After several years of debate, webcasting radio stations have at last reached a deal with copyright holders regarding royalty rates. The non-profit SoundExchange a performance rights organization designated by the U.S. Copyright Office to collect royalties from digital playback of music announced a deal with Internet radio services on new royalty terms. Online radio has become increasingly popular because it has the ability to target music to niche audiences.
Before 1995, Sound Recording Copyright Owners in the United States did not have a performance right. The Digital Performance in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 altered that by granting a performance right in sound recordings. Consequently, the law now requires that users of music pay the copyright owner of the sound recording for the public performance of that music via certain digital transmissions.
A controversy arose in 2007, when the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) issued royalty rates for Internet radio that many stations complained would put them out of business. The fees were going to increase next year to 0.19 cents a song each time they streamed a song.
Both sides negotiated for several years, eventually agreeing to legislation that let Internet radio and copyright holders work out a deal on their own. If they reached an agreement, the CRB's rates would be vacated. The Webcasters Settlement Act of 2008, and a second bill, the Webcasters Settlement Act of 2009, extended that deadline for another month after President Obama signed it on July 2.
The agreement treats sites according to their size and business model. Under the deal Internet radio stations are divided into three categories: large pureplay webcasters; small pureplay webcasters (i.e. those that earn $1.25 million or less in total revenues and have a cap on the amount of music streamed); and pureplay webcasters that provide bundled, syndicated, or subscription services.
Large pureplay stations will pay a pay-per-performance rate or 25 percent of their revenue, whichever is greater. They are required to report to SoundExchange on the music they stream to listeners. These rates are in place until 2015. Small stations will pay either a percentage of their revenue or a percentage of their expenses. They have the option of less rigorous reporting requirements if they pay a proxy fee. These rates are in place until 2014. Pureplay webcasters pay an annual fee of $25,000.
SoundExchange represents more than 3,500 record labels and 31,000 artists and whose members include both signed and unsigned recording artists as well as independent and major label record companies. The agreement applies exclusively to "pureplay" webcasters -- those that simply play music, frequently supported by advertisements. Those sites usually have minimal revenues. Websites that stream music and sell other products won't find the terms as tempting because they must pay a percentage of all their revenue.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
J. D. SALINGER SUES TO PREVENT PUBLICATION OF BOOK
Lawyers for acclaimed author J. D. Salinger, who wrote “The Catcher in the Rye,” have filed suit to enjoin circulation of Fredrik Colting’s new novel, “60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye,” claiming that it infringes Salinger’s copyright.
Defendant Colting’s novel has already been released in Europe and was scheduled for a September release in the U.S. Colting claims his novel is legally protected commentary and a parody of "The Catcher in the Rye." Colting, writing under the pen name John David (J.D.) California, introduces “Mr. C.” in his book as the 76-year-old Holden Caulfield who escapes from a nursing home and pontificates on his experiences while meandering New York City. The novel, which is Colting’s first novel to be published, also features a character named "J.D. Salinger."
Salinger’s lawyers contend that the right to create a sequel to “The Catcher in the Rye” or to use the character “Holden Caulfield” belongs only to Salinger, who has never permitted his work to be filmed, staged or otherwise adapted. The suit further argues that sales of Colting’s unauthorized book would siphon off profits due Salinger. Catcher has been a highly successful book that has been translated into dozens of languages and has sold more than 35 million copies worldwide
Colting’s lawyers contend that 60 Years is a commentary on Catcher, Salinger and the Holden character. They contend that the work shows the battle between Salinger and a 76 year-old “Mr. C” as Salinger struggles to kill off his famous character. They further argue that Colting has only taken as much of Catcher as needed to make his points, and there is no literal copying of any expression in Catcher other than a few catch-phrases such as “phony” and “goddam.” Only three of the 80 or so characters in Catcher appear in 60 Years, and they are considerably older than their younger counterparts in Catcher. In Catcher, Holden is 16 years old.
While characters can be protected under copyright, most decisions involve protection of characters from cartoons, films and other visual medium, rather than literary characters described only in words.
Colting’s lawyers further argue that many elements of “The Catcher in the Rye” are generic to numerous works of fiction and are hence not protectable, and that, even if protectable, their manifestations in the two books are insufficiently similar. Salinger’s lawyers, on the other hand, enumerate specific parallels between what they contend are idiosyncratic elements of “The Catcher in the Rye,” and elements of Colting’s book.
Even if the court finds Colting’s work to be substantially similar to protectable aspects of Salinger’s work, Colting may prevail on a fair use defense. Courts have tended to consider parodies that do not detract commercially from the copied work to be fair uses of the work. In filed declarations, Colting and academicians describe Colting’s novel as a parody exploring the unresolved relationship between Salinger, who emerges as a character in the book, and his autobiographical creation, Holden Caulfield.
Salinger’s lawyers, alternatively, characterize Colting’s book as merely an imitative knock-off, or sequel to the original. They contend the work is not a parody and it has no claim to fair use because it does not poke fun, ridicule, comment upon, criticize, or otherwise transform “The Catcher in the Rye.”
J.D. SALINGER v. John DOE, writing under the name John David California; Windupbird Publishing Ltd.; Nicotext A.B.; and ABP, Inc. d/b/a SCB Distributors Inc., No. 09 Civ. 5095 DAB (June 1, 2009).Complaint available at Westlaw, 2009 WL 1615819 (S.D.N.Y).
FORMER BEAUTY QUEEN SUES ICM FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT
A former Canadian beauty queen has filed a class-action lawsuit accusing ICM of a conspiracy to sexually assault and exploit young actresses. ICM denied any wrongdoing.
Claire Robinson, a past Miss British Columbia (2004), claims ICM agent Jack Gilardi and his friend John Rockwell ran a scam in which they “hip-pocketed” actresses in attempt to take sexual advantage of them. A “Hip-pocket” client is one that is represented on the side by an agent while not officially being represented by the agency at large. At many mid and large-sized agencies, the partners have to approve acceptance for all new clients of the firm.
The complaint alleges that Robinson, 23, met Rockwell in March 2007 when she moved from Vancouver, Canada, to Los Angeles, California to become an actress.
Robinson claims that Gilardi and his assistants sent her on several “mock auditions.” During one such audition a producer allegedly asked her to perform bedroom scenes and a lewd act. On another audition Robinson met a producer who held Robinson's hand, touched her body and attempted to plan a vacation with her, according to the lawsuit.
Robinson further alleges that Rockwell made sexual advances during a trip to the Cannes Film Festival under the ruse that the trip would help her career. Robinson claims that Rockwell became “increasingly aggressive and controlling” when she rejected his advances. One year after the trip to Cannes, Rockwell forced himself into Robinson's apartment and raped her, according to the suit.
Robinson filed a class-action because she believes other women have been “ensnared” in the ICM scheme in the past. Robinson seeks $10 million in punitive damages or ten percent of ICM's annual gross earnings.
The lawsuit alleges fraud, negligent supervision and sexual battery. It also seeks to designate the hip-pocketing scheme as an ongoing criminal enterprise under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
Robinson v. International Creative Management Inc. et al., No. BC414002, complaint filed (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. County May 19, 2009). 21 No. 5 ANENTILR 2. 2009 WL 1468113
Defendant Colting’s novel has already been released in Europe and was scheduled for a September release in the U.S. Colting claims his novel is legally protected commentary and a parody of "The Catcher in the Rye." Colting, writing under the pen name John David (J.D.) California, introduces “Mr. C.” in his book as the 76-year-old Holden Caulfield who escapes from a nursing home and pontificates on his experiences while meandering New York City. The novel, which is Colting’s first novel to be published, also features a character named "J.D. Salinger."
Salinger’s lawyers contend that the right to create a sequel to “The Catcher in the Rye” or to use the character “Holden Caulfield” belongs only to Salinger, who has never permitted his work to be filmed, staged or otherwise adapted. The suit further argues that sales of Colting’s unauthorized book would siphon off profits due Salinger. Catcher has been a highly successful book that has been translated into dozens of languages and has sold more than 35 million copies worldwide
Colting’s lawyers contend that 60 Years is a commentary on Catcher, Salinger and the Holden character. They contend that the work shows the battle between Salinger and a 76 year-old “Mr. C” as Salinger struggles to kill off his famous character. They further argue that Colting has only taken as much of Catcher as needed to make his points, and there is no literal copying of any expression in Catcher other than a few catch-phrases such as “phony” and “goddam.” Only three of the 80 or so characters in Catcher appear in 60 Years, and they are considerably older than their younger counterparts in Catcher. In Catcher, Holden is 16 years old.
While characters can be protected under copyright, most decisions involve protection of characters from cartoons, films and other visual medium, rather than literary characters described only in words.
Colting’s lawyers further argue that many elements of “The Catcher in the Rye” are generic to numerous works of fiction and are hence not protectable, and that, even if protectable, their manifestations in the two books are insufficiently similar. Salinger’s lawyers, on the other hand, enumerate specific parallels between what they contend are idiosyncratic elements of “The Catcher in the Rye,” and elements of Colting’s book.
Even if the court finds Colting’s work to be substantially similar to protectable aspects of Salinger’s work, Colting may prevail on a fair use defense. Courts have tended to consider parodies that do not detract commercially from the copied work to be fair uses of the work. In filed declarations, Colting and academicians describe Colting’s novel as a parody exploring the unresolved relationship between Salinger, who emerges as a character in the book, and his autobiographical creation, Holden Caulfield.
Salinger’s lawyers, alternatively, characterize Colting’s book as merely an imitative knock-off, or sequel to the original. They contend the work is not a parody and it has no claim to fair use because it does not poke fun, ridicule, comment upon, criticize, or otherwise transform “The Catcher in the Rye.”
J.D. SALINGER v. John DOE, writing under the name John David California; Windupbird Publishing Ltd.; Nicotext A.B.; and ABP, Inc. d/b/a SCB Distributors Inc., No. 09 Civ. 5095 DAB (June 1, 2009).Complaint available at Westlaw, 2009 WL 1615819 (S.D.N.Y).
FORMER BEAUTY QUEEN SUES ICM FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT
A former Canadian beauty queen has filed a class-action lawsuit accusing ICM of a conspiracy to sexually assault and exploit young actresses. ICM denied any wrongdoing.
Claire Robinson, a past Miss British Columbia (2004), claims ICM agent Jack Gilardi and his friend John Rockwell ran a scam in which they “hip-pocketed” actresses in attempt to take sexual advantage of them. A “Hip-pocket” client is one that is represented on the side by an agent while not officially being represented by the agency at large. At many mid and large-sized agencies, the partners have to approve acceptance for all new clients of the firm.
The complaint alleges that Robinson, 23, met Rockwell in March 2007 when she moved from Vancouver, Canada, to Los Angeles, California to become an actress.
Robinson claims that Gilardi and his assistants sent her on several “mock auditions.” During one such audition a producer allegedly asked her to perform bedroom scenes and a lewd act. On another audition Robinson met a producer who held Robinson's hand, touched her body and attempted to plan a vacation with her, according to the lawsuit.
Robinson further alleges that Rockwell made sexual advances during a trip to the Cannes Film Festival under the ruse that the trip would help her career. Robinson claims that Rockwell became “increasingly aggressive and controlling” when she rejected his advances. One year after the trip to Cannes, Rockwell forced himself into Robinson's apartment and raped her, according to the suit.
Robinson filed a class-action because she believes other women have been “ensnared” in the ICM scheme in the past. Robinson seeks $10 million in punitive damages or ten percent of ICM's annual gross earnings.
The lawsuit alleges fraud, negligent supervision and sexual battery. It also seeks to designate the hip-pocketing scheme as an ongoing criminal enterprise under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
Robinson v. International Creative Management Inc. et al., No. BC414002, complaint filed (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. County May 19, 2009). 21 No. 5 ANENTILR 2. 2009 WL 1468113
Sunday, June 14, 2009
REAL DEALS
The following article written by Mark Litwak was published on June 2, 2009 in the L.A. Daily Journal, the primary legal newspaper for the Los Angeles legal community.
Film investments have a bad reputation, and deservedly so. There are instances where financiers have been cheated and lost their entire investment. Consequently, some investors simply refuse to consider film-related investments. This is unfortunate because an intelligent investment in a motion picture can earn substantial returns. While film investments are risky, the potential return from a hit can be enormous. No only can the film earn revenue from box office receipts, but there are many ancillary sources of income. These sources include revenue from television, home video, merchandising, music publishing, soundtrack albums, sequels and remakes.
There are ways to reduce the risk of film investments. Here is a checklist to guide investors.
Thoroughly investigate the reputation and track record of any producer or distributor you contemplate doing business with. No contract can adequately protect you against a scoundrel. Speak to filmmakers and investors who have done business with a candidate. Check court records to see if the company has been sued.
Federal and State security laws are designed to protect investors. Offerings to the public generally require prior registration with the SEC or a state agency. Usually private placements are limited to persons with whom the offeror has a pre-existing relationship. Even if registration is not required, the anti-fraud provisions of the security laws require that the offeror make full disclosure of all facts that a reasonably prudent investor would need to know in deciding whether to invest. The information disclosed should include a detailed recitation of all the risks involved in developing, producing and marketing a movie. Avoid any offering that appears to violate this requirement by making less than full and truthful disclosure. Carefully read the prospectus, and consult your own financial and legal advisors before making a decision to invest.
Do not back a filmmaker or production team that does not possess the proven skill needed to make a professional-looking movie. Avoid first-time filmmakers. You are safer backing filmmakers whose have completed at least one short or a feature-length work. Partner with people of integrity who bring the skills, expertise and resources to the endeavor that you lack. For instance, if you don't have the knowledge necessary to evaluate a script, bring aboard someone who has that expertise, or hire a script doctor.
There is a very limited market, and modest potential revenue, to be earned from short films, documentaries, black and white films, and foreign language pictures. Distributors and exhibitors are prejudiced against motion pictures shot on videotape. They prefer films shot on 35-millimeter stock, although quality films shot on 16-millimeter or Super 16-millimeter stock can obtain distribution. The top festivals do not exhibit motion pictures on videotape.
Certain themes, topics and genres can be difficult to sell. Religiously-themed pictures can easily offend audiences. Cerebral comedies can be difficult to export because their humor may not translate well. Films with a great deal of violence may be shunned by European television which is a prime market for independents. Films with explicit sex may not pass censorship boards in certain countries.
Independent films without name actors are difficult to sell. Of course, name recognition varies around the world. The star of an American television series may be a big name in the United State but unknown abroad. On the other hand, some actors have large following aboard, yet are relatively unknown in the United States. There are several publications that can be consulted to determine the commercial appeal of actors. The Ulmer Guide surveys financiers, sales agents and other industry insiders. Also, the Hollywood Reporter publishes its "Star Power" guide.
The director of the film is the key person who will determine whether the final product is marketable. If a filmmaker shows no concern about making a movie with audience appeal, you can expect a film whose exhibition will be limited to the family and friends of the filmmaker. This is not to say that the only films you should invest in are low-brow fare like "Dumb and Dumber." A well-made "art" film like "Elizabeth," can win awards and make a handsome return on investment. Filmmakers should give some thought beforehand as to the nature of the film's intended audience. I once watched a wonderful "Lassie" type film spiced with four-letter words uttered by one character. I explained to the filmmaker that his film would never sell in the family market because of the vulgar language, and it was too soft a story to appeal to teens and adults.
It is best to invest in an endeavor where everyone shares the same risks and rewards. A filmmaker who takes a large fee from the production budget may financially prosper from a picture that returns nothing to the investors. It is better to back a filmmaker willing to work for a modest wage and share in the success of the endeavor through deferments or profit participation. An investor can take some comfort investing in a motion picture on the same terms as a producer or distributor where all parties recoup at the same time. Beware of investing in a project where other parties benefit when you lose.
Usually, investors are entitled to recoup all of their investment from first revenues before payment of deferments or profits. Many times investors are allowed to recoup 110 percent or more of their investment in order to compensate them for loss of interest and inflation. Profits are declared after payment of debts, investor recoupment and payment of deferments. Profits are generally split 50/50 between the producer(s) and the investors. Thus, investors who provide 100 percent of the financing are entitled to 50 percent of the profits. From the producer's half of net profits are paid any third-party profit participants (e.g. the writer, director and stars).
Don't ever accept oral assurances from a producer or distributor. If they promise to spend $50,000 on advertising, get it in writing. If there is not enough time to draft a long-form contract, ask for a letter reiterating the promises. Retain copies of all correspondence, contracts and any promotional literature. If a filmmaker makes fraudulent statements in order to induce you to invest, you will have a much stronger case if his statements are in writing.
Avoid filmmakers who make handshake deals. Such individuals may neglect to obtain the necessary contracts needed to fully secure ownership to their motion picture. In order to have a complete chain of title to a film, one needs to secure written contracts with many parties including actors, writers and music rights owners. Filmmakers who fail to pay attention to such legal niceties lack the professionalism needed to succeed.
Film investments have a bad reputation, and deservedly so. There are instances where financiers have been cheated and lost their entire investment. Consequently, some investors simply refuse to consider film-related investments. This is unfortunate because an intelligent investment in a motion picture can earn substantial returns. While film investments are risky, the potential return from a hit can be enormous. No only can the film earn revenue from box office receipts, but there are many ancillary sources of income. These sources include revenue from television, home video, merchandising, music publishing, soundtrack albums, sequels and remakes.
There are ways to reduce the risk of film investments. Here is a checklist to guide investors.
Thoroughly investigate the reputation and track record of any producer or distributor you contemplate doing business with. No contract can adequately protect you against a scoundrel. Speak to filmmakers and investors who have done business with a candidate. Check court records to see if the company has been sued.
Federal and State security laws are designed to protect investors. Offerings to the public generally require prior registration with the SEC or a state agency. Usually private placements are limited to persons with whom the offeror has a pre-existing relationship. Even if registration is not required, the anti-fraud provisions of the security laws require that the offeror make full disclosure of all facts that a reasonably prudent investor would need to know in deciding whether to invest. The information disclosed should include a detailed recitation of all the risks involved in developing, producing and marketing a movie. Avoid any offering that appears to violate this requirement by making less than full and truthful disclosure. Carefully read the prospectus, and consult your own financial and legal advisors before making a decision to invest.
Do not back a filmmaker or production team that does not possess the proven skill needed to make a professional-looking movie. Avoid first-time filmmakers. You are safer backing filmmakers whose have completed at least one short or a feature-length work. Partner with people of integrity who bring the skills, expertise and resources to the endeavor that you lack. For instance, if you don't have the knowledge necessary to evaluate a script, bring aboard someone who has that expertise, or hire a script doctor.
There is a very limited market, and modest potential revenue, to be earned from short films, documentaries, black and white films, and foreign language pictures. Distributors and exhibitors are prejudiced against motion pictures shot on videotape. They prefer films shot on 35-millimeter stock, although quality films shot on 16-millimeter or Super 16-millimeter stock can obtain distribution. The top festivals do not exhibit motion pictures on videotape.
Certain themes, topics and genres can be difficult to sell. Religiously-themed pictures can easily offend audiences. Cerebral comedies can be difficult to export because their humor may not translate well. Films with a great deal of violence may be shunned by European television which is a prime market for independents. Films with explicit sex may not pass censorship boards in certain countries.
Independent films without name actors are difficult to sell. Of course, name recognition varies around the world. The star of an American television series may be a big name in the United State but unknown abroad. On the other hand, some actors have large following aboard, yet are relatively unknown in the United States. There are several publications that can be consulted to determine the commercial appeal of actors. The Ulmer Guide surveys financiers, sales agents and other industry insiders. Also, the Hollywood Reporter publishes its "Star Power" guide.
The director of the film is the key person who will determine whether the final product is marketable. If a filmmaker shows no concern about making a movie with audience appeal, you can expect a film whose exhibition will be limited to the family and friends of the filmmaker. This is not to say that the only films you should invest in are low-brow fare like "Dumb and Dumber." A well-made "art" film like "Elizabeth," can win awards and make a handsome return on investment. Filmmakers should give some thought beforehand as to the nature of the film's intended audience. I once watched a wonderful "Lassie" type film spiced with four-letter words uttered by one character. I explained to the filmmaker that his film would never sell in the family market because of the vulgar language, and it was too soft a story to appeal to teens and adults.
It is best to invest in an endeavor where everyone shares the same risks and rewards. A filmmaker who takes a large fee from the production budget may financially prosper from a picture that returns nothing to the investors. It is better to back a filmmaker willing to work for a modest wage and share in the success of the endeavor through deferments or profit participation. An investor can take some comfort investing in a motion picture on the same terms as a producer or distributor where all parties recoup at the same time. Beware of investing in a project where other parties benefit when you lose.
Usually, investors are entitled to recoup all of their investment from first revenues before payment of deferments or profits. Many times investors are allowed to recoup 110 percent or more of their investment in order to compensate them for loss of interest and inflation. Profits are declared after payment of debts, investor recoupment and payment of deferments. Profits are generally split 50/50 between the producer(s) and the investors. Thus, investors who provide 100 percent of the financing are entitled to 50 percent of the profits. From the producer's half of net profits are paid any third-party profit participants (e.g. the writer, director and stars).
Don't ever accept oral assurances from a producer or distributor. If they promise to spend $50,000 on advertising, get it in writing. If there is not enough time to draft a long-form contract, ask for a letter reiterating the promises. Retain copies of all correspondence, contracts and any promotional literature. If a filmmaker makes fraudulent statements in order to induce you to invest, you will have a much stronger case if his statements are in writing.
Avoid filmmakers who make handshake deals. Such individuals may neglect to obtain the necessary contracts needed to fully secure ownership to their motion picture. In order to have a complete chain of title to a film, one needs to secure written contracts with many parties including actors, writers and music rights owners. Filmmakers who fail to pay attention to such legal niceties lack the professionalism needed to succeed.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Creative Studio Heads Can Be Both Risky and Rewarding
| The following article written by Mark Litwak was recently published in the L.A. Daily Journal, the primary legal newspaper for the Los Angeles legal community.
| |||
|
| |||
| Hollywood suffers from many of the same problems that plague other American industries. Professional managers have taken the reins of control. They are better-educated than their predecessors but often lack their entrepreneurial zeal and willingness to take risks.
Entrepreneurs who start businesses often don't have the desire or management skills to run a large organization. Inventors, like Steve Wozniak, may find it more satisfying to tinker in their garages and invent new products than attend board of directors' meetings and manage a large bureaucracy. While these entrepreneurs may function well as lone operators or in small groups, when called upon to supervise large enterprises, their shortcomings can prevent the organization from prospering. So the entrepreneurs stand aside - or are shoved aside -and the managers take over.
But the movie and television industry is different from other industries. The commodity being sold is creativity. Movies don't lend themselves to assembly-line manufacturing. It's not like making soap, where once you devise the right formula you can churn out the same product time and again. A consumer who finds a brand of soap he/she likes may stick with it for a long time. He/she doesn't want the tenth bar to be any different from the first. He/she doesn't expect the product to entertain him/her or provide a new experience.
But people don't find one movie they like and watch it repeatedly. Moviegoers always want something different. They want to be taken where they haven't been before. They want fresh situations, plots, and characters - not a rehash of last week's hit.
Consequently, the movies that do best are often those that are distinctly original. Star Wars was a breakthrough film because of its wonderful special effects, unusual setting, and fresh characters. Moviegoers had never seen anything like it before.
Unfortunately, the atmosphere prevalent at many major studios today is not conducive to creative filmmaking because executives are so risk-adverse. United Artists and Universal rejected Star Wars before Alan Ladd Jr. at 20th Century Fox decided to back it. Often filmmakers can't find a single executive willing to gamble on anything that is offbeat or unusual. It took director Oliver Stone ten years to produce Platoon, and then he succeeded only because an independent company provided the financing.
Many intelligent, provocative, and innovative movies - like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon; The Crying Game; Roger & Me; Sex, Lies, and Videotape; Hollywood Shuffle; Kiss of the Spider Woman; and Blood Simple - have been made with independent financing. Some of these independently made pictures are enormously profitable, such as The Full Monty and My Big Fat Greek Wedding, and many have received Academy Award nominations for Best Picture. Such critically acclaimed films as Juno, Crash, March of the Penguins, and Little Miss Sunshine were made outside Hollywood. The public is generally unaware of how many of the best movies are only distributed by a major studio.
Due to the risk-adverse climate in Hollywood, a common failing of studio movies today is that they are derivative of other movies. Flashdance spawns Footloose; Animal House is reworked into Meatballs and Police Academy. Any movie that is the least bit profitable is the basis for one or more sequels. The studios try to squeeze as much as possible from every successful property they own.
Coping With Risk
Because of their aversion to risk, the studios have largely withdrawn from producing films in-house. While many maintain production lots, which are rented to anyone needing a soundstage, the studios essentially function as specialized banks, lending money to produce worthy projects and then distributing the finished product.
Like banks, they evaluate proposals submitted to them but rarely initiate projects. After borrowing money from large banks or obtaining investment funds, the studios decide which producers to back. The producer and director make the movie, with oversight by the studio concerned about protecting its investment. Once the picture is complete, the studio markets it, creating an advertising campaign and duplicating and distributing prints. Finally, the studio uses its clout to collect receipts from exhibitors.
There are some exceptions to this modus operandi. At some independent production entities like Castle Rock Entertainment and Imagine Entertainment, the executives who run the company are more involved in creating product.
But most studios are run by dealmakers, not filmmakers. Many executives rise to the top based on their relationships with big-name talent and their dealmaking prowess, not because of their understanding of what makes a good script or their film-making ability.
Other problems have arisen because the studios have relinquished much of their creative authority. Increasingly, executives make decisions based on market research, demographic trends, and minimizing financial risks. It has become much more of a lawyer-agent game, with less showmanship, according to producer Martin Ransohoff (Jagged Edge): "Picture-making itself had a better shot under the old moguls. They were basically movie guys. Not conglomerate or bank-endorsed people."
The old studio staff producers have been replaced by creative-affairs executives. "They function as staff producers but without the public shame and responsibility that comes from having your name on the picture," says industry analyst A.D. Murphy. "They exercise authority but remain anonymous. And when you have a lot of faceless people who are not out there naked next to their films, you have a lot of copping-out and log-rolling." Large talent agencies such as CAA and William Morris exercise considerable influence in developing and packaging projects. Agents conceive ideas for movies, discover new talent, and decide which writers, directors, and stars shall work together in the packages they create. In the old days, the studios performed these creative tasks.
Managing a Creative Enterprise In many ways the atmosphere for creative moviemaking was better during the era of the moguls. More than 50 million Americans went to the theater every week in the days before television. Admissions reached an all-time high of four billion in 1946. Because films cost less and there was no competition from television, videogames, and the like, even mediocre films stood a better chance of making a profit. Since the moguls owned the studios they ran, they were more secure in their positions and could afford to take more risks - if a picture flopped, it might hurt their pocketbook but they wouldn't lose their job.
Some studios have belatedly realized the importance of creativity in moviemaking. Burned by expensive star-studded flops based on agency packages, these studios have hired executives who can play a more creative role in filmmaking.
In 1984, after Rhinestone (starring Sylvester Stallone and Dolly Parton) bombed, 20th Century Fox fired Alan Hirschfield and Joe Wizan and hired Barry Diller. Diller was head of the much-vaunted Paramount team (Diller/Eisner/Katzenberg/Mancuso) that insisted on developing projects itself rather than accepting agency packages. Disney also lured two other members of that Paramount team, Michael Eisner and Jeff Katzenberg, to replace the more business-oriented Ron Miller.
In each of these instances, studios replaced executives with backgrounds in finance and dealmaking with people known for their creative abilities. But creativity can be risky. In 1994, Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg, and David Geffen launched Dreamworks SKG to create an artist-friendly studio. However, by 2006, after flirting with bankruptcy twice, the company was sold to Viacom, losing its independence. Likewise, independent New Line Cinema, founded in 1967, was acquired by Turner Broadcasting System in 1994, which in 1996 merged with Time Warner. The company lost its autonomy in 2008 when Time Warner absorbed it.
Daily Journal |
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
California Officials Pursuing Noncompliant LLC's
Under a new state program, the state tax board has begun sending out the first of many monthly mailings to approximately 23,332 limited liability companies whose records are eligible for suspension. California officials are suspending LLCs due to the lack of filed state tax returns and other necessary information filings and overdue annual tax fees.
According to the Franchise Tax Board and the California state tax agency, if a company is suspended, that company will lose the rights to its name, it will be unable to sue or be represented in court, its contracts will be unenforceable and it will not be able to do business in California.
Next year, the secretary of state is expected to begin proceedings of its own to suspend LLCs for lack of filing an information statement every two years. Those LLCs who have not filed these forms, could be subject to a $250 penalty.
Before a suspension is imposed, the tax board is allowing any targeted LLCs 60 days to resolve any issues or explain why a notice was sent in error. To avoid suspension, LLCs must file missing income tax returns and pay any outstanding fees, taxes, penalties and accrued interest charges. If an LLC is cancelled, it is still responsible for missing income returns and unpaid fees, taxes and interest.
The tax board anticipates its new suspension program will reduce tax gaps and bring about LLC compliance. An estimated $64.7 million is owed by these non-compliant LLCs in back taxes, fees, penalties and interest. In addition, California officials will continue to bridge these gaps by increasing 2009 fees and penalties and forcing LLCs to file income tax returns sooner. At least one decision by the Board of Equalization has indicated that a shareholder can be liable for corporate taxes if certain conditions are met, and similar liability could apply to an LLC member who walks away. So it is best to close down an LLC that is no longer being used to ensure that you do not become liable for taxes, fees and penalties.
For more information on LLCs and the tax board's suspension program, please visit the tax board website at www.ftb.ca.gov.
Risky Business Seminar in New York April 25, 2009
Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts is sponsoring a one day seminar with Mark Litwak on Saturday, April 25, 2009 in Manhattan.
This comprehensive seminar explores how independent films are financed and distributed. Topics include financing via pre sales, debt and limited partnerships, negotiating tactics, typical contract terms, cross collaterization and creative accounting. Particular attention is paid to how producers and filmmakers can protect themselves by watering down warranties, getting added to the E & O policy, adding performance, termination and arbitration provisions, using lab access letter to retain possession of the negative, and a schedule a minimums.
Other topics include criteria for selecting a distributor; what is negotiable and what is not; compliance with state and federal laws when seeking investors; retaining an attorney or producer's rep; confirming arbitration awards in Superior Court; and enforcing judgments. The seminar includes a handout with a distribution contract, articles, a self defense checklist and other materials.
Since 1969, Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts has been the leading provider of pro bono legal services, mediation services, educational programs and publications, and advocacy to the arts community in New York. The first arts-related legal aid organization, VLA is the model for similar organizations around the world. For more information about Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts, please go to: www.vlany.org.
NETFLIX WILL AWARD $350,000 TO FILMMAKER
NETFLIX, in association with Film Independent, has announced its Find Your Voice film competition contest. The contest is open only to the first two thousand individuals who are legal residents of the fifty (50) United States (including D.C.), at least eighteen (18) years old at the time of entry and who have never created and publicly screened a full length narrative feature film of seventy (70) minutes or more. The prize of cash and services is worth approximately $350,000.
To apply, one must submit an application and a feature length script (80-120 pages). Applicants can also submit optional materials: a list of cast and crew, a budget top-sheet and a DVD with sample footage or a link that provides online access to such footage. The award is for a narrative film, not a documentary.
Additional information at netflix The deadline to submit an application is February 9, 2009.
According to the Franchise Tax Board and the California state tax agency, if a company is suspended, that company will lose the rights to its name, it will be unable to sue or be represented in court, its contracts will be unenforceable and it will not be able to do business in California.
Next year, the secretary of state is expected to begin proceedings of its own to suspend LLCs for lack of filing an information statement every two years. Those LLCs who have not filed these forms, could be subject to a $250 penalty.
Before a suspension is imposed, the tax board is allowing any targeted LLCs 60 days to resolve any issues or explain why a notice was sent in error. To avoid suspension, LLCs must file missing income tax returns and pay any outstanding fees, taxes, penalties and accrued interest charges. If an LLC is cancelled, it is still responsible for missing income returns and unpaid fees, taxes and interest.
The tax board anticipates its new suspension program will reduce tax gaps and bring about LLC compliance. An estimated $64.7 million is owed by these non-compliant LLCs in back taxes, fees, penalties and interest. In addition, California officials will continue to bridge these gaps by increasing 2009 fees and penalties and forcing LLCs to file income tax returns sooner. At least one decision by the Board of Equalization has indicated that a shareholder can be liable for corporate taxes if certain conditions are met, and similar liability could apply to an LLC member who walks away. So it is best to close down an LLC that is no longer being used to ensure that you do not become liable for taxes, fees and penalties.
For more information on LLCs and the tax board's suspension program, please visit the tax board website at www.ftb.ca.gov.
Risky Business Seminar in New York April 25, 2009
Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts is sponsoring a one day seminar with Mark Litwak on Saturday, April 25, 2009 in Manhattan.
This comprehensive seminar explores how independent films are financed and distributed. Topics include financing via pre sales, debt and limited partnerships, negotiating tactics, typical contract terms, cross collaterization and creative accounting. Particular attention is paid to how producers and filmmakers can protect themselves by watering down warranties, getting added to the E & O policy, adding performance, termination and arbitration provisions, using lab access letter to retain possession of the negative, and a schedule a minimums.
Other topics include criteria for selecting a distributor; what is negotiable and what is not; compliance with state and federal laws when seeking investors; retaining an attorney or producer's rep; confirming arbitration awards in Superior Court; and enforcing judgments. The seminar includes a handout with a distribution contract, articles, a self defense checklist and other materials.
Since 1969, Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts has been the leading provider of pro bono legal services, mediation services, educational programs and publications, and advocacy to the arts community in New York. The first arts-related legal aid organization, VLA is the model for similar organizations around the world. For more information about Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts, please go to: www.vlany.org.
NETFLIX WILL AWARD $350,000 TO FILMMAKER
NETFLIX, in association with Film Independent, has announced its Find Your Voice film competition contest. The contest is open only to the first two thousand individuals who are legal residents of the fifty (50) United States (including D.C.), at least eighteen (18) years old at the time of entry and who have never created and publicly screened a full length narrative feature film of seventy (70) minutes or more. The prize of cash and services is worth approximately $350,000.
To apply, one must submit an application and a feature length script (80-120 pages). Applicants can also submit optional materials: a list of cast and crew, a budget top-sheet and a DVD with sample footage or a link that provides online access to such footage. The award is for a narrative film, not a documentary.
Additional information at netflix The deadline to submit an application is February 9, 2009.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Risky Business at UCLA February 21, 2009
Mark will once again present his yearly "Risky Business: Financing & Distributing Independent Films" all day seminar at the UCLA campus on February 21, 2009. Those who attend this comprehensive seminar will learn how independent films are financed and distributed. Topics include organizing your company, raising financing via pre-sales, debt and limited partnerships, negotiating tactics, principal terms of the acquisition/distribution agreement, cross-collateralization and creative accounting.
Particular attention is paid to how producers and filmmakers can protect their interests by watering down warranties, getting added to the E& O policy, using lab access letter to retain possession of the negative, and utilizing termination and arbitration clauses.
The seminar is all day Saturday. There is limited enrollment so enroll early to assure a place.
Registration number: U6442. Attorneys may receive 7 hours of MCLE credit.
More info at: https://www.uclaextension.edu/index.cfm
An extensive handout accompanies the course. The handout covers:
SELF DEFENSE CHECKLIST
ORGANIZING YOUR COMPANY
Choice of Business Entity
Sole Proprietorship
General Partnership
Limited Partnership
Corporation
Company Formation Checklist
Limited Liability Company (LLC)
Comparison of Entity Choices
COLLABORATIONS AND CO-PRODUCTIONS
International Co-Productions
Co-Production Checklist
RAISING MONEY
Loans
Pre-sale Agreements
Contract: IFTA International Schedule of Definitions
Entertainment Finance Companies
Equity Investments
Finders
TACTICS AND STRATEGY IN ARRANGING DISTRIBUTION
How Much is My Film Worth?
How Distributors Evaluate a Film
Sources of Revenue
Increasing Your Leverage
Film Festivals
Working the Festival Circuit
Balancing Risks and Rewards
The Acquisition/Distribution Agreement
Tactics and Strategy
Markets and Festivals
Investigate the Distributor
PRINCIPAL TERMS OF THE DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT
Territory
Media
Term
Distribution Fee
Distribution and Marketing Expenses
Advances and Guarantees
Consultation Rights
Warranties and Representations
Accounting
Arbitration
Insurance
Termination
Assignment
Allocation of Package Revenue
Security Interest
Governing Law
Territorial Minimums
Retain Your Masters
Return of Materials
Delivery
Contract: Lab Access Letter
Contract: IFTA Rider to International Distribution Agreement
WHEN A DISTRIBUTOR DEFAULTS
Selecting a Distributor
Creative Accounting
Conducting an Audit
How Revenue is divided
Creative Accounting Pitfalls
Accounting Terms
Defensive Tactics
COPYRIGHT OFFICE INSTITUTES ONLINE REGISTRATION SYSTEM
The copyright office has joined the internet revolution and now prefers that you register your work online through the Copyright Office online system (eCO). This is now the primary method to register works.
The advantages of this new system include a lower filing fee of $35 for a basic claim, faster processing time, online status tracking, secure payment by credit card or electronic means and the ability to upload certain deposits directly into the system as electronic files.
For works that require a hard-copy deposit, one may submit an application, make a payment online, and then send copies to the Copyright Office via mail or express courier.
For the registration of motion pictures there are two other methods. There is now a new fill-in Form CO. Using 2-d barcode scanning technology, the Copyright processes these forms much faster and more efficiently than paper forms completed manually. Simply complete Form CO on your personal computer, print it out, and mail it along with a check or money order and your deposit. To access Form CO, go the Copyright Office website and click on Forms.
One can still rely on traditional paper Form PA (performing arts works, including motion pictures). However, these forms are no longer downloadable from the Copyright Office website. One has to request that they be mailed to you.
http://www.copyright.gov/
SUPREME COURT TO HEAR APPEAL OVER ANTI HILLARY CLINTON FILM
The Supreme Court will hear an appeal from a conservative group that wanted to promote its anti-Hillary Clinton movie without complying with the campaign finance law. The McCain-Feingold Act forbids corporate-funded broadcast ads that attack a candidate within a month of a primary or general election. Moreover, political groups are required to disclose who paid for the advertisements.
The Federal Election Commission found that the group could not broadcast the film on television or air ads close to the election. A lower court ruled that the 90-minute "Hillary: The Movie" was clearly intended to influence people to vote against Clinton in her run for the presidency. A three-judge court in Washington said the group had to attach a disclaimer and disclose its donors in order to run ads promoting the movie.
Attorneys for the conservative group Citizens United claim the law limits "core political speech rights" and is unconstitutional. Citizens United v. FEC, 08-205.
Brief: http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2008/0responses/2008-0205.resp.html
MARK CUBAN ACCUSED OF INSIDER TRADING
The SEC has charged the dot-com billionaire Mark Cuban and owner of 2929 Entertainment with insider trading. Cuban also has interests in HDNet and Landmark Theatres, a chain of arthouse movie theaters.
The complaint arises from Cuban's sale in 2004 of 600,000 shares in the search engine company mamma.com (aka Copernic, Inc.). The SEC claims that Cuban dumped all of his shares the evening and day after he received material non-public information from the company's CEO, avoiding a loss in excess of $750,000.
Link http://news.lp.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/sec/20081117-cuban-sec-complaint.pdf
Particular attention is paid to how producers and filmmakers can protect their interests by watering down warranties, getting added to the E& O policy, using lab access letter to retain possession of the negative, and utilizing termination and arbitration clauses.
The seminar is all day Saturday. There is limited enrollment so enroll early to assure a place.
Registration number: U6442. Attorneys may receive 7 hours of MCLE credit.
More info at: https://www.uclaextension.edu/index.cfm
An extensive handout accompanies the course. The handout covers:
SELF DEFENSE CHECKLIST
ORGANIZING YOUR COMPANY
Choice of Business Entity
Sole Proprietorship
General Partnership
Limited Partnership
Corporation
Company Formation Checklist
Limited Liability Company (LLC)
Comparison of Entity Choices
COLLABORATIONS AND CO-PRODUCTIONS
International Co-Productions
Co-Production Checklist
RAISING MONEY
Loans
Pre-sale Agreements
Contract: IFTA International Schedule of Definitions
Entertainment Finance Companies
Equity Investments
Finders
TACTICS AND STRATEGY IN ARRANGING DISTRIBUTION
How Much is My Film Worth?
How Distributors Evaluate a Film
Sources of Revenue
Increasing Your Leverage
Film Festivals
Working the Festival Circuit
Balancing Risks and Rewards
The Acquisition/Distribution Agreement
Tactics and Strategy
Markets and Festivals
Investigate the Distributor
PRINCIPAL TERMS OF THE DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT
Territory
Media
Term
Distribution Fee
Distribution and Marketing Expenses
Advances and Guarantees
Consultation Rights
Warranties and Representations
Accounting
Arbitration
Insurance
Termination
Assignment
Allocation of Package Revenue
Security Interest
Governing Law
Territorial Minimums
Retain Your Masters
Return of Materials
Delivery
Contract: Lab Access Letter
Contract: IFTA Rider to International Distribution Agreement
WHEN A DISTRIBUTOR DEFAULTS
Selecting a Distributor
Creative Accounting
Conducting an Audit
How Revenue is divided
Creative Accounting Pitfalls
Accounting Terms
Defensive Tactics
COPYRIGHT OFFICE INSTITUTES ONLINE REGISTRATION SYSTEM
The copyright office has joined the internet revolution and now prefers that you register your work online through the Copyright Office online system (eCO). This is now the primary method to register works.
The advantages of this new system include a lower filing fee of $35 for a basic claim, faster processing time, online status tracking, secure payment by credit card or electronic means and the ability to upload certain deposits directly into the system as electronic files.
For works that require a hard-copy deposit, one may submit an application, make a payment online, and then send copies to the Copyright Office via mail or express courier.
For the registration of motion pictures there are two other methods. There is now a new fill-in Form CO. Using 2-d barcode scanning technology, the Copyright processes these forms much faster and more efficiently than paper forms completed manually. Simply complete Form CO on your personal computer, print it out, and mail it along with a check or money order and your deposit. To access Form CO, go the Copyright Office website and click on Forms.
One can still rely on traditional paper Form PA (performing arts works, including motion pictures). However, these forms are no longer downloadable from the Copyright Office website. One has to request that they be mailed to you.
http://www.copyright.gov/
SUPREME COURT TO HEAR APPEAL OVER ANTI HILLARY CLINTON FILM
The Supreme Court will hear an appeal from a conservative group that wanted to promote its anti-Hillary Clinton movie without complying with the campaign finance law. The McCain-Feingold Act forbids corporate-funded broadcast ads that attack a candidate within a month of a primary or general election. Moreover, political groups are required to disclose who paid for the advertisements.
The Federal Election Commission found that the group could not broadcast the film on television or air ads close to the election. A lower court ruled that the 90-minute "Hillary: The Movie" was clearly intended to influence people to vote against Clinton in her run for the presidency. A three-judge court in Washington said the group had to attach a disclaimer and disclose its donors in order to run ads promoting the movie.
Attorneys for the conservative group Citizens United claim the law limits "core political speech rights" and is unconstitutional. Citizens United v. FEC, 08-205.
Brief: http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2008/0responses/2008-0205.resp.html
MARK CUBAN ACCUSED OF INSIDER TRADING
The SEC has charged the dot-com billionaire Mark Cuban and owner of 2929 Entertainment with insider trading. Cuban also has interests in HDNet and Landmark Theatres, a chain of arthouse movie theaters.
The complaint arises from Cuban's sale in 2004 of 600,000 shares in the search engine company mamma.com (aka Copernic, Inc.). The SEC claims that Cuban dumped all of his shares the evening and day after he received material non-public information from the company's CEO, avoiding a loss in excess of $750,000.
Link http://news.lp.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/sec/20081117-cuban-sec-complaint.pdf
Friday, October 31, 2008
The Middle East International Film Festival
I recently had the great pleasure of serving as a juror at the Middle East International Film Festival, held in Abu Dhabi, in the United Arab Emirates, from October 12 – 19. The Middle East Film Festival, in its second year now, was organized to bring together filmmakers from all over the world, particularly filmmakers from the Middle East. It’s part of the country’s multi-pronged approach to building a film industry from the ground up in Abu Dhabi. That approach includes building studio space to attract film production, offering budding filmmakers a focused education through the soon-to-be opened New York Film Academy, and providing financing for both international and local films.
MEIFF Director of Programming Jon Fitzgerald (who was also the founder of the Slamdance Film Festival) put together a fabulous line-up of Hollywood films, Bollywood Films, and student films, which shared the venues with a smorgasbord of films from the Middle East. The festival was headquartered at the stunning Emirates Palace, a luxurious seven- star hotel in the heart of Abu Dhabi; additional screens at the nearby Marina Mall and the Abu Dhabi Mall were also enlisted for the eight days of non-stop film showings. Hollywood star power was in residence, with Actor Adrien Brody and Director Rian Johnson present for the Opening Night Film, “The Brothers Bloom.” Susan Sarandon participated in a “Spotlight on Women” panel about environmental and cultural issues facing women throughout the world, which were addressed in the film “The Shape of Water,” which Ms. Sarandon had narrated. Catherine Deneuve participated in a debate about humanitarian concerns in Lebanon; and Jane Fonda was there to receive the Cinema Verite Lifetime Achievement Award. Famous Egyptian actress Youssra served on the Feature Jury.
At MEIFF, Middle Eastern film was represented by films from the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Palestine, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. Nashwa Al-Ruwaini, the Executive Director of MEIFF introduced many of the films and filmmakers. Of course the government of Abu Dhabi supported this effort, led by Sheikh Sultan Bin Tahnoon Al Nahyan, Chair of the Abu Dhabi Authority for Culture and Heritage.
I am probably not alone when I say that MEIFF took networking and hospitality to a whole different level, with some of the best parties ever hosted at a film festival. After the last screening of the evening, festival participants would gather in the gardens outside the Emirates Palace, overlooking the Arabian Gulf, for entertainment that was truly out of 1001 Arabian Nights. At the Bedouin Party, festivalgoers lounged on couches in Bedouin tents and smoked shisha (Arabic tobacco) with a water pipe (hookah); camel rides were offered to the daring, animal lovers could get up close and personal with a trained falcon, and a sensational belly dancer entertained the captivated audience. On Bollywood Night, we were treated to the ritualized, gracious dance of India; and after the screening of the documentary “Youssou N’Dour: I Bring What I Love,” N’Dour himself, one of Africa’s most adored musicians, gave a concert, accompanied by his band. The Middle Eastern cuisine, the hospitality, and the graciousness of our hosts was truly incomparable.
It is amazing that oil was only discovered in the Emirates in the 1970s. They are now the world’s 10th largest producer of oil—and of course it has transformed their society. It was an eye-opening, mind-bending experience to witness this transformation, and to be part of the blossoming culture of film, art and architecture in the UAR.
Congress Extends Federal Tax Incentive
The Section 181 tax incentive has been extended through December 2009. This program which was first enacted in 2004 was extended and enhanced by being attached to the $700 billion financial markets rescue plan passed by Congress.
The new legislation improves upon the prior law by applying the tax incentive to the first $15 million of all motion picture productions in the USA. The prior legislation was flawed because this threshold amount included all costs, including difficult to predict residuals and participations. This quirk in the law made it risky to accept the incentive if your budget plus these extras might exceed $15 million.
The new provisions are retroactive to January 2008.
MEIFF Director of Programming Jon Fitzgerald (who was also the founder of the Slamdance Film Festival) put together a fabulous line-up of Hollywood films, Bollywood Films, and student films, which shared the venues with a smorgasbord of films from the Middle East. The festival was headquartered at the stunning Emirates Palace, a luxurious seven- star hotel in the heart of Abu Dhabi; additional screens at the nearby Marina Mall and the Abu Dhabi Mall were also enlisted for the eight days of non-stop film showings. Hollywood star power was in residence, with Actor Adrien Brody and Director Rian Johnson present for the Opening Night Film, “The Brothers Bloom.” Susan Sarandon participated in a “Spotlight on Women” panel about environmental and cultural issues facing women throughout the world, which were addressed in the film “The Shape of Water,” which Ms. Sarandon had narrated. Catherine Deneuve participated in a debate about humanitarian concerns in Lebanon; and Jane Fonda was there to receive the Cinema Verite Lifetime Achievement Award. Famous Egyptian actress Youssra served on the Feature Jury.
At MEIFF, Middle Eastern film was represented by films from the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Palestine, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. Nashwa Al-Ruwaini, the Executive Director of MEIFF introduced many of the films and filmmakers. Of course the government of Abu Dhabi supported this effort, led by Sheikh Sultan Bin Tahnoon Al Nahyan, Chair of the Abu Dhabi Authority for Culture and Heritage.
I am probably not alone when I say that MEIFF took networking and hospitality to a whole different level, with some of the best parties ever hosted at a film festival. After the last screening of the evening, festival participants would gather in the gardens outside the Emirates Palace, overlooking the Arabian Gulf, for entertainment that was truly out of 1001 Arabian Nights. At the Bedouin Party, festivalgoers lounged on couches in Bedouin tents and smoked shisha (Arabic tobacco) with a water pipe (hookah); camel rides were offered to the daring, animal lovers could get up close and personal with a trained falcon, and a sensational belly dancer entertained the captivated audience. On Bollywood Night, we were treated to the ritualized, gracious dance of India; and after the screening of the documentary “Youssou N’Dour: I Bring What I Love,” N’Dour himself, one of Africa’s most adored musicians, gave a concert, accompanied by his band. The Middle Eastern cuisine, the hospitality, and the graciousness of our hosts was truly incomparable.
It is amazing that oil was only discovered in the Emirates in the 1970s. They are now the world’s 10th largest producer of oil—and of course it has transformed their society. It was an eye-opening, mind-bending experience to witness this transformation, and to be part of the blossoming culture of film, art and architecture in the UAR.
Congress Extends Federal Tax Incentive
The Section 181 tax incentive has been extended through December 2009. This program which was first enacted in 2004 was extended and enhanced by being attached to the $700 billion financial markets rescue plan passed by Congress.
The new legislation improves upon the prior law by applying the tax incentive to the first $15 million of all motion picture productions in the USA. The prior legislation was flawed because this threshold amount included all costs, including difficult to predict residuals and participations. This quirk in the law made it risky to accept the incentive if your budget plus these extras might exceed $15 million.
The new provisions are retroactive to January 2008.
Film L.A. has new Online Permit System
FilmL.A. is a nonprofit organization that coordinates and processes permits for on-location motion picture, television and commercial production in the Los Angeles region. FilmL.A has a new Online Permit System (OPS), which will change how permits to film on-location are applied for, coordinated and delivered. Applicants will be able to apply online and create and save templates for future applications, receive instant confirmation that permit applications were received, track permit progress and status of agency approvals in real-time and download paid-for and finalized permits at their convenience.
Additional information at: http://www.eidc.com/about.php
Middle East International Film Festival (MEIFF)
Mark will be serving on the short film jury at the upcoming MEIFF from October 10-19 in Abu Dhabi. The festival celebrates world cinema by presenting quality films from across the globe. Competition sections include world premiere screenings and highlight up-and-coming films making a splash on the festival scene. Gala screenings and the Festival of Festivals showcase new work by established filmmakers and films that have garnered prestigious awards.
Additional info: http://www.meiff.com/
Libel Tourism Bill Passed
The House of Representatives passed a bill that would prohibit U.S. courts from enforcing foreign libel judgments that undercut First Amendment rights. The law is designed to address the phenomenon known as “libel tourism,” or the exploitation of defamation laws in foreign countries that lack the broad protections of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment in the United States.
The bill was introduced as a result of a lawsuit involving New York author Rachel Ehrenfeld. She was sued in Britain by Khalid bin Mahfouz, a Saudi Arabian businessman, for her book “Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It.” Ehrenfeld lost the libel suit, and as a result the New York Legislature passed a law preventing state courts from recognizing foreign libel judgments. http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=4878
The New York law was the first of its kind in the United States. "As our world becomes more and more interconnected, we need new laws to ensure that Americans’ First Amendment rights won’t be hindered by more restrictive, foreign mandates," Congressman Steve Cohen of Tennessee said. The bill will prohibit domestic courts from recognizing or enforcing foreign defamation judgments unless the domestic court finds that the foreign judgment comports with our First Amendment.
The Association of American Publishers (AAP) has applauded Congressman Cohen’s legislation, and the bill has already received wide, bipartisan support in the House Judiciary Committee.
Additional information at: http://www.eidc.com/about.php
Middle East International Film Festival (MEIFF)
Mark will be serving on the short film jury at the upcoming MEIFF from October 10-19 in Abu Dhabi. The festival celebrates world cinema by presenting quality films from across the globe. Competition sections include world premiere screenings and highlight up-and-coming films making a splash on the festival scene. Gala screenings and the Festival of Festivals showcase new work by established filmmakers and films that have garnered prestigious awards.
Additional info: http://www.meiff.com/
Libel Tourism Bill Passed
The House of Representatives passed a bill that would prohibit U.S. courts from enforcing foreign libel judgments that undercut First Amendment rights. The law is designed to address the phenomenon known as “libel tourism,” or the exploitation of defamation laws in foreign countries that lack the broad protections of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment in the United States.
The bill was introduced as a result of a lawsuit involving New York author Rachel Ehrenfeld. She was sued in Britain by Khalid bin Mahfouz, a Saudi Arabian businessman, for her book “Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It.” Ehrenfeld lost the libel suit, and as a result the New York Legislature passed a law preventing state courts from recognizing foreign libel judgments. http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=4878
The New York law was the first of its kind in the United States. "As our world becomes more and more interconnected, we need new laws to ensure that Americans’ First Amendment rights won’t be hindered by more restrictive, foreign mandates," Congressman Steve Cohen of Tennessee said. The bill will prohibit domestic courts from recognizing or enforcing foreign defamation judgments unless the domestic court finds that the foreign judgment comports with our First Amendment.
The Association of American Publishers (AAP) has applauded Congressman Cohen’s legislation, and the bill has already received wide, bipartisan support in the House Judiciary Committee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
