Dole goes bananas over documentary, files defamation suit

By Eriq Gardner

Dole Food Company has filed an interesting defamation lawsuit against a Swedish filmmaker who made a hard-hitting documentary about the plight of banana workers in Nicaragua.

Fredrik Gertten's "Bananas!" includes Nicaraguan banana laborers who claim that various companies, including Dole, poisoned them with pesticides. The hero of the documentary is a California lawyer by the name of Juan Dominguez, who filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of the workers. The film climaxes with Dominguez obtaining a $2.5 million punitive damage award on behalf of five of 12 Nicaraguan plaintiffs.

However, after the documentary wrapped production, the court threw out the punitive damage award, reduced the compensatory damages award and reversed some of the decision. In addition, Dole says that the court found that Dominguez had committed a fraud "by knowingly participating in an elaborate conspiracy to develop and prosecute false claims on behalf of individuals who never worked on Dole-contracted farms and were never injured."

Dole says it approached the filmmakers of "Bananas!" to try to get them to make changes to the film to take into account the Court's latest ruling and detailed findings. Dole says it was rebuffed. Now, in a lawsuit filed in California Superior Court, Dole accuses Gertten of "actual malice" for ignoring the Court's decision and knowingly and recklessly implying false statements about the company. Here's the complaint.

The documentary screened last month at the Los Angeles Film Festival. Festival organizers presented "Bananas!" to the viewing public with a disclaimer. A week later, there was a filmmaker lunch session with Gertten presented this way:

"Between the film's completion and its screening at this year's Festival, critical new elements of the case have come to light. What happens when a story continues to evolve after the shooting stops? This case study and screening will explore the relationship between documentary filmmaking, objective and subjective point of view, as well as the rights and responsibilities of activist filmmaking."

Here's the interview with Gertten. 

The filmmaker says that two days after the trailer came out, Dole went to the judge in the first case and tried to stop the documentary from coming out. The judge denied the motion, citing the First Amendment. Gertten also claims that Dole sent letters all around town, including to the Los Angeles Times and Swedish ambassador, to stop the film. And when the film screened at the festival, Dole had 10 people in attendance, taking notes, laughing, and enjoying the film.

"We think this film is totally valid," he says. "We're happy with it."

UPDATE: The filmmakers' lawyer Richard J. Lee just issued a statement: "My clients and I believe that this suit is without merit and represents the latest in a continued line of intimidating harassment by a multinational corporation aimed squarely at a small, independent film and its filmmakers."

Warners wins round in Superman litigation

By Matthew Belloni

What if a judge tried to figure out how much Superman and all the major comic books were worth to the studios wanting to adapt them into movies? Sounds nuttier than the average Comic-Con passholder. But that's what Judge Stephen Larson essentially does in this fascinating decision issued today in the ongoing battle over the copyright to the Man of Steel.

We'll analyze the ruling in another post, but the gist is this: the heirs of Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel, who won a decision last year allowing them to take back control of half the Superman copyright, now must fight with DC Comics over what money is owed to them from exploitation of the character in movies like 2006's "Superman Returns" and the WB series "Smallville."

Since Warner Bros. and DC are corporate siblings under parent Time Warner, the Siegels and their attorney (longtime Warners nemesis Marc Toberoff) claimed that the license fees paid to DC by Warners for the right to make movies and TV shows didn't reflect the fair market value of the property. In short, did Warners do a sweetheart deal with DC that now shortchanges the Siegels as owners of an interest in the Superman copyright?

Judge Larson says no, meaning only DC Comics, not Warners, must account to the Siegels (according to the decision, the company earned $13.6 million from "Superman Returns). "There is insufficient evidence that the Superman film agreement between DC Comics and Warner Bros., whether judged by its direct economic terms or its indirect ones, was consummated at below its fair market value," he writes, reaching a similar conclusion over the deal for "Smallville."

At stake were millions in potential damages, though the ruling doesn't change the fact that DC must now account to the Siegels for a share of revenue from the Superman property.

Still, Warners is obviously happy with the ruling, sending us the following statement:

• DC Comics and Warner Bros. Entertainment are very gratified by the court’s thorough and well-reasoned decision in this matter. The decision validates what DC and Warner Bros. have maintained from the beginning, which is that when they do business with each other, they always strive for – and achieve – fair market value in their transactions.  We are very pleased that the court found there was no merit to plaintiffs’ position that the Superman deals were unfair to DC Comics and, by extension, the plaintiffs.

Toberoff hasn't called us back yet (UPDATE BELOW), but he's probably not crying too much. He managed to wrest a portion of control away from a major studio over a property that could be extremely valuable (notwithstanding the underperformance of the 2006 film), and he represents the estate of Joe Shuster so his clients might control all the rights to Superman in the near future.

Now to the interesting part. In arriving at his assessment that the price Warners paid for Superman rights was fair, Larson conducted a 10-day trial, elicited testimony from top DC execs and even Warners topper Alan Horn. He looked at a bunch of other properties, including Iron Man, Tarzan and X-Men, and tried to figure out what prices were paid for comparable properties. If you care about comic books and want to see how much film studios value them as source material, check out the decision.

UPDATE: Toberoff just sent us a long statement:

• The Court's earlier ruling in the case ensures that the Siegels already own half the copyright to original Superman story, published in Action Comics No.1, and entitles them to an accounting for Defendants' exploitation of Superman. This trial was only an interim step in the multifaceted accounting case which remains, in that it only concerned the secondary issue of whether DC Comics, or whether DC Comics and Warner Bros., would have to account to the Siegels.

• To put this in further perspective, the entire accounting case pales in comparison to the fact that, in 2013, the Siegels, along with the estate of Joe Shuster, will own the entire original copyright to Superman, and neither DC Comics nor Warner Bros. will be able to exploit any new Superman works without a license from the Siegels and Shusters.

• It must be noted that the Court found that Warner Bros. should have paid three to four times the amount actually paid for Superman film rights. Most importantly, the Court found it to be inequitable that DC transferred the film rights to Warner Bros., without the standard term providing for reversion for lack of ongoing exploitation. The Court pointedly ruled that if Warners does not start production on another Superman movie by 2011, the Siegels will be able to sue to recover their damages. 

• The Siegels look forward to the remainder of the case, which will determine how much Defendants owe them for their exploitations of Superman.  

Larson set a Dec. 1 trial date for determining how much the Siegels are owed.

Lindsay Lohan sprayed with litigation

By Eriq Gardner

Lindsay Lohan has a knack for getting into trouble. Her bouts with authorities have even inspired advertisements debating whether states should adopt mandatory breathalyzer laws.

Nevertheless, Lohan manages to find herself in very interesting legal predicaments. The latest lawsuit to target the actress involves a Florida skin care company who claims she stole the formula for a sunless tanning spray. White Wave International alleges that Lohan and her business partner, Lorit Simon, engaged in negotiations over the tan spray but couldn't agree upon a price.

"The next thing we know, Lorit Simon and Lindsay Lohan are partnering and Ms. Lohan is taking credit for developing this formula, which she indeed had no role in," Marcia Cohen, attorney for the plaintiff, told the St. Petersburg Times.

Here's the complaint filed in Florida district court.

Although Lohan's latest legal troubles may sound unprecedented, we will note that the cosmetic business has long bedeviled Hollywood actresses. A few examples include Teri Hatcher's legal battles over a skin care product, Heidi Klum's troubles with a company selling her fragrance, Nicole Kidman's war to protect her perfume endorsement deal, Jennifer Lopez' smelly lawsuit, and allegations that Jessica Simpson pirated a cosmetics brand. 

Small victory for Google in YouTube class action

By Eriq Gardner

News on the YouTube litigation front has been about as slow as watching a streamed video on a dial-up modem, but we've finally got some action in the high-stakes class action lawsuit against the company.

U.S. District Court Judge Louis Stanton has ruled that owners of foreign videos not registered with the U.S. Copyright office can't sue for damages. The judge also ruled that the plaintiffs can't seek punitive damages.

Call it a small victory for Google, owner of the perennially money-losing yet immensely popular YouTube. 

The plaintiffs put together an impressive roster of class members, including the British soccer league, the French tennis league, publishers from around the globe and many other entities. Today's ruling may trim that list, although the judge left open the possibility that some plaintiffs could claim infringement on live broadcast footage of sports events.

Google will be happy to escape the possibility of paying punitive damages, although as we've seen in recent cases, statutory damages on copyright infringement can still carry a shockingly large price tag.

This decision shouldn't come as too much of a surprise. The same judge last year ruled in a separate lawsuit that Viacom couldn't seek punitive damages in its own massive case against YouTube.

The core issue in this case still remains to be tested—whether YouTube has safe-harbor from copyright infringement liability if it dutifully responds to a copyright owner's takedown requests.

NY Post defeats gender-bending libel claim

By Eriq Gardner

Ever wonder whatever happened to transgender model Maximila "Ava" Cordero, the talk of the New York gossip scene in 2007 after she filed a pair of scandalous lawsuits?

Recall that Cordero's first lawsuit targeted billionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein for allegedly forcing her into a sexual relationship at the age of 16. Cordero's allegation against the man who New York magazine once dubbed the International Moneyman of Mystery was a bombshell, but nothing compared to the tizzy that erupted after the New York Post published a story headlined "Gender-Bend Shocker," that revealed that Cordero was born a male and quoted Cordero's MySpace page describing a "masturbatory fantasy" she had of being with multiple men and then multiple women.

Cordero filed a $100 million libel lawsuit against the paper and its corporate parent, News Corp., saying the Post had quoted the public relations flak it shared with Epstein and a phony MySpace page (also owned by News Corp.) to paint her as "a promiscuous slut." Cordero added that she felt as if she had been raped a second time by the newspaper.

The New York Supreme Court was the first to handle this steamy case, and the judge there dismissed the invasion of privacy claim but turned down the Post's motion to dismiss the libel claim. 

The Post appealed the decision with an interesting argument: that they had only reported Cordero's "fantasy," that they didn't actually report Cordero had actually engaged in sexual conduct with multiple men and women.

Apparently, this is a new get-out-of-libel card because the 1st Appellate Division of the Supreme Court agrees: "At bottom, plaintiff's claim of defamation rests on the contention that the average reader reasonably would infer that someone with such a lewd fantasy also is in fact sexually promiscuous," the ruling reads. "That some readers might draw this inference does not render it reasonable."

Analyzing the Sarah Palin defamation threats

By Eriq Gardner

Alaska governor Sarah Palin's shocking resignation last week triggered a parlor game of sorts to figure out the real reason why she abandoned her political office. 

On the more outrageous end were whispers echoed in the political blogosphere that Palin was about to be indicted for embezzling construction material from a local sports complex. The shadowy charge was enough to prompt Palin's lawyer to send an open letter to MSNBC, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and other media outlets, threatening a defamation lawsuit if they reported the rumor.

Many pundits have shrugged off the threat. For example, Slate's Mickey Kaus asks, "Is Palin's Legal Threat Really 'Toothless,'" answering that it probably is. Kaus points to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which seems to immunize anyone on the Internet from putting up "offensive materials." 

Whether Section 230 applies to libelous statements is subject to much debate, but we suspect that people often miss a much larger point when it comes to defamation laws.

For years, members of the media have cited Supreme Court cases like New York Times v. Sullivan, which reigned in defamation claims by saying that public figures (like Sarah Palin) could only win a libel suit if they could show "actual malice" or "reckless disregard of whether (a published statement is) false or not."

The Supreme Court's constitutional limits on defamation (and perhaps Section 230 too) engender a feeling of invincibility in people who feel they can say anything about public officials. What's missing from all the talk about defamation, however, is a realization that people bring defamation claims in state court—not federal court—and that defamation laws vary from state to state.

We were interested in this primer put out by the Alaska Supreme Court in 1989 to judges about crafting jury instructions in defamation cases. It's 20 years old, so some of it might not be applicable, but clearly states have a lot of leeway in deciding things like whether improper motive can prevent truth from being a defense in a defamation claim.

Alaska's courts are subject to the U.S. Constitution, of course, but before anybody professes to know everything there is to know about defamation standards, best to check if they've boned up on applicable state law.

Michael Jackson estate in Branca and McClain's hands....for now

By Eriq Gardner

Congrats to John Branca and John McClain for bringing some semblance of stability to the Michael Jackson legal circus. This morning, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff granted them temporary control over Jackson estate.

Confusion reigned last week after Jackson's mother Katherine made a request to appoint a special administrator to the estate. Branca then surfaced with a will drawn up by Michael Jackson in 2002 that laid out specific executors. 

"Mr. Branca and Mr. McClain for the next month are at the helm of the ship," Beckloff told the court today.

Katherine Jackson was not present in court but Branca was in attendance. The judge seems sensitive to any emerging dispute between the parties. He told Branca he needed to share information about the estate and any transactions made with Katherine.

We'll see if that's enough for Jackson's mother. 

In a statement, John Schreiber, an attorney for Katherine Jackson, said, "Frankly, Mrs. Jackson has concerns about handing over the keys to the kingdom."

PiracyWatch: What now becomes of Pirate Bay?

By Eriq Gardner

The recording industry has enjoyed some success on the legal front of late, convincing a jury in Minnesota to order Jammie Thomas-Rasset to pay $1.92 million in damages for copyright infringement for songs shared online, and getting a Swedish court to fine Pirate Bay $3.6 million for assisting copyright infringement. 

Music executives may have looked forward to their holiday weekend with some wind at their back, but the defendants in each of these cases aren't creating much peace.

According to CNET, RIAA lawyers followed up the Thomas-Rasset trial with a phone call to see if the defendant was interested in settling. The RIAA was rebuffed after Thomas-Rasset's lawyer, Joe Sibley, told the industry group that his client wouldn't accept any deal that required her to admit guilt or pay any money. Sibley says that Thomas-Rasset intends to appeal her case. In the meantime, the RIAA wants the federal judge to bar the woman from sharing music online ever again.

Meanwhile, things don't look much better on the Pirate Bay front.

Last week, the company was sold for $7.8 million. According to the founders of the website, "the profits from the sale will go into a foundation that is going to help with projects about freedom of speech, freedom of information and the openness of the nets."

More interesting is what now becomes of Pirate Bay. 

The new owner is a Swedish software company called Global Gaming Factory X AB, which is detailing some interesting plans for its new acquisition.

GGF's Hans Pandeya says Pirate Bay's new business model will pay file-sharers to distribute digital files. Pandeya says that unlike the previous incarnation of Pirate Bay, the materials shared will be legitimate and that copyright holders will be paid. But Pandeya notes that ISPs have considerable technological expense when they host digital files for download sales. The answer, he says, is to pay users for their unused hard disk space.

Michael Jackson legal battle shifts to the will

By Eriq Gardner

Another day, another round of Michael Jackson legal news.

Yesterday, we reported about the inevitable filing of the late singer's last will and testament. Nothing too shocking was contained the will (beyond a Diana Ross cameo), but the rather vague document has kicked off its own legal battle.

In Los Angeles Superior Court, lawyer John Branca and music executive John McClain filed a motion to vacate Judge Mitchell Beckloff's Monday decision to appoint Jackson's mother, Katherine, as "special administrator" over the estate. Katherine Jackson made the request on Monday, but Branca and McClain now argue that the will supercedes the mother's claimed control.

In response, Judge Beckloff has urged the parties to get together and resolve the situation. "I would like the family to sit down and try to make this work so that we don't have a difficult time in court," he said.

In a statement, Branca and McClain said, "The most important element of Michael's will is his unwavering desire that his mother, Katherine, become the legal guardian for his three children. As we work to carry out Michael's instructions to safeguard both the future of his children as well as the remarkable legacy he left us as an artist we ask that all matters involving his estate be handled with the dignity and the respect that Michael and his family deserve."

Time will tell whether this situation evolves beyond a dispute of dignity to something more ugly. The estates of well-known entertainers with lots of intellectual property at stake tend to invite massive, ugly litigation, as we saw after James Brown passed away.

This time, there's a lot at stake. For instance, Lewis Stark, head of the royalty and contract compliance group at the NYC accounting firm Eisner LLP, claims he spoke to Michael Jackson himself a month ago, and based on his conversation, he believes there will be significant revenue to come, including the release of more than 200 songs from the King of Pop.

Why bar owners should think twice about blasting Poison

By Eriq Gardner

We've got a tip for bars and restaurant owners throughout the United States.

If a strange-looking person walks into your food or drink establishment with a tape measure and begins to ask questions about the number of stereo loudspeakers in the house, immediately comp this individual a stiff alcoholic drink. After all, this person may work for ASCAP or BMI, the two performance rights organizations chartered to collect royalties on behalf of music publishers.

Every bar and restaurant around knows they need a liquor license to serve alcohol, but how many actually spend the $1000 or so to purchase a blanket license from ASCAP or BMI to play music?

We guess not as many as should.

And so, every so often, ASCAP/BMI like to make a point by suing an establishment that hasn't paid for the rights to blare music to its patrons. Don't believe us? Check out this lawsuit filed earlier in the week by various song publishers against a small establishment in the Lower East Side of Manhattan called Pianos Bar and Restaurant. According to the complaint, Pianos had the nerve to play Poison's "Talk Dirty to Me" without paying Bret Michaels, or whomever holds the performance rights to the song. (Other songs are alleged too.)

Here's the thing, though. In 1998, Congress amended copyright law on performance rights as they applied to certain food service or drinking establishments. Exemptions were given to bars and restaurants that were less than 3,750 gross square feet or played music on no more than 6 loudspeakers. ASCAP's website acknowledges as much.

Performance rights are a pretty quirky realm of copyright law—and there's a lot of confusion about whether things like ringtones are covered—but in a day and age when the music industry is hunting for revenue, restaurants and bars are going to see more PRO cops in their midst.

J.D. Salinger stops 'Catcher' sequel

By Eriq Gardner

J.D. Salinger has successfully persuaded a New York federal judge to ban publication of a Swedish author's sequel to "The Catcher in the Rye." 

In her decision yesterday, Judge Deborah Batts ruled that author J.D. California's "60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye" didn't fall under fair use:

To the extent Defendants contend that 60 Years and the character of Mr. C direct parodic comment or criticism at Catcher or Holden Caulfield, as opposed to Salinger himself, the Court finds such contentions to be post-hoc rationalizations employed through vague generalizations about the alleged naivety of the original, rather than reasonably perceivable parody.

Ouch. Here's the decision in full.

Aaron Silverman of SCB Distributors says "We strongly disagree with the decision and plan to appeal."

In the meantime, the case has generated a great deal of publicity for this book, and anybody who really wants to see a copy only has to go to eBay and Amazon UK to get ahold of it. We're still scratching our heads why Salinger has gone to the trouble to fight this inconsequential book, but if he really wants to keep "60 Years Later" from sullying his literary masterpiece, the reclusive, litigious author is going to need to knock on the door of the U.S. Customs Office to crack down on imported sales of the copyright infringing work.

How bad is the deal landscape? Entertainment lawyers sound off

By Eriq Gardner

Entertainment lawyer Gordon Firemark pointed on his blog yesterday a chilling memo from James Jones of Premiere Talent that has been circulating through Hollywood. 

This won't come as a shocker to anyone in the business, but the memo paints a dire portrait of an industry in turmoil as studios and networks cut back budgets. Firemark comments, "Sadly, this situation 'trickles down' to all entertainment industry workers, including writers, directors, crew, and even professionals like accountants, lawyers and the like."

Yes, theatrical boxoffice receipts are close to 12 percent ahead of last year's numbers, according to Box Office Mojo.But this doesn't tell the whole story.

In our conversations with industry lawyers, the number one topic of conversation is increasingly the woeful state of the industry. 

Hollywood's biggest stars are being forced into deals that would have seemed outlandish a few years earlier. Here are some choice quotes from some of the top talent lawyers we've interviewed for our upcoming Power Lawyers issue:

• "The financial structure of the TV and film industry is changing, and the pressures go well beyond just fee structures in contracts. We're also talking about conditions of employment, including trailers, travel, and photos. Just about everything is being cut back, especially the perks. Different clients react very differently to this news. It's becoming very hard for dealmakers."
• "Wow, I feel lucky just to have survived the last year. This is as challenging an economic environment as I've ever seen. I have to say I find what's been going on to be rather inexplicable."
• "Studios are getting more conservative on everything. The whole business is getting crunched. I think that everybody is challenged to be more creative in dealmaking because quotes really don't mean much these days."
• "I'm hoping with resolution with all of the guild issues, there will be some more stability in the marketplace and we'll see more stuff in production. Life will be pretty difficult otherwise."
• "What I'm seeing is more separation between the A++ clients and everyone else. Even for star clients who work in the feature market, there's just less work. Plus, a lot of movies being made today are animated and the compensation for that is nothing like what they would get on a live action picture."
• "As studios cut back on their production budget, it encourages talent to think of alternative ways to get into the distribution game and monetize their work. In some ways, studios are fostering competition for themselves and absolutely shooting themselves in the foot." 

Echostar manages rare win over TiVo

By Paul Bond

The patent battle between TiVo and EchoStar shows no signs of letup.

On Wednesday, EchoStar said a district court's injunction demanding it disable millions of DVRs used by its Dish customers has been blocked.

TiVo and EchoStar have been duking it out for almost six years, with TiVo awarded about $207 million so far due to patent infringements, but the big prize for TiVo remains elusive -- that being the forcing of EchoStar into a licensing arrangement with TiVo in order to prevent having to shut down Dish DVRs.

EchoStar is appealing the latest $103 million judgment against it and a June 2 order to disable DVRs within 30 days. It already had received a temporary stay of that order, but Wednesday the stay was extended to the duration of the appeal, which could take another two years.

"The federal circuit found that EchoStar met its burden of demonstrating the requisites for a stay, including, at a minimum, that we have a substantial case on the merits," EchoStar and Dish said statement Wednesday. "As a result of the stay, our customers can continue using their Dish DVRs."

Read Michael Jackson's will

By Eriq Gardner

At long last, here's a copy of Michael Jackson's will.

The will is dated July 7, 2002 and gives his entire estate to the Michael Jackson Family Trust. Contrary to earlier news reports, the will doesn't explicitly cut his father out of the estate — only his former wife Deborah Rowe.

The five-page document is rather vague on many details, which may spark future battles and increase the power of the named executors —  attorney John Branca, music exec John McClain and accountant Barry Siegel (although reports say Siegel resigned as an executor). The executors have been given power to sell assets of the estate and invest money from the estate, perhaps significant given the value of the singer's intellectual property.

Finally, Jackson gave his mother guardianship of his three children. Interestingly, his back-up plan for his children in case his mother didn't survive him was singer Diana Ross.

John Branca finally talks about Michael Jackson: 'It'll all be clear within 48 hours'

By Eriq Gardner

Yesterday, TMZ reported that music attorney John Branca of the Ziffren Brittenham firm was re-hired by Michael Jackson three weeks ago and that he has a copy of the late singer's will. But court papers filed yesterday by Michael Jackson's mother say the family hasn't been able to locate any will.

So who's right? We spoke to Branca today, and from his first interview on the subject we can confirm that Branca has been appointed as co-executor of the Jackson estate and that an announcement about the will is forthcoming.

Branca called us today in connection with our annual Power Lawyers issue (spoiler alert: Branca's on the list), and we got to talking about his involvement in the Michael Jackson situation. Branca says he was re-hired by Michael himself two weeks ago in preparation for the singer's planned comeback tour. The two go way back, having worked together during Michael's heyday in the 80's and 90's. Branca is often credited with negotiating for Jackson one of the most lucrative recording contracts in history and advising him to purchase the Beatles music publishing catalog. Jackson was even the best man at Branca's first wedding, but they parted ways a few years ago.

So what did he and Michael talk about? "We discussed how to exploit his valuable brand and the upcoming concert," says Branca.

Branca was as shocked as anyone to hear the news last week that Michael had been rushed to the hospital. Now, as co-executor of the estate, Branca will be handling the music publishing agreements that will earn the estate significant revenues over the coming years. This is the lawyer's specialty. Last year, for example, Branca represented the Rodgers & Hammerstein Org in a $250 million sale of the rights to hit broadway musicals.

When asked about the will, Branca let this tidbit fly:

"The will hasn't been filed yet," he said.

Would Branca confirm the existence of the much talked-about Michael Jackson will? THR's Roger Friedman has been reporting for days that Jackson drafted a will in 2002, dividing his estate among his mother, three children, and charities (but not his father), and that the will should be filed in Los Angeles Superior Court as soon as Thursday.

"It'll all be clear within 48 hours," he responded. "Much more will be revealed soon." 

Read Michael Jackson's mother's court petition

By Matthew Belloni

Michael Jackson's mother Katherine filed court documents today in an attempt to safegaurd her late son's assets, including Jackson's stake in the lucrative Sony-ATV music publishing catalog (which includes Beatles songs).

Here's the petition, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court by attorney Burt Levitch at Rosenfeld Meyer & Susman.

Katherine Jackson, who has already won temporary custody of Michael's three children, is asking that a special administrator be immediately appointed to oversee the late singer's trust because certain bank accounts are controlled by unspecified third parties who might mishandle funds.

The court papers also ask that the administrator be given control over "certain tangible physical property currently in the physical possession of a third party," and that at least one person is improperly claiming to have a power of attorney to act on Jackson's behalf (power of attorney ends at death).

The court papers also say the family hasn't been able to locate a will. That contradicts a TMZ report claiming that former Jackson attorney John Branca of the Ziffren Brittenham firm (who was apparently re-hired by Jackson only weeks ago, according to the website) is in possession of a will. But if so, the family hasn't seen it.

Katherine Jackson says because Michael died without a wife or adult children, the family is now empowered to take control of the estate.

Graphing Michael Jackson's lawyers

By Eriq Gardner

Bitter Lawyer has a neat post up that summarizes Michael Jackson's greatest legal hits by pointing out the army of attorneys who have kept the King of Pop out of trouble—and in some cases, out of prison.

The post has some interesting tidbits, like Jackson performing Best Man duties at John Branca's first wedding and Bob Sanger talking to Jackson about psychology, Freud and Jung, Hawthorne, sociology, black history and sociology dealing with race issues.

We took the pleasure of using Bitter Lawyer's list to create a visualization of the many degrees of Michael Jackson's legal connections: