Talk:Lugosi v. Universal Pictures

Clarification request
I was not familiar with this issue until reading this article. I think the article needs stronger language to make it clear (if I understand the issue correctly) that the initial case was decided in favor of the Lugosi heirs, but the CA Supreme court overturned that decision and ruled against Lugosi's heirs. I believe that's what the article says, but it should be made explicitly clear. Currently, the wording leaves a little room for doubt or confusion. I defer to those with better knowledge of the issue to clarify the wording, if indeed my assumption is correct. DonFB 02:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lugosi v. Universal Pictures. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090303204756/http://www.musicblob.it/archivio-documenti/california-civil-code-section-3344-33441-astaire-celebrity-image-protection-act/ to http://www.musicblob.it/archivio-documenti/california-civil-code-section-3344-33441-astaire-celebrity-image-protection-act/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)