to persuade the Court that its streams were not "public," and similar to the RS-DVR in Cablevision, because Aereo's system generated separate copies of each program and the transmission to each individual subscriber was created solely from those unique copies. The Court relied heavily on Congress' regulatory objectives and refused to allow the "behind the scenes" technological differences to distinguish Aereo from an ordinary cable provider that does publicly perform. Overall, the Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that Aereo transmits a performance of the copyrighted works to the public within the meaning of the Transmit Clause of the 1976 Act. Id. As a result of the Supreme Court's decision, the case was remanded to the lower court and Aereo suspended its services on June 28, 2014.

In coming to its decision, the Supreme Court predominantly focused on the actual purpose of Aereo's service: To provide live broadcast television in the same manner as a cable provider while circumventing the statutory obligations that are inherent in being a cable provider. Today, there is still great debate as to whether the streaming of websites marks an infringement under the 1976 Act. Regardless of the Supreme Court's ruling, it is highly unlikely that any of the website streaming services, like Aereo, will completely cease to exist. This case and many others in history have proven that there are often consequences when one attempts to combat technology rather than embrace it. The next step to resolve this issue, which stems from our society's inevitable advances in technology, would be statutory reform.

The primary issue presented in this matter is whether these online streaming services should be considered "cable system providers" under the 1976 Act. If these services are indeed viewed as cable system providers, as the Supreme Court found, then the statute should be amended to indicate their inclusion. The 1976 Act allows cable system providers to retransmit copyrighted works from broadcast television stations in exchange for paying a compulsory license fee, which is then distributed accordingly to the copyright holders. Aereo, 712 F.3d at 685. The statutory decision to include these online streaming services under the umbrella of "cable system providers," thereby allowing them to pay the ordinary license fees associated with retransmitting, may be the solution to the technological challenges we are confronted with today.

By Matthew Luchs

American sports have tried to cross the plane into the international market for years and have had some instances of positive results. For example, many international National Basketball Association (NBA) players, like Dallas Mavericks' Dirk Nowitzki, attribute the rise in international interest in NBA basketball to the 1992 United States Men's Olympic basketball team, also known as the "Dream Team." (projectspurs.com/2012-articles/ginobili-parker-influenced-by-92-dream-team.html). Since the "Dream Team," international interest in basketball has been at an all time high. Although the International Basketball Federation Basketball World Cup displayed that the USA is still the leading powerhouse in the basketball world, there are also a number of other countries that possess serious talent, such as Spain and France. The NBA has taken the next step toward continuing the success of their international programs, while increasing fan interest to an already strong international market. For example, on October 13th2, the NBA and China's Ministry of Education formed a joint partnership to implement basketball development curriculums throughout China. (probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/10/18/nba-announces-groundbreaking-partnership-to-implement-basketball-development-curriculum-in-chinese-schools/).

This agreement represents the first partnership that China's Ministry of Education has undertaken with an American professional sports league. (www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2014/10/17/nba-china-education-basketball-training/17457813/). The NBA released a statement indicating that "[t]he groundbreaking partnership [will] focus on basketball participation in elementary, middle and high schools across China and... provide enhance