Sunday, March 25, 2012

Industry Experts

     I recently watched some podcasts with entertainment lawyers discussing a variety of topics. These entertainment lawyers are Mark Litwak, Greg Eveline, and Stanton “Larry” Stein. They discuss distribution, copyright, and media consolidation respectively. The following is a summary of what they discussed in the podcasts.
     Mark Litwak mainly talks about contracts for film distribution. The filmmaker has to know if the distribution company distributes to theaters, home video, or television. That information is crucial to the filmmakers marketing plan. In negotiating a distribution deal filmmakers should include certain clauses in the contract. A performance clause is a must. This clause allows the filmmaker to get out of the contract if the distribution company does not hold up their end of the deal. Distribution companies ideally want long-term deals. If the filmmaker agrees to this, after the first few years, distribution companies don’t try very hard to distribute the movie. That is why short-term deals are better and they can always get extended. (Litwak, 2011)
Another important clause is the audit clause. This grants the filmmaker the right to check the books of the distribution company. This is an important clause to make sure that the distribution company is spending the allotted budget on the filmmaker’s movie, and not another movie. (Litwak, 2011)
The next podcast is from Greg Eveline on copyright law. Eveline stresses that artist should write their own songs because money is found in the publishing. The melody and lyrics of a song can be copyrighted. If the artist only performs the song they do not hold the copyright. In most cases the record label would hold the copyright. This is called a work for hire or assignment. The record company employees the artist, for a salary, and then has the right to own the copyright. For many artist, they well get a change to recover their work because of a right of reversion. The right of reversion states that after 35 years the artist can get the sold copyright back. (Eveline, 2011)
The last podcast is from Media Concentration in the Entertainment Industry with Stanton “Larry” Stein. Stein talks about the 6 conglomerates that control what we watch, listen to, and read. Some examples are Disney and Time Warner. These 6 conglomerates control 6 thousand TV stations, 15 thousand radio stations, and 80% of the newspapers. (Stein, 2008) This is an issue because it causes a lack of creative and informative content for the general public to consume. Because these companies are so large the artist, or profit participant, sometimes has to sue the company. They have to do this because the company does some creative financing to hold on to the money, and not give the artist their fair share. That is what Stein does; he represents the artist in these cases.
These experts have helped me in thinking about my business plan. I will be distributing my videos to the home theater market. It is good to know that there are different distributors, and knowing which one I need to do business with. Copyright is something I will have to deal with all the time. Being a company I will have to have work for hire contracts if I want the copyrights to a product. I don’t see how the last podcast relates to my business plan, but it is just good general knowledge. Try to have your own thoughts, and not to freely except everything the media gives you. They only portray one side of the story.
For more information on these topics please see the following videos.
References
Entertainment Attorney Mark Litwak Gives Us A New Look Into Hollywood - Filmnut

A Seminar in Copyright Law with Entertainment Lawyer Greg Eveline

Media Concentration in the Entertainment Industry

Saturday, March 3, 2012

Intellectual Property

            Intellectual property and how to protect that property is a concern in the entertainment business. The following are three examples from the Hollywood Reporter of current lawsuits that have been filed, and my opinion as to what the outcome might be.
Justin Bieber has been sued by RC3, a company that created the Joustin’ Beaver mobile app game. RC3 claims that the use of the name Joustin’ Beaver is in their First Amendment rights. (Gardner, 2012) In addition to using the name Joustin’ Beaver is also a parody of Justin Bieber. The game uses characteristics associated with Justin Bieber such as: his hairstyle, purple sweater, and attention from photographers and fans. (Gardner, 2012)
To me this is a tough case. I want to agree with Justin Bieber and his representatives because Joustin’ Beaver was created to make money off of Justin Bieber’s fan base. This game is diluting Bieber’s trademark by allowing others to associate Bieber with the Joustin’ Beaver game. However, I believe that Joustin’ Beaver is a parody because it is commenting on how crazy Bieber’s life is. The question is which criteria in most important in determining if this is trademark infringement. I believe Justin Bieber will win this case because the dilution of his trademark affects his livelihood.
The next article is about an artist, Maya Hayuk, who is suing RCA Records and Sony Music over her work being shown in Elle Varner’s music video “I Only Wanna Give It To You.” (Gardner, 2012) Hayuk created the piece of art for Rye Rye and M.I.A. for their music video “Sunshine.” (Gardner, 2012)
I believe that Hayuk does have a case here for copyright infringement, and she should win. She did not give permission to RCA and Sony to use her art in the music video. RCA and Sony are in fact using her work commercially by making money off of the video stream revenue. Hayuk deserves credit and compensation for her contribution to the music video.
This last article is about a lawsuit between The Velvet Underground and the Andy Warhol Foundation. The issue is whether or not the banana album case was in the public domain and if Andy Warhol had the right to license it. (Gardner, 2012)
This is an interesting case because the album was released in 1967 before the copyright law was amended in 1978. (Gardner, 2012) If the album cover was in the public domain why would Andy Warhol have to have a license for the copyright? Both The Velvet Underground and the Andy Warhol Foundation claim that the copyright has acquired a secondary meaning associated with each party. Furthermore, Gardner (2012) says:
According to the facts in record, MGM Records paid both the band and Warhol $3,000 to furnish the image for use on the 1967 album cover. If the record label paid the money as a work-for-hire agreement, the true "author" of the image, under the law, would be the record label.
If that is the case then nether The Velvet Underground or the Andy Warhol Foundation have any claim to the use of the album cover. I feel that this case will be dismissed as being in the public domain because it is following the rules set by the laws of 1967.
References
Gardner, E. (2012, February 27). Justin Bieber sued by creator of 'Joustin' Beaver' game (exclusive docs). In Hollywood, Esq.. Retrieved March 1, 2012, from http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/justin-bieber-sued-joustin-beaver-video-game-295548
Gardner, E. (2012, February 27). Artist sues Sony over background used in music video (exclusive). In Hollywood, Esq.. Retrieved March 1, 2012, from http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/Maya-hayuk-lawsuit-sony-295409
Gardner, E. (2012, February 27). Velvet Underground files new complaint in odd banana album cover case. In Hollywood, Esq.. Retrieved March 1, 2012, from http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/velvet-underground-lawsuit-banana-album-warhol-foundation-294801