2025 BESLA SCHOLARSHIP ESSAY COMPETITION

 

For over 40 years, BESLA has supported law students financially, through mentoring and internship opportunities. BESLA also awards scholarships to deserving law students seeking careers in the entertainment, sports, and related industries.
​
The Essay Competition is an annual competition that encourages original and innovative research and writing on industry topics. An applicant may select one (1) of the three topics below for submission. 

Submission Deadline: September 5, 2025 (11:59PM EST)

Essay Question One 

Your law firm represents a well-known screenwriter, Naomi Jones, whose drama series aired on a major network between 2018 and 2022. Jones recently discovered that substantial portions of her scripts were used without her knowledge or consent to train a generative AI model (“the NeuroVerse Model”) developed by a major tech company—NeuroVerse AI (“NeuroVerse”).

​

Internal documents leaked from NeuroVerse reveal that over 10,000 copyrighted scripts were used—without individual licenses—as part of the model’s training dataset. This included final scripts, as well as earlier drafts stored on cloud-based collaborative platforms. Among them were multiple confidential drafts of Jones’ scripts, which had been uploaded to Ubiquitous, a popular California-based script-hosting service.  NeuroVerse obtained Jones’ scripts from Ubiquitous. Ubiquitous’ Terms of Use, to which Jones’ production company agreed, allegedly granted broad—but vaguely defined—rights to third parties for data “analytics and improvement of AI systems”.

​

The Terms of Use included in relevant part:
 

“By using this service you acknowledge that certain data arising from or related to your use may be accessed, analyzed, or otherwise utilized by us and authorized third-parties for operational, analytical, or technical purposes including, but not limited to, enhancing service functionality, refining user experience, and contributing to the development or improvement of automated or intelligent tools. The specific nature, scope, and duration of such data use may vary and are subject to these Terms of Use. Notwithstanding the foregoing, you retain all copyrights and ownership rights to your content, subject to any rights granted under these Terms.”

 

The NeuroVerse model, now licensed by GiantStreamer, a leading global streaming service, has begun autonomously generating script drafts that mirror Jones’ narrative structure, character arcs, tone, and even specific lines of dialogue.

​

NeuroVerse has publicly claimed that its use of copyrighted materials falls under the Fair Use Doctrine, emphasizing the transformative nature and public benefit of AI innovation. However, NeuroVerse also entered into confidential data-sharing partnerships with several Hollywood studios, further muddying the line between “scraped” data and voluntarily supplied content.

​

Meanwhile, the U.S. Copyright Office has pushed back against arguments that AI training constitutes a "non-expressive" use or mimics human learning processes.  A related class-action lawsuit involving another generative AI company was recently allowed to proceed past the motion-to-dismiss stage, suggesting courts may be willing to hear infringement claims related to these issues.

​

Draft a memorandum analyzing the following legal issues:

​

• Copyright Infringement by NeuroVerse: 

o    Does NeuroVerse’s use of Jones’ original script to train its AI model constitute copyright infringement under current U.S. law?

 

• Defenses:

o    What defenses could NeuroVerse plausibly assert against Jones’ copyright infringement claim, and what factors would weigh for or against such defenses?

​

• Secondary Liability and Downstream Use:

o    Could Jones assert a viable claim for copyright infringement against a third-party company, such as GiantStreamer, that uses the NeuroVerse-trained AI model to generate script drafts?

 

 

Essay Question Two

In February 2025, the President issued Executive Order 14201, titled “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports” (“EO 14201”).  EO 14201 directs all educational institutions receiving federal funding to adopt policies restricting participation in women’s sports to individuals “assigned female sex at birth.”  EO 14201 grounds its authority in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, asserting that allowing transgender women to compete undermines the law’s sex-based protections intended to ensure fairness in women’s athletics.

 

The Executive Order’s rationale draws support from two recent federal cases:
•    Tennessee v. Cardona, 24-cv-00072 (E.D. Ky. 2024); and
•    Kansas v. U.S. Dept. of Education, 24-cv-04041 (D. Kan. 2024).

 

At Jefferson State University (JSU), a California public university, the women's track and field team includes Taylor, a transgender woman who has undergone hormone therapy for 18 months and has satisfied all NCAA eligibility criteria for participation in women’s sports.

 

Following the issuance of EO 14201, JSU receives a notice from the U.S. Department of Education threatening the loss of federal funding unless Taylor is removed from the team.  In response, JSU removes Taylor from the roster. 

 

Taylor subsequently files suit against JSU and the federal government, claiming that EO 14201 violates her rights under Title IX, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and California’s School Success and Opportunity Act (“AB 1266”). 

 

Meanwhile, Emily, a cisgender woman JSU track and field athlete, intervenes in the lawsuit, arguing that Taylor’s participation compromises competitive fairness and undermines the intent of Title IX to protect opportunities for biological women.

 

Draft a memo addressing the following:

 

1.    Evaluate Taylor’s legal claims under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.

​

2.    Assess Emily’s claims regarding competitive fairness and her interpretation of Title IX protections.

a.    Consider whether her intervention presents a legally cognizable interest and how courts have approached similar claims.

​

3.    Consider JSU’s potential defenses or counterclaims, particularly in light of conflicting obligations under EO 14201, federal Title IX funding conditions, and California’s AB 1266.

​

4.    Support your analysis with relevant constitutional principles, statutory interpretation doctrines, and case law, including but not limited to:

a.    Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020) (Title VII and transgender discrimination)
b.    United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) (gender-based classifications and equal protection). 
 

Essay Question Three

Empire Soundworks (ESW), one of the “Big Three” global record labels, represents dozens of prominent artists across genres. Two of ESW’s top talents are:

​

• Nova, a chart-topping rapper known for provocative lyrics and a controversial public persona; and

• Zara Steele, a former child star turned pop singer, known for her clean image and broad commercial appeal

 

Both artists are under exclusive recording agreements with ESW and have released several successful albums through the label. In March 2025, Nova released a surprise single titled “Snake in the Studio” that quickly went viral. In the song’s second verse, he appears to make multiple veiled but clearly identifiable references to Zara, accusing her of “[selling out] to execs for chart spots” and referencing a well-publicized rehab stint with the line, “you checked in for a ‘rest’—but we know what was in your vest.”

 

Within days, fans and media outlets identified the lyrics as targeting Zara, fueling online harassment and speculation about her personal life. Zara, who has a morals clause in her endorsement contracts, was dropped from two major brand partnerships within a week of the song’s release.

 

The relevant morals clause, found in both endorsement agreements, reads:

 

“The Company may terminate this Agreement immediately if Artist commits or becomes involved in any act or occurrence which, in the Company's sole judgment, brings Artist into public disrepute, contempt, scandal or ridicule, or which may shock, insult or offend the community or any group or class thereof, or which could tend to reflect unfavorably upon the Company’s reputation or commercial interests.”

 

Zara filed a lawsuit in federal court, bringing claims against both Nova and ESW for defamation, breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In her complaint, she alleges:

​

• ESW had actual knowledge of the lyrics before release, as the song was reviewed and approved by ESW’s in-house legal and A&R teams.

• The label actively promoted the song, purchasing national radio placements, pushing it to editorial playlists, and featuring it in prominent social media ad campaigns.

• As a fellow ESW artist, she had a reasonable expectation that the label would not release or amplify content that directly undermines or damages another artist on the roster.

• The content of the song was knowingly false and malicious, particularly the insinuation that she had engaged in morally compromising behavior to advance her career.

 

Zara asserts that the song triggered her allegations around morals clause violations and directly caused her to lose millions of dollars in endorsement revenue.
 
Evaluate ESW and Nova’s liability for (1) defamation; (2) breach of contract; and (3) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  All legal claims shall be discussed under United States federal law, not state law.