Industry Awareness! Avoiding Liabilities!!!!!!!

 

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://profs.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/gavel_court-1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://profs.wisc.edu/

I was blessed to have an advanced law course in the entertainment program that I am currently enrolled in. This course has allowed me to understand the great concept of risk management, and preparation that entertainment lawyers must have, to produce the results needed to assist and represent a good artist and excellent brands! It is my goal to share the expert knowledge that I have gained from this course and from listening to industry related podcast.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.dosomething.org/files/pictures/actionguide/ipod-nano-podcast.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dosomething.org/actnow/actionguide/how-create-podcast-your-causethe-easy-way&h=501&w=520&sz=56&tbnid=RlsZg0-BMcogkM:&tbnh=126&tbnw=131&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dpicture%2Bof%2Bpodcast%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=picture+of+podcast&usg=__DDpjiv_LUUKLgs7iQjOyYFeabSw=&sa=X&ei=hmKRTbCtEpDGsAP-vMWkDg&ved=0CBwQ9QEwAg

I reviewed a podcast that covers “The basics of intellectual property Law” by J. Craig Williams of the Williams Lindberg law firm, PC (An Intellectual Property and Business Law Firm). This link offers valuable information with a focus on the problems that businesses and the creators of intellectual property are facing today. Mr. Williams offers information ranging from infringement in regards to movie sales and the status of current piracy laws. He also enforced the movement of intellectual property overseas and how the internet and Congress have trouble safeguarding the speed of technology. Attorney Williams recommended that we police our intellectual property and be knowledgeable of the rules we currently have in place regarding exported music. He suggests that we change and adapt with technology as it develops because technology is constantly changing and in this field, we must stay current. You can view his podcast at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haRJgfA-bDg&feature=related. Mr. Williams and his firm also offer information on their website. You can click the link below to utilize a virtual consultation involving trademark law, patent law, copyright law, business law, computer law and non specific categories of entertainment law.
 Their site is, http://www.coloradoiplaw.com/trademark-law/virtual-consultation.html
.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.bibletruthonline.com/uploaded_images/podcast-726958.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.bibletruthonline.com/2008_01_01_archive.html&h=530&w=505&sz=18&tbnid=KB3X90xcx-V1UM:&tbnh=230&tbnw=219&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dpicture%2Bof%2Bpodcast%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=picture+of+podcast&usg=__lmI83KBKWURHF8sxev5sLqkMSJk=&sa=X&ei=hmKRTbCtEpDGsAP-vMWkDg&ved=0CBgQ9QEwAQ

The second podcast serves as an update for entertainment lawyers and professionals. This podcast discusses the liability for entertainers due to how they misuse social media. The podcast starts with a discussion on Justin Beiber’s manager tweeting the location of a concert where Justin was due to perform, which resulting in an overcrowded event and his inability to expeditiously re-tweet the fans informing them that the event was canceled. These potential liability cases also discuss Justin Beiber  releasing the phone number of a immoral fan-- which are potential damage and privacy claims. Profit participation and accounting procedures is a topic that is also discussed on the podcast whereas a joint venture between Warner Bros. and a bundled license of 100 movies were set to be created with film maker Allen Ladd Jr. The case between Ladd and Warner Bros was determined in Ladd's favor for the films, Blade Runner, Chariots of Fire and a lot of other projects. Unusual high profit deals were discussed regarding court rulings which favored the terms that were used in the "actual contracts and fair dealings. " This podcast serves as a discussion between entertainment lawyers where you can listen to the wrongful behavior and follow up on fair use cases that are currently pending in the media. Feel free to click on the link below to utilize the entertainment law discussion at http://hw.libsyn.com/p/9///9876797a2f92a3a/EntertainmentLawUpdateEpisode013.mp3?sid=ec67c42edec984f6d9d98c64bf91d148&l_sid=22761&l_eid=&l_mid=2074351. “summary of entertainment cases” by Entertainment lawyers.  Episode 13. You can obtain more information at www.entertainmentlaw.com, createprotect.com, www.bennettlaw/tamarabennett.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://leadership.uoregon.edu/upload/images/music.jpg&imgrefurl=http://leadership.uoregon.edu/get_involved/advisory_boards/370&h=323&w=450&sz=37&tbnid=kNckIR78R1PsWM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=127&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dpicture%2Bof%2Bmusic%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=picture+of+music&usg=__OhoTWZnLAx9WsdZutyJo7sAWmhY=&sa=X&ei=UGGRTf-0Go3CsAOq7qWcDg&ved=0CCwQ9QEwAg

The third podcast covers works that are in the public domain and works that are currently protected by  copyright. Mr. Oatts discusses the nature of music that is in public domain, he interprets the song writers state-of-mind regarding sharing their music and the need for musical copyrights. As a film maker I must properly cite the original owners of all music that I use or include in my projects this includes the musical score, the writers. etc.,. Their are methods must be taken to ensure that all musical collaborations and scores are properly cited and recognized if they are going to be used in your work. View the link to this podcast at,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rptna0yLe4U “music copyright” by Trevor Oatts

I listened to an additional podcast that covers intellectual property infringement and the competitive advantage of copyrighting all intellectual property. The speaker discusses the potential risks that are involved with intellectual capital and the process that creators of intellectual property can take to avoid losing their ideas and material. He also offers examples of possible monetary amounts that potential liability claims might cost. The podcast offers information on IP holding companies, how distracting litigation cases are, and how innovative software and inventive ideas are.  You can view this podcast at, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLvMZujfEzY&feature=related "intellectual property"

These podcast offer pertinent information that I can incorporate into my future film production business. There are several entertainment law and intellectual property issues that any entertainment company could possibly face. The nature of the entertainment industry is a very constant and complex. The best way to arm yourself in the entertainment business is to be fully aware and get as much information as possible. Thanks for your time!

The Latest News in Film!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aO5R6ezqio&NR=1

http://www.inquisitr.com/99691/colin-firth-grateful-for-uk-support-after-oscars-win/

My goal with this blog submission is to identify three of the most recent court cases that have impacted the film industry. They range from infringement cases that also involve an excellent Oscar nominated film, i.e. King Speech, to piracy issues with Warner Bros. studios, followed by a breach of contract issue involving yet another Oscar nominated film, Black Swan.

First, is the case involving The film, The King’s Speech. This case involves improper usage of a common phrase, "No animals were harmed" that was used in the end-credits of the film. However, the disclaimer happens to be a registered trademark that was used without permission. The AHA having a trademark on this phrase for several years, has allowed them the right to be involved in film productions so they can ‘personally’ certify that no "animal actors" are harmed during the filming process. For those who seek permission to use the phrase, the AHA makes several requests along with the ability to participate in the film process. They demand advanced copies of scripts, require on-set access whenever animals are used and they also review daily call sheets to ensure the safety of “animal actors” and the use of their phrase.

According to the article written by Scotty Donaldson, as early as last year, the AHA sent out “cease-and-desist letters to the producers and distributors of five films, including Oscar-nominated District 9”. Although, they have never had to enforce the trademark in court. The Weinstein Company, is distributing the film, The King Speech. The AHA says it was never invited to monitor The King's Speech, however, and so it demands that The Weinstein Company,  remove the phrase from their credits. Apparently they are in the process of working something out.

 The AHA is standing by the power of their trademark. Their phrase is an assurance to movie-goers that no animals were harmed during the production. I am impressed that they were clever enough to have the rights to such a common, coined phrase. Their ability to stand behind the phrase and police the usage of the term makes the trademark even more powerful. They are right to continue to pursue any company that they feel violates and uses their intellectual property without approval. Their action to hold companies accountable shows that as a company, they are properly “policing” their name, their brand and their reputation!

According to the Dominion Post, Basin, an attorney at Greenberg Glusker, says the AHA trademark is valid, and he compares their phrase to the 'Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval' along with certification marks that may typically be found in the food and beverage industry.

Unfortunately, If the case is pursued in court, the AHA would have to prove that by using their seal of approval that, The King's Speech devalued its certification. Funny thing is, that this case is not about earning profits from damages, its more about setting an example and making a point that their is an approval process that companies must be mindful of before they are allowed usage of the intellectual works of others. On the other hand, it's possible that the film makers were unaware that the commonly used phrase was trademarked, and they found themselves at the center of a battle, being accused of infringing on the property of another.  The outcome of this case depends on if AHA is able to prove that by using the unauthorized phrase if they are creating consumer confusion. This also includes if    the wordplay of a phrase is manipulated or referenced in a different way, it may still stand close to the original phrase that is owned by the AHA, indeed causing consumer confusion.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5070322/black_swan_trailer/

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.shockya.com/news/wp-content/uploads/blackswan_poster-535x793.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.shockya.com/news/2010/12/18/black-swan-movie-review-2/&h=793&w=535&sz=77&tbnid=svI4LrmD0pPgzM:&tbnh=143&tbnw=96&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dblack%2Bswan%2Bmovie%2Bpictures&zoom=1&q=black+swan+movie+pictures&usg=__HeNJZx_Hoa85-c29vbGdTPoqc08=&sa=X&ei=dB5yTcVwkZayA_zppMIL&ved=0CCYQ9QEwAw

The legal issues following the production of the film Black Swan consist of the production company, Overnight LLC suing the former Chief Aaron Kaufman for $10 million for breach of contract. Scott Shifel Of the Daily News asserts that Kaufman is the "ex-president" of the original production company and that he left the team just as the production started filming. He held the film due to contract demands, and among other things he also exposed the company to an embarrassing sexual harassment dispute which he caused by pursuing an employee. Kaufman denies all accusations and explains that he left the production company due to disputes between he and Schwartz, who was executive producer at the time. However, Schwartz is still listed as executive producer but is not eligible for an Academy Award nomination and the production company will not earn any production credit due to the conflicts that occurred at the time. The lawsuit states that it is solely due to "gross lapses in judgment" which cost millions in lost revenue and producer credit on the film "Black Swan."

Somehow, I wonder if the misappropriation of funds and conduct will follow Kaufman, especially if the outcome determines that he owes a substantial amount of money to those that were apart of the company prior to his retreat to start another venture. However, time will tell and there is always a pattern of behavior that the courts utilize as a determining factor in these types of cases. This will certainly be an interesting case to follow as the pages turn and the story continues to unfold! Ten million dollars is no walk in the park and is not easy to obtain! Perhaps the court judgment will rule in favor of the production company but for a reasonable amount.

On the other hand, the lost wages can be determined due to the producer credit and missed opportunity that comes with being ineligible to get the deserved producer credit. If the circumstances were different, the producer credit would have been credited, the company would have their credit and wages would also increase! Perhaps, ten million dollars doesn't look like such a large number when you note the facts! Kaufman argues that he will sue Schwartz for libel. The case is of course one persons word, against the other. While evidence is being obtained, Kaufan and Schwartz will continue to throw stones and it will be a while before we get close to the true source of what truly happened during business hours at Overnight LLC.

http://estelliarmus.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/6-10-08-warner_bros.jpg

Warner Bros Film Studios is also pending a lawsuit against them for pirating by using anti-piracy technology without permission! The company is ironically known for its plight against piracy. However, they have not utilized the true emphasis of the term, "practice what you preach!" According to Terrance O'Brien of The Daily News, Warner Bros. has been using a unique identifier to trace pirated movies back to their source.  By embedding the films that they have distributed to the press and to theaters, Warner Bros has been issuing take down notices and single handily tackling piracy in their market. However, the very identifier that they have been using is a protected item, owned by a German company called Medien Patent Verwaltung (MPV). This is the perfect example of a company somehow believing they are above the law. With all the filings that Warner Bros has attempted against the public and members of the press, it is outright foolish of them to commit the very crime that they push so hard to eliminate. I'm sure the evidence obtained will speak for itself and judgment will rule in favor of the MPV company.   

I will definitely follow these cases and provide you with all the information as the truth unfolds. Today has been great! Tomorrow will be even better! Until next time! I'll meet you at the top!

You can find information on these topics at:


Press. (2011, July 2). What could impede the King's Oscar? | Stuff.co.nz. Stuff.co.nz - Latest New Zealand News & World News, Sports News & NZ Weather Forecasts. Retrieved March 4, 2011, from http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/entertainment/4625301/What-could-impede-the-Kings-Oscar.

Preston, M. (2010, December 27). "Black Swan" Involved inProduction credit Lawsuit . NBC Chicago. Retrieved March 4, 2011, from www.nbcchicago.com/entertainment/movies/NATL-Black-112492014.html

Scotty Donaldson: King's Speech Has Legal Issues - We Should Patent A Movie Credit Phrase!. (2011, February 6). Scotty Donaldson. Retrieved March 4, 2011, from http://www.scottydonaldson.com/2011/02/kings-speech-has-legal-issues-we-should.html

Trotta, D. (2010, December 24). Film producer sues over Black Swan | Reuters. Business News - Indian Stock Market, Stock Market News, Business & Finance, Market Statistics | Reuters India. Retrieved March 4, 2011, from http://in.reuters.com/article/2010/12/24/idINIndia-53763220101224