Partner

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

Alan R. Friedman has more than 25 years of litigation experience covering a broad range of industries. He has handled numerous contract, fraud, fiduciary duty, securities and other disputes for plaintiffs and defendants in state and federal courts from their inception through their final appellate stages. In addition, he has represented individuals and companies before JAMS, the AAA, other arbitral bodies. Mr. Friedman has substantial intellectual property and entertainment litigation and transaction experience. He has handled many contract, copyright, trademark and participation/royalty claims in the motion picture, music and television industries. He is listed in New York Super Lawyers as a Super Lawyer in Entertainment Law and in The Best Lawyers in America. He is also a member of the Board of Editors of Entertainment Law & Finance.

Mr. Friedman served as General Counsel at Miramax Film Corp., from 1999 until 2005, when Miramax’s founders separated from the company. During his tenure as General Counsel, Miramax successfully opposed numerous commercial and intellectual property claims without litigation and favorably resolved many other matters in Court and in arbitration. Mr. Friedman acted as the senior strategist in these matters and participated in the company’s major court hearings and arbitrations. He led the Company in successfully overcoming challenges to such well known films as “Shakespeare in Love,” “Chicago,” “The Cider House Rules,” the “Scary Movie” releases and many others. He also reviewed Miramax films and marketing materials prior to release to evaluate and avoid risks of copyright and trademark infringement, defamation and right of publicity/privacy claims.

Mr. Friedman regularly provides business counseling and copyright and trademark advice to clients. He has written about a variety of entertainment and copyright law topics. In addition, he has provided CLE instruction in trial practice and discovery techniques, has lectured on subjects involving copyright and entertainment law issues and chaired the Bar Association of the City of New York’s Entertainment Committee’s CLE program entitled for Ethical Issues for Entertainment Attorneys (2010).

Mr. Friedman graduated cum laude from the Georgetown University Law Center in 1981, where he was an editor of The Georgetown Law Journal. He is a member of the bar of the States of New York and California.

Among the contested entertainment-related matters Mr. Friedman has handled are the following:

 In 2012, won the dismissal at the pleading stage of class action lawsuit filed under Michigan Consumer Protection Act through which plaintiff contended that the marketing materials used for the motion picture “Drive” misrepresented the style and character of the motion picture.

 Won summary judgment dismissal of copyright claim asserted against NBC Universal and Reveille LLC in which plaintiff contended that popular television show “The Biggest Loser” infringed on her copyrighted treatment and appeal thereof. Latimore v. NBC Universal, Inc., slip op., 07 Civ. 9338 (AKH) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2011), aff’d., 2102 WL 1863787 (2d Cir. May 23 2012).

 Won appeal of NC-17 rating accorded to acclaimed feature length film entitled “Blue Valentine,” resulting in issuance of “R” rating for film, which facilitated that marketing and distribution of the picture. The Weinstein Company v. MPAA, decision rendered December 8, 2010.

 Represented major film distributor in ICC Arbitration involving disputes over contingent compensation, marketing and distribution of motion picture and rights to subsequent productions based upon motion picture the subject of dispute and negotiated favorable resolution for client prior to arbitration hearing.

 Represented foreign sales agent in connection with delivery dispute concerning whether motion picture delivered by foreign sales agent to distributor for major foreign territories complied with “non-technical specifications” included in license agreement and negotiated favorable resolution prior to initiation of claims in IFTA arbitration.

 Obtained judgment for full amount of client’s claim in dispute between producer and motion picture distribution company over adequacy of rights licensed by producer for exploitation in territories outside United States. Maple Pictures Corp. v. CPG, Inc., Case No. 2:10-cv-03508 AHM (RZx).

 Successfully represented recording artist in copyright litigation and in litigation against artist’s ex-manager and other advisors involving artist’s claims of fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and accounting claims resulting in multiple reported decisions. E.g., Joel v. Weber, 602 N.Y.S.2d 383 (1st Dep’t 1993); Joel v. Weber, 569 N.Y.S.2d 955 (1st Dep’t 1991).

 Successfully represented record company and band against right of privacy and New York Civil Rights Law §51 claim based on use of plaintiff’s photograph on album cover, music video and merchandise, including winning two appellate decisions, one that determined that the plaintiff’s domicile determined the choice of law inquiry – and, thus, that New York statute favorable to plaintiff did not apply – and another that prevented plaintiff from refiling lawsuit in a different jurisdiction in order to again assert that New York Civil Rights Law §51 applied to his claim. DuBray v. Warner Bros. Records, Ltd., 653 N.Y.S.2d 592 (1st Dep’t 1997).