Entertainment LawEntertainment Law is perhaps the most difficult section of the law to master. It is not simply dealing with the film, music, television, publishing and other medias. To start with, Entertainment law is a cross compilation of contract law, intellectual property law, international law, immigration law, securities law and employment law. Each of these types of law must be considered in drafting any agreement between studios, artists, or industry vendors. To add to the difficulties, immigration law may be an issue, as well as software and computer law, publishing, financing, distribution, copywriters, licenses, liens, options payments, royalties, buy-outs, and union negotiations. What you may not know is that behind most represented artists is a multi-million dollar operation. Handling the legal, business and financial aspects of film, art, publishing and recording contracts differ between the motion picture and television industries, between studio and independent production, and between artist and publisher. Relevant issues may include acquisitions, financing sources and structures, personal service contracts, theories of protection, performer’s contracts, completion risks and guarantees, distribution, revenues and contingent proceeds, litigation, pre-production costs, post-production costs, funding shortages, advancements, insurance, and other issues. The goals, policies, and practices encountered among the various parties to representative deals need to be fully examined in order to formulate the best legal method to protect the client. Additionally, difficulties to be considered are of those with whom the artist conducts his business, including both their personal representatives, their corporate representative, (such as managers, agents and attorneys), and with whom they contract. The Lawyers approach will address the state-of-the-art with regard to beginning artists as well as established stars. Topics, such recording agreements, music publishing, touring, merchandising, sponsorships, licensing, and ownership to music, scripts, choreography, trademarks, endorsements and other key areas are paramount considerations. Furthermore, after the art, production, or publication aspects are dealt with, other legal issues may arise. These issues include: cross-border acquisition of intellectual property rights; employment of talent both locally and internationally, (including immigration and international taxation issues, and the authority of U.S. talent guilds over foreign performers and performances); international finance, especially of motion picture productions or videos; barriers created by copyright and international trade law to cross-border distribution of recordings, videos, books and magazines; and issues that arise during exhibition, performance and sale of entertainment, such as domestic content requirements, regulation of offensive content, international piracy, and the cross-border collection of music and movie royalties. Some of our network of independent attorneys work with some of the biggest names in the film, video and recording industry. They represent recording artists, songwriters, film makers, artists and copyright owners in music publishing, producers, personal managers, digital distributors of music, record companies and publishing companies, and parties involved with film and television music. The only way to succeed in the entrainment field is to have proper representation. Speak with one for our lawyers today. A word on the “Fair Use” doctrine. Some artists remake and/or reuse another’s artist work product. Even if that work is protected by copyright law, there is a fair use exception to the law. In the 1976 revision of the Copyright Act, in relation to what is allowable as fair use of another’s work product, the following analysis is made: § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. Additionally, court usually balance three additionally factors in determining whether the work copied or taken amounts to fair use or not. These factors include:
The need for global considerations in the entertainment law field is expanding exponentially. The European Union and Asia have placed new regulations on content and use of all artists’ content. Only a well versed entertainment lawyer is able to handle and confront all these issues. For your protection, use only a lawyer who specializes in entertainment law. Our independent network of attorneys represent a large cross-section of every major film, television, new media and publishing companies, as well as many individual directors, authors and screenwriters, actors and film and television personalities. The DiscountLawyers.com lawyers also represent authors and literary agencies. If you are in the entertainment business or you are just starting out, contact one of our attorneys; they are looking forward to speaking with you. RECENT CASESVideogame makers have a First Amendment right to base their game characters on real celebrities, so long as they are transformed somewhat, a California appellate court has held in a case in which Lady Miss Kier, the former lead singer for the group Deee-Lite, alleged that the character “Ulala” in the game “Space Channel 5” is a “mere emulation” of her. Kirby v. Sega of America, Inc. The National Football League is entitled to be reimbursed by its insurance company for the legal costs it incurred in successfully defending itself in the antitrust lawsuit filed against it by former Ohio State player Maurice Clarett, who complained about an NFL rule that made him ineligible to be drafted when he wanted to be, even though the insurance policy excluded coverage for claims asserting “wrongful deprivation of a career opportunity,” a New York appellate court has ruled. National Football League v. Vigilant Insurance Co. A computer user committed willful infringement of copyrights belonging to Universal and Paramount by downloading digital copies of “Coach Carter” and “Half Baked” from the online P2P service KaZaA, and by storing those movies in the “shared files” directory of his computer from which they could be downloaded by other KaZaA users, a federal District Court has ruled. Universal City Studios v. Bigwood The History Channel did not defame the Catholic Church by broadcasting the program “Beyond the Da Vinci Code,” nor did the broadcast violate the Communications Decency Act or Child Online Protection Act, a federal District Court has held. Viola v. A & E Television Networks Trademark infringement claims filed by former players for the Harlem Globetrotters against a clothing manufacturer have been dismissed, because the players failed to show a likelihood of confusion; but the players’ right of publicity claims have not been dismissed, because there are fact disputes about whether the players’ contracts gave the team their publicity rights, and whether the team’s current owner acquired those contracts when the original team went bankrupt. Lemon v. Harlem Globetrotters International, Inc. A record company has been awarded $170,000 in a copyright infringement suit against a rack jobber that sold infringing recordings to Big Lots stores, in a case that was complicated by disputes about whether the works were properly registered and assigned, and about whether the rack jobber had access to masters of the record company’s original recordings. King Records, Inc. v. Bennett WIPO has ordered the transfer of the domains “columbiapicture.net” and “columbiapictures.org” to Columbia Pictures. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. The FCC has found that Cher’s use of “fuck” and Nicole Richie’s use of “fucking” in statements they made during Fox broadcasts of the 2002 and 2003 “Billboard Music Awards” were indecent and profane; but it also found that a guest’s use of “bullshitter” during a news segment of CBS’s “The Early Show” was not. In the Matter of Complaints The Cleveland Browns and NFL were the first users of the “Dawg Pound” trademark, and thus they are the mark’s owners rather than clothing manufacturer Hawaii-Pacific, a federal District Court has ruled; the court rejected the clothing company’s argument that the Browns and NFL had abandoned the mark when the team moved to Baltimore and became the “Ravens.” Hawaii-Pacific Apparel Group, Inc. v. Major League Baseball does not violate federal or state antitrust laws by licensing trademarks on behalf of its teams, a federal District Court has ruled (in a recently-published opinion) in an infringement lawsuit filed against an unlicensed maker of plush toys bearing team logos. Major League Baseball Properties v. Salvino, Inc. Karaoke machines that display lyrics while it plays songs are not entitled to compulsory mechanical licenses, nor are they exempt from licensing requirements by the fair use doctrine, a federal District Court has held (in a recently-published opinion). Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publishing Click Here to Find an Entertainment Law Attorney In Your Area
|
