University of Baltimore Law Review

From Concert Venue to Your Couch: How the Changes in Music Performances are Presenting Complex Copyright Issues

*Kari Martiniano

In a world where the COVID-19 pandemic has halted nearly all large gatherings, many industries have had to drastically change the ways they function.[1] In particular, the music industry was required to cease nearly all live performances, which is a main source of income for a majority of artists.[2] What constitutes a live performance can range from a small show at a bar to a large show at an arena or stadium.[3]

Effect of COVID-19 on the Live Music Industry and the Reopening of Concert Venues

* Hayley Weisman

Before COVID-19 (COVID), artists in the live music industry toured the country, bringing arenas full of people together to have one common experience of seeing them perform.[1] Since March, the live music industry has hit a standstill, with many events getting postponed or canceled as a result of the COVID pandemic.[2] Many changes have been made to the regulations for public safety since COVID was first declared a pandemic—e.g., the need to wear a mask when out in public and restrictions on the number of people allowed at group gatherings.[3] As an industry that is almost entirely centered around bringing large groups of people together, how should the live music industry reopen amidst COVID without risking massive outbreaks and lawsuits?

Employment Classification: California Drives Away Rideshare Giants and Threatens the Future of Independent Contractors

*Michael Blanchard

I. Introduction

Uber and other rideshare companies are making headlines as California seeks to bring an end to the classification of drivers as independent contractors.[1] In a recently filed lawsuit, California Labor Commissioner, Lilia García-Brower, demands that rideshare companies reclassify drivers and is seeking millions of dollars in civil penalties, in addition to unpaid payroll and benefit taxes.[2] The Commissioner argues that by continuing to improperly classify drivers as independent contractors, rideshare companies have not only avoided paying taxes and expenses, but also unfairly deprived their drivers of the right to basic employment benefits.[3]

Highest Case Note from Write-On 2020: Kazadi v. State, 467 Md. 1, 223 A.3d 554 (2020)

*Joshua Gehret

The Maryland Court of Appeals held that the Circuit Court for Baltimore County abused its discretion when, upon request during voir dire, it declined to question prospective jurors’ willingness and ability to follow jury instructions on fundamental principles of the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof, and the defendant’s right to not testify, overruling Twining v. State. Kazadi v. State, 467 Md. 1, 223 A.3d 554 (2020).

I. Introduction

In Kazadi v. State, the Court of Appeals of Maryland (Court of Appeals) overruled its decision in Twining v. State, holding that trial courts commit an abuse of discretion when declining to ask prospective jurors whether they can follow the court’s instructions on the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof, and the defendant’s right not to testify.[1] To reach this decision, the Court of Appeals determined that significant changes in the law superseded Twining.[2] The Court’s decision mandates that trial courts question prospective jurors—about the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof, and the defendant’s right not to testify—if requested during voir dire.[3] The Kazadi holding adopts the presumption that jurors may be unable or unwilling to follow the law according to the trial court’s instructions, which may significantly affect how Maryland courts conduct voir dire and help ensure selection of impartial juries.[4]