John Tormey III, Esq., NY Entertainment Attorney

This Article Is Brought To You By The Letter Blank: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And Trademark Attorney John J. Tormey III, Esq.

This article is not intended to, and does not constitute, legal advice with respect to your particular situation and fact pattern. Do secure counsel promptly, if you see any legal issue looming on the horizon which may affect your career or your rights. What applies in one context, may not apply to the next one. Make sure that you seek individualized legal advice as to any important matter pertaining to your career or your rights generally.

Most of the American public including most all entertainment lawyers, heard about one of Oprah Winfrey’s well-publicized litigations a number of years ago. My understanding was that she was sued in Texas by a commercial cattle-oriented conglomerate. The plaintiffs apparently claimed that Oprah had inaccurately and unfairly maligned the culinary safety of cow meat, during one of her television programs. The Texas case seemed vaguely surreal and comic, even from the perspective of an entertainment lawyer - sort of like an overly-imaginative law school exam question. But next we must go from the sublime to the ridiculous. This next case was an entertainment lawyer and trademark lawyer’s delight. Talk about the eradication of your sacred cows. The local press in New York reported that a German “fetish magazine” named “O” sued one of Oprah’s companies and her publisher, over the sale of Oprah’s magazine bearing the equally-expansive title of “O”. Query if it was really a service mark dispute as opposed to a trademark dispute.

Perhaps even more befuddling, from the entertainment lawyer or publishing lawyer perspective or otherwise, the German “fetish” magazine somehow derived its own title from the erotic novel “Story of O” - serving as even more of a reminder that there is truly nothing new under the sun. And if this were not bizarre enough, the local press reported that Oprah’s company and publisher were prepared to change the name of her magazine to “O, The Oprah Magazine”, in an apparent attempt to assuage the seething service mark or trademark plaintiff and make the distinction between the two magazines more apparent.

Coincidentally, this lawsuit received even more attention from trademark lawyers, entertainment lawyers, and others, than usual, since Lions Gate was slated to release a film called “O” around the same time the suit materialized. I understand the Lions Gate film was somehow loosely based upon Shakespeare’s “Othello”. The Bard himself referred to the Globe Theatre as “this wooden ‘O’“. Maybe if we find Shakespeare’s heirs - perhaps arguably incarnate in the Bacon Brothers - we can thereby locate the real plaintiff who has something to complain about?

But come on. All kidding aside, could this trademark (or service mark) lawsuit really be happening? Yes. Yes it could. But maybe it shouldn’t be allowed to happen. The minds of reasonable trademark lawyers, entertainment lawyers, and others, may differ.

Let’s back up a step. Generally speaking, as entertainment lawyers or trademark lawyers will advise, one acquires trademark rights or service mark rights under U.S. law, by consistently using a trademark or service mark in connection with goods or services, and/or by registering the trademark or service mark with one or more appropriate governmental authorities.

Most people and businesses pick lousy names from a trademark or service mark perspective, and most people pick those names without the assistance of an entertainment lawyer or a trademark lawyer. The majority of marks go unregistered, and the majority of trademarks or service marks are never properly searched and cleared by a trademark lawyer, entertainment lawyer, or anyone else before use. Again, there is very little new under the sun, and as most all trademark and entertainment lawyers will attest, most word-paths have been tread upon by someone else previously. Then again, searching and registering a trademark or service mark, with or even without a trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer, is not without cost. So, many cost-constrained start-up businesses elect to just “wing it” and dispense with the search until they can afford to “get around to it”. And surprisingly, sometimes even major-league companies who can otherwise afford to so it, dispense with the trademark or service mark search, dispense with the services of the trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer, and just go ahead and use the proposed name. Ironically, this type of decision keeps trademark and entertainment lawyer litigators who work the back-end of these fact patterns, in business.

Trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers may sometimes advise their clients to select multiple-word names rather than one-word names - as rock-band-name trademarks or service marks, for example - since the statistical chances of infringing some other band’s name and trademark or service mark are likely thereby somewhat reduced. Most artists, on the other hand, are solely concerned about the aesthetics of the band name, and if a one-word band name sounds right to them, they will use it and darn the torpedoes. This type of decision can also keep trademark and entertainment lawyer litigators who work the back-end of these fact patterns, in business.

I have admittedly not yet trademark-searched any of the following band names. But as a trademark and entertainment lawyer, a proposed one-word band name like “Blur”, at first blush, would trouble me a bit more than the two-word “Def Leppard”, from a trademark or service mark perspective - since, without knowing anything else about the underlying facts, I would assume that the statistical chances were somewhat higher that another band might be named (or might have been recently named) “Blur”. When a trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer performs a search on a trademark or service mark or proposed mark, these kinds of concerns and historical analyses come into play.

Trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers may also sometimes advise their clients to try to use more incongruous word combinations as band-name trademarks or service marks, rather than predictable word combinations. By this rationale, “Squirrel Nut Zippers” (the first time, for the candy, that is!), or “Stone Temple Pilots” start to look pretty good as far as their trademark or service mark prospects, to say nothing I suppose about “Orchestral Manoeuvres In The Dark”. After all, what are the odds, the trademark lawyer queries, that the full name “Orchestral Manoeuvres In The Dark” name was used as a trademark or service mark by any other pop or rock band prior to or contemporaneously with 1986’s “If You Leave”? Then again, apart from entertainment lawyer legal concerns, the band and its handlers may have had trouble fitting the full name onto a record jacket sleeve, and may also have had trouble convincing record label A&R executives that the choice of name should be supported.

One must understand, therefore, that the prospect of trying to protect, let alone enforce and prevent others from using - a one-letter trademark or service mark, is the trademark lawyer’s or entertainment lawyer’s equivalent to fingernails scraping on a chalkboard. If a client walks into the office of a trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer and says “Hi. I’d like to protect, for my own exclusive use, the letter ‘W’“ - well, then absent some extreme fact pattern perhaps relating to a powerful Texas family, that lawyer can expect at least a long and tough road ahead - and perhaps a few broadsides of ridicule from the bench and other trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers at the bar as well. They might think that the so-subscribing lawyer took Sesame Street’s commercial endorsement announcement “This program was brought to you by the letter ‘W’”, a little too seriously when younger.

Most Americans conceive of “monopolies” as something anti-competitive, unfair to the consumer, and ultimately evil - especially given publicity in recent years accorded to the Microsoft case. But what is interesting about copyrights and trademarks and service marks, as a trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer will tell you, is that they are in fact legal monopolies protected by federal statute. A property right is, essentially, the right to exclude others from using that same property. That is conceptually quite similar to a monopoly. If I own my house, I can keep you off my land with a fence, and the law will back me up on that. If a company owns a registered trademark in “Chock Full o’ Nuts”, for example, then, through the efforts of its trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer counsel or otherwise, that company owns the right to exclude others from using the same name in connection with the sale of coffee, and perhaps related goods and services as well.

So here is the trademark lawyer entertainment lawyer philosopher question. Haven’t we as a society gone too far, when we even entertain the prospect of a company, or a celebrity, laying claim to a single LETTER of the ALPHABET as a service mark or trademark? Indeed, should any prior claimant be able to use the services if a trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer to legally monopolize the use of a letter of the alphabet, in connection with ANY kind of goods or services, magazine or otherwise? Should they and their trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers even be allowed into court with that kind of argument?

Are all individual Arabic numerals also now in play for trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers? We might as well allow some corporate behemoth to pull the character of Santa Claus out of the public domain, into the realm of copyright-protection, and charge a royalty whenever the fat man’s name or image is evoked. As for trademark versus service mark, does Mr. Claus provide goods or a service, when you get right down to it? And what about prior sources? Do the publishers of the first edition of Webster’s dictionary, or their successors, now have a valid trademark claim to assert through their trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer litigators, against Oprah and the German magazine, for the use of “their” letter of the alphabet as a service mark or trademark?

Harkening back to the Oprah cattle litigation, some cows are sacred. Some things should simply stay in the public domain. Section 105 of the U.S. Copyright Act, for example, excludes works “of the United States Government” from copyright protection. Shouldn’t letters of the alphabet be treated the same way, as non-service mark non-trademark public commodities exempt from any monopolistic endeavors, upon instruction to all trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers who might try to argue otherwise? There may well already be case law holding unitary alphabet letters to be disqualified from trademark and service mark protection under certain circumstances. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office likely has trademark application and registration procedures, possibly reading to similar effect. If so, why not simply codify that common-sense principle in all applicable trademark statutes and other laws, as a de facto and de jure standing instruction to all trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers and their clients? Among other things, a decisive action like this one could eliminate, or at least mandate a shorter life-span for, court-clogging trademark and service mark lawsuits like the “O” story.

And what’s next? Will the adjudicated winner of the O litigation also be awarded a legally-sanctioned monopoly as trademark or service mark over the corresponding three dashes in “- - -”; that is, in the International Morse Code symbol for the letter “O”? Will that be some other trademark lawyer’s or entertainment lawyer’s next argument? Or should that control instead now be awarded to the heirs of Morse, wherever they may be? And what about our National Anthem? Am I at risk of being enjoined by another trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer from singing “O(h) say can you see...” at the start of baseball games at Shea Stadium – I mean, CitiField? And what about Tic-Tac-Toe? Must there now be a Congressional mandate that “X” must always win, and must always occupy all 9 cells on the grid, so as not to “infringe” the trademark or service mark rights of the clients of any other trademark lawyers or entertainment lawyers? And if so, what about the fate of Whoopi Goldberg and Hollywood Squares in syndication?

A number of entertainers use single-word names, and we as a society tolerate that – as do, apparently, the trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers that represent and enable the talent. We tolerate the Gilbert Gottfried “One-Named Boy” routine moreso if the entertainer has the talent to back it up: “Elvis”. “Sting”. Now, “Prince” is, of course, a variation on the theme, an entertainer who at one point dispensed with his chosen one-word name in favor of an arcane symbol not found in the American alphabet – with or without his trademark lawyer’s or entertainment lawyer’s imprimatur. The general point here is that, Prince aside, the trademark lawyer and entertainment lawyer will advise the entertainer that he or she may be able to build up some trademark or service mark protection in his or her continuous and uninterrupted use of the [a]rtist’s one-word name, particularly if that entertainer is extremely well-known.

But some of us trademark and entertainment lawyers and others may feel that claiming one of the 26 letters of the alphabet as your own, takes its own special brand of... uh... chutzpah. Basketball’s Oscar Robertson was known as “The Big O”, probably because fans and the press tagged him with that moniker – probably not because his trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer told him to use it - and probably not because Oscar adopted it for himself. Oscar Robertson may not have been as well-liked a guy, if instead he himself had arrogated “The Big O” nickname for his own use! And speaking of Oscar, asks the trademark and entertainment lawyer, how ‘come he hasn’t appeared yet in this lawsuit?

In similar vein, some trademark lawyers, entertainment lawyers, and others may feel that Oprah should have been satisfied to call her magazine “Oprah” rather than, simply, “O”. It is unlikely that Oprah’s decision as to how to name the magazine was forced upon her by her colleagues – entertainment lawyers or otherwise. In other words, a different P.R. decision may have had incidental legal benefit, too.

Sure, there is precedent in the entertainment field, as trademark and entertainment lawyers are aware, for trademark or service mark use predicated upon a single letter of the alphabet. The musical group “M” had a number-one hit with “Pop Muzik” in 1979, and that was kind of cute - but the group seemed to disappear from the music scene before anyone even began to consider the trademark or service mark implications of their continued use of their band name. Perhaps the group’s trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer will read this article and write to this website to weigh-in.

The television company “E!” of Chelsea Handler and Talk Soup renown has apparently been successful in establishing a brand name for itself, presumably with trademark lawyer and entertainment lawyer counsel and assistance, accepting the inherent challenge in generating trademark and service mark rights in a one-letter name. But the E! Network’s use of the exclamation point, and their occasional use of the linked phrase “entertainment network”, arguably properly distinguishes them from the alphabet-usurping pack. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), along with the help of its trademark lawyer counsel, lays claim to its single-letter-ratings as trademarks or service marks in some fashion - that is, currently, “G”, and “R”. But then again, I suspect that the MPAA would carefully refrain from threatening another company’s use of the letter “G” or “R”, unless that use was made in the context of ratings or otherwise in connection with motion pictures or filmed entertainment.

The point is, there is something disturbing about this O lawsuit filed in the district court in Manhattan, from the perspective of an entertainment lawyer and trademark lawyer, and perhaps to others as well. What if a schoolteacher reads about this lawsuit, and now tries to find a trademark lawyer lay personal service mark claim to the letter grades “A” through “F” as used on student-graded papers? What if that same teacher starts invoicing all other teachers who grade papers in the U.S., demanding trademark royalty payments? And speaking of damage to the world of education, what will Grover, Elmo, and the gang at Sesame Street do, when they can no longer boast that a particular program is “brought to you by the letter ‘W’”, at least not without their entertainment lawyer or trademark lawyer counsel present on set? Worse yet, will that entertainment lawyer or trademark lawyer be required to wear an over-the-head costume or be a muppeteer to blend-in on the set when doing so? The consternation is enough to press the ghost of O. Henry and his trademark lawyer back into active service - the only question being, if O. Henry rejoins the non-ethereal world and joins the lawsuit, will he join as party-plaintiff or party-defendant on the advice of counsel? And, will O. Henry’s apparently-prescient use of the period after his “O” render him impervious to trademark or service mark liability?

But seriously folks, in defense of Oprah and the trademark and entertainment lawyers that love and enable her, it is apparently not her or her entertainment or trademark counsel or entities that initiated the aggressive attempts to exclude others from use of the letter “O”. Rather, according to the news reports, it was the German “kinky fashion” magazine promoting leather and garters that decided to attack Oprah’s company in the context of the New York court, and the magazine then sought out a trademark lawyer for that purpose. And in response, Oprah and her affiliates, presumably on trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer advice, apparently decided to expand her magazine title, to make the bright-line distinction between the two magazines more apparent to all, including the consumers. Maybe as a matter of reciprocal international courtesy, and in an effort to keep this dispute from wasting further judicial resources or using up more trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer time, the leather and garter crew should agree to change their magazine’s name from “O” to “Ouch!” But query if they thereby would risk receiving an adverse trademark or service mark claim from the ‘E!’ network based upon the use of ‘E!’s exclamation point.

Click the “Articles” button at:

to return to the main Articles page.

My trademark law practice as a publishing and entertainment attorney includes all fields of entertainment and media including music, film, publishing, television, Internet, and all other media and art forms – and trademark, service mark, and copyright work. If you have questions about legal issues which affect your career, and require representation, please contact me:

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq.

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY 10128 USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

http://www.tormey.org/letter.htm

Page:

This Article Is Brought To You By The Letter Blank

Title Metatag:

trademark lawyer, publishing, entertainment lawyer, service marks

Meta Description:

trademark lawyer,publishing,entertainment attorney,service marks,entertainment lawyer,PTO,New York,intellectual property

Keywords:

entertainment attorney,entertainment lawyer,intellectual property,IP law,law firm,litigation,media lawyer,New York lawyer,Oprah,PTO,publishing law,trademark,trademark law,trademark litigation,USPTO

entertainment attorney, entertainment lawyer, article, brought to you by, letter blank, trademark lawyer, publishing, entertainment lawyer, service marks, trademark lawyer, publishing, entertainment attorney, service marks, entertainment lawyer, PTO, New York, intellectual property, intellectual property, IP law, law firm, litigation, media lawyer, New York lawyer, Oprah, PTO, publishing law, trademark, trademark law, trademark litigation, USPTO

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT

Clearances For Name & Likeness, Location License, And Life-Story Rights In Motion Pictures And Television: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And Film & Television Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq.

http://www.tormey.org/clear.htm

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq. – Entertainment Lawyer, Entertainment Attorney

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY 10128 USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

Clearances For Name & Likeness, Location License, And Life-Story Rights In Motion Pictures And Television: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And Film & Television Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq.

An entertainment lawyer handling production and rights motion picture work can spend much of his or her time fighting off detractors. One example? It is actually quite common for individuals who incidentally appear in a film or television shot, to later sue or otherwise claim upon the production company or network, asserting violations of their personal or proprietary rights. It is also fairly common for those that believe their life-story in whole or in part has been used or referenced in a film or TV program, to put an adverse life-story rights claim on the motion picture project, even if the reference is but a passing reference. When such a claim is long on bluster but short on underlying legal merit, it is known as a nuisance claim, or “strike suit” if and once litigated.

Entertainment lawyers with a motion picture practice in the U.S. who have worked in Business Affairs or other in-house positions at entertainment companies, as well as most all entertainment lawyer litigators at outside law firms, will confirm all of this. I have served as both, prior to my solo law practice here in New York. One thing you learn quickly in this line of work, is that, while some claims are valid, more people claim more rights in more situations than actually have them.

Film and television producers usually complain to their own entertainment lawyers that the commencement of such a rights nuisance claim is a sleazy thing to do, and the sign of someone watching too many motion pictures with too much time on his/her hands. Often true. Yet the film or TV production can be out time and money by the time that same complaint can be made to the person with the power to dismiss the claim – that is, the judge in the applicable court system. The film or TV producer’s feeling is understandable, unless the person incidentally depicted in the motion picture program is truly ridiculed or hurt in some way. But many Americans use litigation as a sport, and greed is a powerful motivator. There is an entire section of the motion picture entertainment insurance industry and an entire cadre of in-house entertainment lawyers devoted almost exclusively to extinguishing rights nuisance claims and strike suits, often but not always through what is known as errors and omissions (E&O) insurance. Without insurance, even a strike suit can sometimes close a company down.

The first thing an entertainment lawyer does when fielding an adverse film or television claim – life-story, likeness, location, or otherwise - is evaluate the apparent sense and sensibility of the rights-complainant. So, let’s assume that the distinction has already been made between an unstable unfortunate soul who thinks that every successful Hollywood motion picture director is stealing his persona and private thoughts with implanted electrodes and radio waves, on the one hand – versus a person whose full name, likeness, and/or life-story in whole or in part actually appears in an exhibited film or television property. Let’s assume that the entertainment lawyer has reviewed the claimant’s identity with his or her film or TV producer client, and it turns out that the claimant has certain rights and is sane, stable, sympathetic, aggrieved – and unsigned. If the person’s name or likeness or life-story is recognizable in the film shot or in the television script, and no written “clearance” (to wit, signed “license”, “release”, or “agreement”) is in place, then the entertainment lawyer tells the producer of the film or TV production that rights may have been violated thereby and the motion picture production is that much more at risk.

Period.

In reply to the next likely question, the entertainment lawyer next opines that the dollar value at law of the risk or exposure to the rights violation claim cannot be accurately quantified, unless and until the issue is litigated between the aggrieved claimant on the one hand, and the film or TV company (or its insurer) on the other hand.

Period.

These decidedly-fuzzy motion picture law principles even apply to film and television location licenses and related rights, albeit under different legal theories than those corresponding to names, likenesses, and life-stories. As an example, the entertainment lawyer might next ask the motion picture producer to consider the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce that historically has licensed uses of the famous “Hollywood” sign located up on Beachwood Canyon. The Chamber has, at least in the past, asserted rights to claim and sue for unauthorized uses and depictions of the “Hollywood” sign itself - even though the sign is comprised of but a bunch of letters, and rights to letters of alphabet themselves should in theory be public domain and not owned by anyone. In any event, reasonable minds in the film and TV businesses and elsewhere, including as between entertainment lawyers themselves, have differed in the past as to whether there is legal support for these types of “location” rights claims in motion picture practice. Rather than risk it, though, a careful film producer, or television producer or executive producer, usually “clears” depicted locations rather than pay the entertainment lawyer to tell him to clear those (possible) rights post facto after the film or TV project is in the can - or else the producer moves the motion picture shot to a different location if the location license rights “clearance” is too expensive. This is particularly true of the film or TV executive that knows he or she must keep the company’s errors and omissions (E&O) insurance carrier happy and motivated to provide and not cancel coverage. Much of an entertainment lawyer’s detractor-fighting discussed above, includes the creation of alliances with the E&O carriers and their counsel. E&O carrier counsel are sometimes even more rights-sensitive and risk-averse than the motion picture studio or television network Business Affairs in-house counsel are, themselves.

Sure, a film or television producer - particularly one without an in-house or other entertainment lawyer to advise him/her, or an E&O carrier to chastise him/her - can try and fly under the radar on the “incidental use” issue, and hope no rights-violation claims occur. Many producers in fact do try this. But seemingly-incidental shots and uses cannot necessarily be safely assumed to be immune from rights claims. And Murphy’s Law will tell you that someone whose life-story truly appears in a picture in whole or substantial part, will always see it and recognize it. Some of these seemingly-innocuous motion picture uses can in fact turn out to be legally-actionable, and there are plenty plaintiff-side entertainment lawyer litigators out there who seem to be hungry to take on such causes. Even if not legally-actionable, a nuisance claim or lawsuit based on location, likeness, or life-story rights against a film or TV company can still be predicated upon an incidental-shot use in a motion picture, as a practical matter. Even with no supporting legal merit to it, it can still become an expensive headache. In other words, the law is what you read in the casebooks and statutes, but life is what happens out on the street, and rights are often what even undeserving allege until extinguished in a litigation.

Moreover, most of the good film and TV rights and “clearance” stories, though perhaps bandied-about as anonymous and sanitized hypotheticals, never make it to the casebooks. Most of these types of motion picture rights and clearance claims are never litigated, much less revealed by the publication of judicial opinions thereafter. From a film or TV entertainment lawyer defense counsel’s perspective, it is often worth paying the motion picture rights claimant US$2,500 or more, just to go away. Oftentimes, the deductible on the errors and omissions (“E&O”) insurance policy for a film can be at least US$10,000. Sometimes the deductible is even more. (Life-story encroachments and celebrity likeness rights violations can be far more expensive). Therefore, in practice, in the case of an incidental use “passing shot”, the film or TV company, with or without its entertainment lawyer’s advice, may simply pay the rights claimant. The producer may elect to do this rather than (rightfully or wrongfully) even report the claim to the E&O insurance carrier, much less seek coverage on it. Moreover, the E&O carrier will typically not defend against the motion picture rights claim and staff it up with its own defense-counsel entertainment lawyers, unless and until the suit is actually commenced or filed. So it is often the film or TV producer’s or distributor’s exclusive headache unless and until the lawsuit is filed.

The New York statute on point for those in the film and television industries and other media and entertainment industries as well, is New York Civil Rights Law, Sections 50 and 51, a statutory lattice which should be deemed relevant to both name & likeness and life-story rights matters:

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=@SLCVR0A5+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=EXPLORER+&TOKEN=38256299+&TARGET=VIEW

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=$$CVR50$$@TXCVR050+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=EXPLORER+&TOKEN=38256299+&TARGET=VIEW

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=$$CVR51$$@TXCVR051+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=EXPLORER+&TOKEN=38256299+&TARGET=VIEW

If anyone thinks that an individual can’t sue for an unauthorized use of his or her likeness in a motion picture, then that skeptic should read that statute and the cases decided under it. California (Civil Code Section 3344) and most other American states have law similar to New York’s Civil Rights Law 50/51, on the books.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/CIV/5/d4/1/2/2/3/s3344

“50/51” and “3344”, are the bread and butter of entertainment lawyers. A private person usually sues a film or TV company on this type of likeness claim, under his or her “right of privacy”, whereas a celebrity usually sues the motion picture company on this type of likeness claim under his or her “right of publicity”. And the best way to evaluate a life-story rights claim is to navigate through a morass of prior case law, or else, better yet, have your entertainment lawyer do it for you.

It’s rough out there. One should obtain signed written rights clearances from those whose names, likenesses, or life-stories recognizably appear in one’s motion picture or TV production. Even a location-depiction claim could tie up a film or television shoot in a worst-case scenario, including that familiar case that many entertainment lawyers have dealt with on an incoming cell phone call when the location-landlord shows up on set 15 minutes before cameras roll and demands more money. When that happens, count your blessings, though. After all, the film likeness rights claimant or life-story rights claimant often doesn’t approach the production company until after the film is in theatrical release, when it is too late to cut the film’s negative.

Click the “Articles” button at:

to return to the main Articles page.

My practice as a film lawyer and entertainment attorney includes film and television rights, life-story rights, clearances, location agreements, licensing matters, and other aspects of motion picture development, production, exhibition, and distribution. If you have questions about legal issues which affect your career, and require representation, please contact me:

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq.

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY 10128 USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

http://www.tormey.org/clear.htm

Page:

Clearances For Motion Pictures

Title Metatag:

film, entertainment lawyer, rights, motion pictures, life-story

Meta Description:

film,entertainment attorney,life-story rights,entertainment lawyer,TV,motion pictures,chain-of-title,production,license

Keywords:

actors,chain-of-title,entertainment attorney,entertainment lawyer,entertainment litigation,film law,insurance, motion pictures,New York lawyer,production counsel,SAG,Screen Actors Guild,

television law, entertainment attorney, entertainment lawyer, clearances, motion pictures, film, entertainment lawyer, rights, motion pictures, life story, film, entertainment attorney, life story rights, entertainment lawyer, TV, motion pictures, chain of title, production, license, actors, chain of title, entertainment litigation, film law, insurance, motion pictures, New York lawyer, production counsel, SAG, Screen Actors Guild, television law

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT

Sunday, December 30, 2012

Publishing and Digital and Electronic Rights - Part II: Written By New York Entertainment Attorney And Publishing Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq.

http://www.tormey.org/publishing2.htm

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq. – Entertainment Lawyer, Entertainment Attorney

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY 10128 USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

Publishing and Digital and Electronic Rights - Part II: Written By New York Entertainment Attorney And Publishing Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq.

Part I of this article discussed how phrases like the “digital right” or “electronic right” should not be assumed to be self-defining, even by and between publishing lawyers and entertainment attorneys, and how it is incumbent upon authors to reserve needed rights like the digital right or the electronic right to themselves in the context of a publishing deal. Next up, this Part II examines concepts such as the digital right or electronic right from the perspective of the publishing lawyer and entertainment attorney, and the standpoint of fairness - who between author and publisher should in fact hold on to the digital right and electronic right, once and assuming that they are first properly defined?

3. Yes, Digital Right And Electronic Right Uses Do Compete With Traditional Book Publishing Uses.

A publishing lawyer or entertainment attorney may be called upon to handle an author-side deal. A publishing lawyer or entertainment attorney may also be called upon to handle, under different factual circumstances, a publisher-side deal. So, now, a few words in defense of publishers, I suppose.

There is a perception in the author and Internet communities that publishers should not be taking broad grants of the digital right or electronic right from authors, since “digital rights and electronic rights do not compete or interfere with traditional book publishing and other media rights”.

Not true. Not anymore. For proof of that fact, ask a few veteran news desk editors whether or not they followed, or were otherwise concerned about, what appeared on the Drudge Report during the Clinton administration. Ask the CFO’s or in-house publishing lawyers of a few traditional encyclopedia companies how they feel about Wikipedia.

Incidentally, although as a publishing lawyer and entertainment attorney and unlike some others, I tend to use the phrase “electronic right” or even “digital right” in the singular number, there probably tends to be no single consensus as to what constitutes and collectively comprises the singular “electronic right” or “digital right”. There has not been sufficient time for the publishing, media, or entertainment industries to fully crystallize accurate and complete definitions of phrases like “electronic publishing”, “web publishing”, “electronic right[s]”, “e-rights”, “digital right[s]”, or “first electronic rights”.

Nevertheless, electronic media and specifically the digital right and electronic right, have already changed our history. You can be sure that they will have some effect, at a minimum, on most author’s individual publishing deals henceforth, and will be the fodder of publishing lawyer and entertainment attorney discussion for years to come. The fact is, electronic uses inherent in the digital right and the electronic right already do compete with older, more traditional uses - particularly because digital and electronic uses are cheaper and faster to deploy, and can potentially reach millions of users in less than, as Jackson Browne might say, the blink of an eye.

Commerce is increasingly relying upon the Internet and other electronic phenomena, and the linchpin of this reliance is the digital right and electronic right. After all, you are reading this article, and ostensibly gleaning some information or material from it. The Web, for example, has already put a sizable dent in dictionary and encyclopedia sales, and anyone who tells you otherwise is probably an employee in a dictionary or encyclopedia publishing company or publishing lawyer in-houser in denial of the digital and electronic right, trying to protect his/her stock options. As the recent and well-known Stephen King pilot program will attest, fiction is the next subject matter area to be affected. Many of us book lovers including publishing lawyers and entertainment attorneys don’t like to think about it, but bound hard-copy books may soon become the sole province of book collectors and publishing lawyer vanity bookcases alone. The vast majority of book readers, however, may so wholly embrace the digital right and electronic right that they soon even lose the patience to wait for their “amazon.com” mailed shipment.

Very few people who work in the publishing, media, and entertainment industries, including as amongst fair-minded publishing lawyers and entertainment attorneys, should dispute that electronic uses inherent in the digital right and electronic right can easily cannibalize the older and more traditional forms and formats. This cannibalization will only increase, not decrease, as time goes on. Again, the author should put himself/herself in the mind-set of the publisher or its in-house publishing lawyer, when having this digital right/electronic right argument with the publisher or publishing lawyer. The publisher otherwise may want to invest marketing and personnel support in the author’s work, and perhaps even pay the author an advance for the writing. In their view, though, the publisher’s publishing lawyer or entertainment attorney argues, why should they do so, and not also capture the author’s digital right or electronic right?

The last thing that the publisher or its publishing lawyer or entertainment attorney wants to do is to pay the author - and then discover that the author has “scooped” the publication with the author-reserved digital right or electronic right, stolen the publisher’s proverbial fire, and undermined the publisher’s investment in the author and the writing. The concern of the publisher and the book company’s in-house publishing lawyer or outside entertainment attorney is rational and valid. If the publisher allows the author to potentially undercut the book by exploiting author’s reserved digital right or electronic right, then the publisher is threatening the publisher’s own investment in the author and in the written work. (And on some subliminal level at least, the company’s in-house publishing lawyer also knows that this could come out of his or her future comp).

Compromises are available. One traditional compromise effected between publishing lawyers or entertainment attorneys is a so-called “hold-back” on the digital right or electronic right, whereby the author promises not to use or license-out any author-reserved digital right or electronic right for a certain period of time following publication. The author will need some leverage to get a publisher to agree to such a compromise, though. And a publishing lawyer or entertainment attorney should draft the clause - the author’s publishing lawyer or entertainment attorney, not the publisher’s counsel!

An author may think that small “portfolio” uses (e.g., tucked inside greeting cards, on an author’s personal web site, etc.) are so minor, that they will never compete with publishing rights granted for the same work, and may tell the publisher or the company’s publishing lawyer or entertainment attorney as much. The greeting card example does seem innocuous enough, but the publisher and its entertainment or publishing lawyer will likely not agree with the author regarding the author’s personal web site. It is the electronic right or the digital right that really scares publishers and their publishing lawyers and entertainment attorneys, and is perceived as threatening to their long-term investment in the author and his or her work.

The distinction to be made here is between hard-copy portfolio uses, and digital right or electronic right “portfolio uses”. The fact is that computer-uploaded text is so easy and quick to transmit, receive, and read. The posted content’s popularity could also spread like digital wildfire, so quickly - for example, if a company hyper-links to the author’s site, or if “Yahoo” bumps the author’s site up in their search-engine pecking-order. Many successes have already been made by virtue of digital right and electronic right self-publishing, and more will follow. Traditional (book) publishers and their publishing lawyers and entertainment attorneys already realize this fact. Accordingly, traditional book publishers and their counsel also realize that once they acknowledge an author’s reservation of a “self-promotion” digital right or electronic right, they risk losing control of a potential wildfire dissemination method. Again, this would put the publisher’s investment at risk - but smart business people and companies and the publishing lawyers and entertainment attorneys that represent them, don’t put their own investments at risk.

4. The Party To The Contract That Has The Better And More Immediate Means and Resources To Exploit The Electronic Rights, Should Be The One Who Takes The Electronic Rights.

Here is the final point. If a contracting party has no means and resources to exploit a digital right or electronic right or a given bundle of them, then that same party has no business taking (or reserving to themselves) those same digital or electronic rights by contract or even negotiating such a position by and between publishing lawyers or entertainment attorneys. To analogize, if I am a screenwriter who options or sells my script to the Acme Production Company, LLC, through an entertainment lawyer, how should I react if Acme asks me to specifically and contractually grant them “theme park rights” in my literary property in the negotiation between the entertainment attorneys? (Don’t laugh - this practice is now very prevalent in film and entertainment deals).

Well, if Acme doesn’t have its own theme park, I (or my entertainment attorney) now have a powerful argument for reserving the theme park rights to myself instead. “Hey, Acme”, I (or my entertainment attorney) say, “... how do you have the unmitigated gall to ask me for my theme park rights, when you don’t even have the ability to exploit or use them yourself? You don’t even have a theme park!” I (or my entertainment attorney) then make it clear to Acme that I don’t intend to be giving them any trophies that they can put on a shelf to collect proverbial dust.

The same argument can work in the publishing context, particularly as argued between publishing lawyers and entertainment attorneys, regarding the digital right or the electronic right. The author can proverbially cross-examine the publisher (or try to cross-examine the company’s publishing lawyer or entertainment attorney) as to what successful past uses they have made of other author’s digital rights or electronic rights across multiple books. The company President may fudge the answer, but the publishing lawyer or entertainment attorney representing the publisher must answer truthfully. (One good reason to negotiate through counsel).

If the true answer to the question is “none”, then the author can use the “trophy” argument stated above. If the true answer is, alternatively, “some”, then the author has a negotiating opportunity to compel the publisher and its publishing lawyer and entertainment attorney to contractually commit to digitally and electronically publish the author’s work, too. The author can argue: “I won’t grant you the digital right or electronic right unless you, publisher, contractually commit in advance as to how specifically you will exploit them, and how much money you will spend in their development and marketing”. The author or the author’s publishing lawyer or entertainment attorney can then carve those electronic right and digital right commitments right directly into the contract, if the author has the leverage to do so. Again, one should not try this at home - but instead use a publishing lawyer or entertainment attorney.

Needless to say, once the author makes the publisher commit, presumably through publishing lawyer or entertainment attorney counsel, to a development budget or other marketing or “release” commitment for the digital right or the electronic right, then both the author and the publisher might thereby also have some basis for numerical valuation of the rights themselves. And, it is an entirely reasonable argument for an author or author’s publishing lawyer or entertainment attorney to say to a publisher that: “I will license/sell you the following listed digital right[s] or electronic right[s] if you pay me the following additional amounts for them:_____________________. And in the blank space, the rights can be listed like menu options as they have been broken out in Item #1 above, each to which separate dollar values – that is, price-tags - are now assigned.

Click the “Articles” button at:

to return to the main Articles page.

My media law practice as a publishing lawyer and entertainment attorney includes the drafting, editing, negotiation, and closure of agreements including digital and electronic rights matters as they may arise therein, as well as in the fields of film, music, television, Internet, and other media and art forms. If you have questions about legal issues which affect your career, and require representation, please contact me:

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq.

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY 10128 USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

http://www.tormey.org/publishing2.htm

Page:

Publishing and Digital and Electronic Rights - Part II

Title Metatag:

digital right,publishing lawyer,electronic,entertainment attorney

Meta Description:

digital rights,publishing lawyer,entertainment attorney,electronic rights,entertainment lawyer,intellectual property,IP

Keywords:

computer law,contracts,copyright,digital rights,electronic rights,entertainment attorney,entertainment lawyer,IP law,intellectual property,interactive media,Internet law,media lawyer,New York lawyer,

publishing law, entertainment attorney, entertainment lawyer, publishing, digital, electronic rights, digital right, publishing lawyer, electronic, entertainment attorney, digital rights, publishing lawyer, entertainment attorney, electronic rights, entertainment lawyer, intellectual property, IP, computer law, contracts, copyright, digital rights, electronic rights, IP law, intellectual property, interactive media, Internet law, media lawyer, New York lawyer, publishing law

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT

Friday, December 28, 2012

Trickle-Down: Written By New York Music And Entertainment Lawyer And Film Attorney John J. Tormey III, Esq.

http://www.tormey.org/trickle.htm

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq. – Entertainment Lawyer, Entertainment Attorney

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY 10128 USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

Trickle-Down: Written By New York Music And Entertainment Lawyer And Film Attorney John J. Tormey III, Esq.

Reports in the press of contract disputes of years past - one favorite of this music, film and entertainment lawyer which is entitled “Dixie Chicks Sue Sony” - discussed another installment in the seemingly-perennial process of music recording artists suing the record labels with which they previously signed contracts. According to “Dixie Chicks Sue Sony”, the Dixie Chicks claimed that they were due at least US$4.1 million in royalties under their contract, from their music label. See, e.g.:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1514747.stm

There is a commonality between this type of music dispute, and a “net profits” or “points” dispute in the context of film or television.

This music, film, and entertainment lawyer article, on the other hand, can offer no opinion on the merits of the Dixie Chicks litigation or contract, or opine with regard to the oft-wondered question in litigations of “which side is in the right?”. The statistical odds in any music, film, or other contract litigation about royalties, net profits, or “points”, are that the case will settle pursuant to a stipulation of confidentiality. Even if we learn of the details of the Dixie Chicks contract or the case’s resolution, we’ll therefore never really know for sure about how other similar music royalty or other contract disputes may have been reconciled. But notwithstanding the sizable amounts of money at stake, the Dixie Chicks-Sony case will likely be governed by certain principles common to all music and film industry contract disputes of its kind, as any entertainment lawyer like myself will tell you.

It really boils down to the timing of when a music artist, film talent, or other artist for that matter, is or should be paid under the contract. Though this may sound pedestrian, the equation is simple. The music and entertainment lawyer opines that, “Agreeing in a contract to be paid the bulk of one’s compensation later rather than sooner, increases the odds that one will be unhappy with the dollar amount of the royalty, “back end”, “net profits”, or “points” payment(s) at that later date”. Would the Dixie Chicks-Sony music contract litigation have never occurred, if the band’s paid-up-front recording advances had been larger? No one – not music and entertainment lawyer, and perhaps not even the parties to the lawsuit themselves - will ever really know that answer for sure, either.

But one cannot argue with the equation. As argued and hammered-out between music or other entertainment lawyer counsel in the contract negotiation, a larger up-front advance to the artist or group at least reduces the magnitude of later artist dissatisfaction with the “net profits”, “points”, or royalty stream of payments that follow. Arguably the Dixie Chicks would be in a better economic position, if suing under the contract for “only” US$1.1 million rather than US$4.1 million. The general form of equation holds up across film, television, publishing, and all other entertainment, media, and related realms. You are better off the earlier you are paid.

Holding aside the Dixie Chicks contract dispute example for a moment, the practical reality for other artists in the music industry is that they often sign record contracts - or now, 360 deals - without the help of a music and entertainment lawyer, before they become commercially successful. Every successful recording artist in the music industry has historically had a “breakthrough” album. What looks like a huge advance in a contract to a starving music artist in the context of an earlier record deal, may later look like a per diem to that same artist several years later after she or he has “made it”. And indeed, the record label’s frugality is understandable. Few if any economically-rational record labels are willing to plunk down a huge contractual advance for an artist who has yet to “make it” commercially, even if they have already retained the services of the best of music and entertainment lawyers. The music and entertainment lawyer can protect the artist. But under most all circumstances (apart from one great band and keyboard player that I know in Pittsburgh), the music and entertainment lawyer is not the one also making the music.

Again, these artist-payment contract disputes, in the music industry, film industry, and otherwise, are a function of time and timing. In this light, the Dixie Chicks are essentially fighting the economic identities that elements within the music industry unilaterally assigned to them several years ago, before they were hugely famous and successful. I do not know at what point in the timeline the Dixie Chicks may have retained high-powered music and entertainment lawyer counsel. But if the band was comparably famous and successful several years ago when they signed their deal, they would have likely commanded much more by way of sizable contractual advances, and would presumably thereby have been better secured against the risk of (alleged) back-end royalty payment deprivation by the record label.

It is ironic that within the past several months prior to the suit, the Dixie Chicks were the subject of a TV news magazine show, in which at least two relevant things were said: (1) one band member suggested that the ladies in the band might soon want to leave the music and entertainment business; and (2) one band member boasted on-camera about having procured the “best [recording contract] deal in Nashville”, or words to that effect. As far as the viewer of the TV program could see, no music or entertainment lawyer was physically present on-camera along with the ladies when these statements were made.

The thrust of the news magazine program was that even with “the best deal in Nashville”, (and presumably able music and entertainment lawyer counsel), an internationally-famous musical recording act had to endure a contractual situation wherein their label was accused of holding most of the money. According to press reports, the Dixie Chicks albums “Ready to Run” and “Wide Open Spaces” sold more than 19 million units, resulting in more than US$175 million in revenue. That approaches a quarter of a billion dollars, and would normally seem to justify the retention of music and entertainment lawyer counsel, at least for future deals. And yet the band’s lead singer dolefully attested on camera that she didn’t “even” have US$1 million in the bank herself at the time of the interview. She jokingly added that her label must have remodeled its Nashville offices based upon the success of her band’s music.

“Where is all of this money going?”, asks the artist-side music and entertainment lawyer, particularly. Well, we know or suspect where it is going. It is true that launching and promoting albums, and developing artists, requires major expenditures by the record label, likely in the millions of dollars. The label has to spend money to make money. The label has to spend money on its own music and entertainment lawyers to draft and negotiate the contracts, for that matter. The film studio or television production company will deploy similar rationales when defending “net profit”, “points”, or other back-end payment arrangements. But in the case of a successful recording and touring act, at least some of the incremental money above expenditures is going towards someone’s profit. It is reasonable to assume that the Dixie Chicks sued because they didn’t think they were receiving their fair share of same under the signed contract, and then convinced one or more music and entertainment lawyer litigators to same effect.

What logical deductions can we make from this case study, that apply to other individual musicians and bands – and perhaps to other media and art forms like film, television, and publishing in the context of royalties, “net profits”, and “points”? First, we need to back up, and keep in mind the first thing that music and other entertainment lawyers learn in practice. There are two principal ways for an artist to get paid for services under a contract: (1) “fixed compensation”, and (2) “contingent compensation”. Royalties are “contingent compensation”, and in the traditional but now fast-evaporating record contract model usually contingent upon either the manufacture or the sale of (non-returned) units. Strictly defined, “contingent” also means that it is possible they will never get paid. In film, television, and other realms, “points”, “back-end”, and “net profits” are all terms suggestive of forms of contingent compensation in a contract. One of my law professors back in the 1980’s was a well-known practicing entertainment lawyer with a music, film, and television practice, and much of our classroom workshops were comprised of haggling over proposed net profit definitions in draft contracts. The song remains the same today, in large part.

Music royalty calculations and film and TV “net profit” or back-end “points” definitions often take many pages of contract text to define - as a music, film, or entertainment lawyer will tell you. In defense of the companies, this verbosity is not always simply a product of the labels and studios and their entertainment lawyers so conspiring. Rather, the income streams in the music and film and TV businesses are truly hydra-headed and fairly sophisticated, and take some care and patience to define. As an entertainment lawyer I realize that this is all scant consolation to a screenwriter working through a studio’s or network’s 50-page written contract definition of “net profits” - or, in the music context, a recording artist immersed in arcane label record contract text purporting to delineate methods of royalty computation. Yet the complexity of calculating contingent compensation is a reality of the industry to which the film net profit or music royalty definition relates.

However, make no mistake about it. Accepting any form of contingent compensation, be it net profits, “points”, music royalties or otherwise, is tantamount to accepting someone else’s “trickle-down”, as any artist-side music and entertainment lawyer will argue. That is, the artist deputizes the company to collect the artist’s money, hold it (presumably) in trust, and then remit it in installments to the artist over time on a deferred basis. Do most people even do that with their own family members? As the music and entertainment lawyer will attest from observing others, and human nature and greed being powerful motivators that they are - the company will often thereupon pay the musical or other artist when it feels like it, and how much it feels like it, sometimes no matter what the contract says. And company “deductions” from the gross payment stream to arrive at “net” or “royalties”, can become extremely creative to say the least. Music and other entertainment industry audit contract disputes often revolve around the acceptability and fairness of such “deductions” from “net profits” or “points”, as fought and argued between entertainment lawyers on either side.

There are contractual ways for musical and other artists to even the proverbial scales of justice regarding their royalties, “net profits”, “points”, or other form of contingent compensation - typically best deployed through the artist’s entertainment lawyer. The most familiar method is the deployment of contractual “accounting” and “audit” clauses or provisions. The music or other artist can endeavor to contractually require the company to remit detailed written accountings of all revenues collected, and (carefully-circumscribed) deductions taken therefrom, on a regular basis. The clauses can be drafted by the artist’s entertainment lawyer. Accordingly, the music artist can also endeavor to reserve the contractual right to audit the books and records of the record company to ensure correct remittance of royalties. In the professional entertainment industry context, audits like this take place all the time, thus ensuring a livelihood for many entertainment industry accountants, entertainment lawyers, and others. It has been reported that wholly two-thirds of all entertainment industry audits result in findings of underpayments. Usually thereafter, the parties reach an economic settlement and move on with their lives. Sometimes, they don’t, and they litigate using music or entertainment lawyers instead. And as indicated above, the majority of litigations themselves settle before going to trial.

And there is hope. Industry custom, and film, music, and entertainment lawyer practice, does often contemplate that recording and other artists may also be paid on a “fixed” as well as on a “contingent” basis. In theory, the contractually-specified recording “advance” represents a fixed up-front payment to the music artist. But many - uh - “creative” record label forms transform the advance into a contingent payment as well, at least in part - this is sometimes referred to as the “recording fund” concept. Film producer compensation may be manipulated by the studio in similar fashion, by payment into a budget as opposed to payment directly to a producer’s bank account. For example, if the musical artist receives a US$300,000 “advance” under the contract, but must himself or herself direct-pay for the first album’s recording expenses out of his or her “own” pocket, then it would behoove the artist not to blow all US$300,000 on one weekend at Monte Carlo. In other words, the bulk of that US$300,000 may not in fact be a fixed payment to the artist, but instead may need to be applied to things like studio time and fees for session musicians. There are many artists out there who briefly thought they were rich for this reason, until the record contract was actually read and reviewed with their music and entertainment lawyer. Similarly, maybe the film producer should not write a check for that Lamborghini just yet, either.

What independent and unsigned artists will discover with or without a music or entertainment lawyer, particularly those music artists with talent, is that there may be plenty of folks along the road who will be willing to bargain for their exclusive recording services, promising no money in advance, but some fuzzy and inchoate “points” later on – with or without waving a proposed contract in front of the artist. This phenomenon is usually exactly what it sounds like - Wimpy’s “I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today”. Would-be entertainment company impresarios try to play actors and writers like this, all the time, too.

Sure, the music company and its entertainment lawyer may have a valid point that the artist should be required to share in some of the down-side risk that the recorded finished product will not sell. But by that analysis, the artist-side entertainment lawyer must also conclude that the musical artist should be paid some fixed compensation or “earnest money” up-front, and then some additional contingent compensation later should the project succeed. Otherwise, what assurance does the artist have that this company is truly serious, committed to the music project, and acting in good faith? And arguably, the up-front fixed payment to the artist should be at least sufficient to enable the artist to retain music and entertainment lawyer counsel to draft and negotiate an agreement clearly specifying how the back-end contingent compensation should be paid, and what the artist’s accounting and audit rights should be. The same rationale applies for back-end “net profits” or “points” deals in the film and television realms. The up-front payment at minimum should be the glue that cements the contract.

It is astounding, however, how many artists, typically without music or entertainment lawyer counsel, will agree to be paid for their hard work and their music or other work-product by “points” or “net profits” or other “back-end” alone, perhaps commemorated with writing on the back of a cocktail napkin, or even (gasp) on a handshake alone. Why are these artists selling themselves so short? Perhaps because they are dying for their first big break, and perhaps because they do not have sufficient confidence in their abilities such that they believe that another valuable opportunity will come along. So they don’t enlist the help of a music or entertainment lawyer, and often sign bad contracts or otherwise agree to bad deals.

But the point is, there should be some minimum standard of decency, perhaps along the lines of a well-known California case on point, Foxx v. Williams, and a California statute on point, Civil Code Section 3423:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/CIV/5/d4/1/3/3/s3423

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7532225346992492111&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Some deals are simply not worth an artist’s making. Some contracts are not worth signing, and perhaps shouldn’t even be allowed to be signed. Even a Santa Monica tenant desperate for a beachfront apartment should not move into a condemned premises where the floor is in danger of collapsing. And in that real estate situation, the local government - through the building code or equivalent - serves as “watchdog”, and prevents those tenants from striking those bad lease deals even if the tenant otherwise wants to do so. However, there is typically no governmental or other “watchdog” that prevents a music artist from entering into a bad recording contract, only perhaps case law and statutes that can be invoked only if the question is ever later litigated – and additionally perhaps, only an artist-side music and entertainment lawyer, if ever enlisted for the situation. Rather, as a practical matter, in the recording agreement context, the “watchdog” needs to be prospective and internalized. So too must the watchdog be internalized in every artist, in the film, television, and other industries and art forms. The music or other artist can only look to his or her common sense, and hopefully in some cases the artist’s music or entertainment lawyer’s experience and judgment - and this assessment must be made before signature of any contract.

In any case, the following is for certain. If a proposed music recording agreement with royalty covenants as exchanged between the music and entertainment lawyers does not contain these 3 components:

(A) an up-front advance “fixed compensation” payment to the music artist, (if only to show the company’s good faith, but sufficient enough that the artist will have been happy to have done the deal even if no back-end compensation is ever later collected by the artist); and

(B) an accounting clause; and

then, serious doubts should be raised as to whether the music artist should indeed look elsewhere for other career opportunities. At minimum, the proposed deal, as the Dixie Chicks might say, needs fixin’.

And the music artist should take heart, I suppose. Getting the “back-end payment”, “net profits”, or “points” bum’s contract rush from a company happens to music artists and other types of artists in all media and sectors, at all calibers and levels of experience and success, whether or not they are represented at the time by a music or entertainment lawyer. No matter how commercially-successful a musician becomes, there may always be doubts as to whether he or she is being royaltied or otherwise paid correctly – and sometimes it takes the music and entertainment lawyer litigators and the court system to scrutinize the contract to find out.

Click the “Articles” button at:

to return to the main Articles page.

My music and film law practice as an entertainment lawyer includes the drafting, editing, negotiation, and closure of all contractual matters relating to film, music, television, publishing, Internet, and all other media and art forms. If you have questions about legal issues which affect your career, and require representation, please contact me:

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq.

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY 10128 USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)