Suggestions
Wileen Leu
Senior Counsel at Morrison Cooper LLP
Wileen Leu is a legal professional with expertise in digital entertainment law. She is currently a Founding Partner at MGL LLP.4 Prior to her current role, Wileen served as Senior Counsel at Morrison Cooper LLP from October 2020 to December 2024.4
Wileen specializes in guiding clients on various legal matters, including business strategies, corporate formations, equity structures, and privacy law.2 Born in December 1985, she is 39 years old and resides in Brea, California.1
Wileen's educational background includes attending the University of Notre Dame.4 She is an active member of the California State Bar with license number #287443.6
Throughout her career, Wileen has held positions at different law firms. Before joining Morrison Cooper, she worked as an Associate at Chang & Cote.5 Her experience and expertise in digital entertainment law contribute to her role in providing legal counsel to clients ranging from startups to multinational companies.3
Highlights
Copyright law isn't the first thing that comes to mind when I think of George Santos, but he's been a versatile character! Back in February, Santos (former U.S. Congressman) had filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Jimmy Kimmel and his show, “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” over the display of cameo videos that Santos created. In the ruling on Monday, Federal Judge Denise Cote dismissed Santos' case, finding that Kimmel's political and satirical commentary on the videos constituted fair use.
Quick summary: Santos alleged that Kimmel’s show used the cameo videos for “commercial use” when they were purchased under a “personal use” license. Specifically, Santos argued that Kimmel’s use of the videos in his show’s segment of “Will Santos Say It” constituted a misuse of his image and likeness, and he sought damages for what he claimed was unauthorized exploitation of his personal content.
Kimmel’s defense (Disney lawyers) hinged on the principle of fair use, which allows for limited use of copyrighted material without permission under certain conditions, especially for purposes such as commentary, criticism, or parody. Kimmel’s team argued that the use of the cameo videos falls under this exception because it was used for comedic and satirical purposes, which are generally protected under fair use.
Judge Cote analyzed the four factors of fair use –purpose of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount used, and the effect on the market for the original work – and agreed with Kimmel’s defense.
It’s rare to see Disney lawyers arguing on the side of fair use, and this is well-deserved win in support of creative expression and satirical content.
When navigating fair use, it’s crucial to examine the specific facts of each case to determine whether the use in question constitutes infringement, as fair use evaluations depend on the unique context of each situation.
Since this case was dismissed, Santos has said he will be filing an appeal, so we’ll see how this plays out further.
Disney attempts to force arbitration in a wrongful death lawsuit based on the deceased’s previous subscription to a trial period of Disney+ (which terms of service (TOS) included a binding arbitration clause).
Disney's argument is wild (but also just inherently unfair)! The circumstances surrounding a wrongful death are profoundly different from those of a simple subscription service, and leveraging an arbitration clause from a consumer agreement to shield against a wrongful death claim exploits the disparity in power between a large corporation and grieving family members. It's unlikely for anyone who signs up for Disney+ to foresee that it's TOS might one day impact a case as significant as a wrongful death. By making this argument, Disney's attorneys are calling attention to the unfairness in Disney's TOS and their (lack of) ethics in attempting to apply this clause.
This situation highlights the importance of ensuring that arbitration clauses, and terms of use generally, are applied in a manner that respects the gravity of different legal matters, rather than being used as a blanket shield against all forms of litigation.
