slapp motion the right of publicity claims whether or not the st amendment bars such claims and then i'm going to pass my remaining time on to my co counsel mr burroughs to talk about the copyright issues  as judge were recognized in the charles vs city of los angeles case it's well established that truthful promotion of an expressive work is protected by the st amendment  from paris there are several problems with that argument the st that it is misleading you just need to look at the complaint itself to realize that this is an attack on mr brown's not only the underlying expression the ability to use the songs which are clearly an expressive work but his promotion of those songs you need look no further than the prayer of relief where he seeks an injunction unlimited any use of perry's name or likeness in connection with brown or his music or musical services and in addition to that to prevent brown from distributing releasing or otherwise using the songs that and the parties went to him and said no no you can continue it that what happened was in the beginning of the case and said no a c ray the syria kept on bumping keep them moving ok has because brown had never been served they say forget all the history up until the last that slot and you agreed to a stay pending the appeal yes your honor but i don't think that was retroactive on his ok ruling to move that he should have ruled on the pluming juncture that to extent he didn't it was at least in part your if we can separate sort of the legal boundaries and tell me where you fall if there's if somebody believes it's somebody else's defamed them that bring us a cases say there's def my argument with regard to why the st amendment that you know on or you may be entitled to st member protection at the end of the day that's not the question the question is why didn't they raise at least because we're not as i slap motion why didn't they raise at least  to make it not frivolous their claims not frivolous well st thing the it's very clear and again you look at it is akin to a summary judgment standard it is very clear from the complaint from the relief they sought and from the least relief they obtain from the court that they are attacking the st member protected expression in other words the truthful promotion in connection with an expressive work but we're dealing what you want is to dismiss the cause of action for violation of the california right of publicity under the anti slapp act because you're contending it's really a direct interference with right the performances yes and in his vocals are part of it and that's what you're client once he's now that that's something in this rosa can talk about a bit yes but but my can't pronounce the name but ily and share as long as you have a fully protected expressive work any promotion truthful promotion in connection with that work is privileged then the somehow forum got the rights to it in the post interview and said hey cher gives the interview that it would only give the form they made in knowingly clear misleading untruthful statement and in share the court held  say he appeals of anti slapp motions they're just they're they're a complete distraction you would have been able to try the issues in front of the judge a judge would have made finding is that we would all be in here and it's not your fault because our court is foolishly allowed these these to become appealable probably correctly have to allow the that that's that's what that's what drives me sort of nuts about the case we we don't have a summary judgment record we don't have a hearing because you've chosen to come up on this side issue and now we're fighting and we're now we're fighting about what the judge should have or would have done had you not come up you know we got i think that issue is central to our rights in this case you know it's not you would win if you're completely correct you w when you read you'd be done it's this it's this side looking for sanctions under the anti slapp motion that that has us because if the anti slot motion hadn't been appealed the preliminary injunction hearing would have been hell and your so many different cases before this court but i think one thing i do need to address should work laws concerns you know there are two things here st there's an attack on speech that is clearly truthful that they performed a song together that they you know and here's a copy of the song now this this whole thing about saying that he isn't the patches of mars that that's over in this book because it is very clear that they are only contract that's in the record your honor is musicians for god's sake ok talking about it say tell me what the contract is that come the contract actually reflects our position of joint authorship because it states expressly that they coauthored the is that the green we're talking about expired a long time ago the nd is that you've announced like another defense in this action well to the extent that they're raising the issue that they had the right to administer that right expired well before my client or perpetuity so how did it expire if if you look further down in the agreement there's a provision that indicates that if it's not included in a work by a certain period of time the rights will revert to our client so let me ask you a procedural question this is what bizarre one so put aside whether or not it's been continued and not continued it's clear the judge at some point has to hold a hearing at which you can make your arguments about copyright and if you're right and convince him he will because they are the only damage from the copyright side has been the injunction well it does it is germane also to the publicity in the last hour but you're the copyright lawyer authorship was raised and the extent that my client establishes which we believe ok but would you get a chance to see my point is if we if we just get this thing back in front of the trial judge from your perspective the copyright perspective you can make all the arguments you just making to judge wardlaw and the judge will either say i buy him or i don't and enter findings of fact in conclusions of law and they'll be appealable and we can look at them and that's so from i'm having some trouble figuring out why why  to be worrying about the merits of the copyright claim when everybody agrees there ought to be a preliminary injunction here only because they are germane to whether or not the statements being made to challenge statements are accurate are inaccurate or are somehow outside  realm of the st amendment which takes me back to judge or last point on the administration agreement the administration agreement is not divest the copyright owner owner of any rights while it may allow them to collect revenues and i understand that so our  client owns the copyright ever rights there are any of that yet to be determined here well it's yet to be determined and it most likely can't be determined was rights that were your client actually had rights to two people got together and collaborated on this on a composition which they wrote and a sound recording they an audio track that was a recording of the composition in doing so our client wrote the song performed on the song recorded the song which is important under garcia google and those cases and then produced the song after which he maintained the masters of the song so all in disha under your own your honour's own opinion and richland m g m is that our client is the owner of the song and to the extent that he's making statements  or turned it as a group of work earlier and it's not the case this is the i mean low that maybe i don't have a complete understanding of the exact nature of this work to come out i mean was it released or was released in join or were just that's one of the reasons why are the terms of the contract and that was what was supposed to be litigated in the t or but the terms the contract said nothing about who they are with that's the dispute correct correct but to the extent that the the element or you can for another reason your honor and that's that the claim is stale the dispute in this case arose in two thousand and two and as we know st goes to find as a st a matter of st impression or a whole bunch of things that the you're asking us to be the trial court but the date on which the dispute arose is not in dispute the plaintiffs mr perry actually argued in both the a clearing judge injunction papers and in his opposition to our anti slap that this dispute arose in two thousand and two and that the statue limitations for copyright acts that were the grab him in his ownership is three years it's more than a decade after this arose so we can dismiss a case sue a sponsor on behalf of steven perry who is here today i just like to address a couple of points and then i'm happy of course to answer any questions you may have st with regard to the anti slapp most and then the statements that were made from my perspective they am sorry to say i don't have the excerpt of record reference for your just tell me what he has but in one instance there was a picture of mr brown a picture of mr perry and there was a headline promoting his band going forward but he does have a problem when you use mr perry's name and likeness to promote this other band and to promote mr brown now if they had hypothetically had some sort of an ad which was only talking about the sound recordings that are in dispute i suppose we could have a discussion about whether there is some sort of a st amendment issue but that's not what happened here we have classic commercial speech just like any other ad any there's it and then there's an extension of the t r in march of two thousand and ninety eventually i got to that point so how does a t r o remain alive from whenever whenever it should have expired until went back x party and asked for an extension of time to try to further our service efforts as we continue there then actually mr brown's counsel called me up we have a discussion we ozark person is either served with or has knowledge of it certainly his counsel knew of it had been served with everything ok so why does how does the court then get the ability in march to extend it without a hearing yes we had i had a discussion with mr brown's counsel he asked for some more time to prepare opposition papers no objection we worked out a stipulation so he could do that we submitted it to the court and the court on on  own did set a different date extended it off further eventually to the march hearing date ok but did the stipulation that were submitted to the court stipulate to the continuance of the t r o pending the hearing today yes that's the one i was dismiss on jurisdictional grounds almost since were set to be heard that day and on that day the court actually i don't know if it rule that they are certainly there after but judge walter issued an order denying the  slap potions and a motion to dismiss it at the same time issued an order saying i'm just going to continue the t r o and set an accelerated top trial date for this coming june that is to say june of motions to dismiss and strike that's right and you should know that a number of objections were made as can be made in these five sins to the evidence that was submitted and footnote one of this decision and he said well i've considered those objections absolutely right then if you flip the page to see the same day at the same time but those are findings that deal with the slab so that motion then personal jurisdiction how does the judge get the power without the parties agreement to it is he didn't comply with will sixty five or else fifty two so if that is what this is it was an error i won't seek to characterize the judge sometime later and setting me hearing is perfectly ok but then he says and it's two months he's saying i'm continuing this t r o for two months pending the hearing and a problem injunction without any consent or any of th kind of findings that the rule would require to continue with the euro certainly and if there hadn't been a slight motion in the and the consideration the court gave i think that would be a very serious issue the fact is though kind of perverse stay defendants asked for the stay we read a pretrial conference before judge walter couple weeks before trial and there was a discussion during the course of the pretrial conference really have always requested one well so how do we how do we get it back in front of the trial judge asap to do so and i think we have to  and i'm sure there would be that that's that would certainly be helpful going back without that guidance i have concerns my but i guess i'm the question i'm asking is a little bit different i'm sorry you have you you agree you don't oppose a very expeditious preliminary injunction hearing not what you oppose is having to t r o vacated pending that very expeditious hearing yes  just a couple of subs nothing since they've raised it st the one point i didn't address was are these joint works based on the evidence presented the answer it seems to me is clearly no  most importantly in this case because mr perry never intended there to be joint authorship for all variety of reasons  recordings d with his vocal performances and see how well they do so i'm not disputing that that brown has a right to the compositions and maybe the arrangement but if he wants to release of he has to do it himself musical compositions that are the subject of the administration agreement you were talking about here we're talking about a completely separate set of copyrights in the sound recordings and mr perry never intended those sound recordings to be joint works in fact he had a record deal with c b s records that would have prohibited him from entering into such an agreement and as your honor correctly noted the wrestling case is not agreement of both parties but you've got to have both parties agreeing that it's a joint work well he clearly didn't intended to be a joint work and if they both didn't intend it to be a joint where it isn't a joint and that's it that's one of the reasons i think this needs to go back is because it's i'm not even clear which