Wednesday, September 14, 2011
CROWD RELEASE
When producers shoot a scene at a place open to the public people in the background might be captured on camera. It is often not practicable to get every member of the crowd to sign a release. Consequently, producers may post a sign at the entrances to the event alerting participants that they may be captured on screen and stating that by entering the venue they are consenting to be recorded. Alternatively, a release might be presented to persons when they purchase a ticket to an event and printed on the ticket as well.
Persons do not have an absolute legal right to prevent publication of any photo taken of them without their permission. If every person had such a right, no photo could be published of a street scene or a parade. Liability usually exists only if publication of a photo would be offensive to people of ordinary sensibilities, or is defamatory or invades their right of privacy. See, for example, Gill v. Hearst Publishing, 40 Cal. 2d 224 (1953). However, the use of a person's image or likeness without their permission to sell a product would likely infringe their right of publicity and give rise to liability.
If you are using a posted crowd release, it is good practice to take a photo of all the entrances with the sign clearly posted in public view. The notice should be large enough that those passing by will clearly see it.
CROWD RELEASE
(Post outside of entry doors or on perimeter of filming area)
By entering and by your presence here, you consent to be photographed, filmed and/or otherwise recorded. Your entry constitutes your consent to such photography, filming and/or recording and to any use, in any and all media throughout the universe in perpetuity, of your appearance, voice and name for any purpose whatsoever in connection with the production presently entitled:
____________________________________.
You understand that all photography, filming and/or recording will be done in reliance on this consent given by you by entering this area.
If you do not agree to the foregoing, please do not enter this area.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3rd Edition, Contracts for the Film and Television Industry Coming Soon
Silman-James Press will soon be publishing a revised and updated edition of Mark Litwak's Contracts for the Film and Television Industry. The second edition of this book was released in 1998. The new third edition will be expanded to 80 contracts and commentary. In addition to updated versions of the 62 contracts in the Second Edition, the new agreements to be published include the following contracts:
Website Content Provider Agreement, Guestbook Release, Talk Show Appearance Agreement, Certificate of Engagement, Synchronization License TV Series, Cable TV Production Agreement, Studio Rental Agreement, Internet Acquisition Distribution Agreement, Website Content Provider Agreement, Video on Demand Agreement, and Theatrical Exhibition Agreement.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark Litwak to be Interviewed on Filmnut
Mark Litwak will be interviewed on the program Filmnut by host Jeff Schubert and distributed by TheStream.tv
The live interview will take place on Wednesday September 14th at 8pm PST and can be watched at:
Viewers who wish to ask questions during the netcast can do so by posting questions on twitter on @thestreamdottv
The show can also be subscribed to on iTunes and YouTube, and followed on Twitter.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Eighteen People Indicted for 25 Million Dollar Indie Film Scam
Federal authorities have charged 18 people in a boiler room scam, accusing them of bilking investors out of millions of dollars, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office. Federal authorities arrested a total of 12 defendants; three persons in Florida and nine people in Southern California. A former CIA agent who ran a Burbank movie company called Q Media Assets has already pleaded guilty to conspiracy, mail fraud, and tax charges in relation to the fraudulent boiler rooms.
From early 2004 to May 2009, the alleged scam solicited $25 million in investments for independent films through the use of fraudulent boiler room telemarketing operations. Cinamour Entertainment LLC and Q Media Assets LLC retained the services of telemarketers to cold-call individuals, asking them to invest in various indie film projects. By way of fraudulent pitches and false promises, these entertainment companies were able to collect millions from their victims. The targets of this scam were the elderly according to Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Cazares, because “they are at home and they pick up the phone.”
According to the government, the boiler room operations promised investors up to 1,000 percent returns and maintained that 93 percent of investor money would be used to produce and promote the films. The telemarketers ultimately misrepresented to investors how their money would be spent, including the telemarketers’ failure to disclose that they would receive commission. Some of the investors were even promised movie credits. Despite these promises, in reality, some of the indie films for which money was solicited were never produced. According to Cazares, “The misrepresentations were enticing. Part of the attraction was the aura of movie-making and Hollywood.”
According to the U.S. Attorney’s office, in June of 2011, a federal grand jury returned two indictments against eighteen individuals for these fraudulent boiler room telemarketing operations. The first indictment concerned Cinamour’s activities. Cinamour raised over $15 million from 450 investors for the indie film, From Mexico with Love, but only $5 million of the investments were actually used to produce and promote the film. Cinamour further collected $2.7 million for Red Water, which was never even made into a film. The second indictment concerns Q Media’s activities, which included raising $5 million from 250 investors for Eye of the Dolphin (now called Beneath the Blue) and $4 million for its sequel, Way of the Dolphin, which went straight to home video. Little of the funds raised were used to produce these indie films, instead nearly 1/3 of the investment money alone went directly into the pockets of the telemarketers.
Ultimately, Cinamour was charged with 45-counts of illegal activity, including mail fraud, wire fraud, sale of unregistered securities, money laundering, conspiracy, and tax evasion. Q Media’s 33-count indictment similarly charged defendants with these crimes. The charged individuals could face serious jail time if found guilty of the allegations. Conspiracy, the sale of unregistered securities, and tax evasion each carry a maximum of five years in federal prison. Money laundering, wire fraud, and mail fraud carry even harsher prison sentences. If convicted of money laundering, the individuals could face up to ten years in prison and if found guilty of mail and wire fraud, they could be in federal prison for a maximum of twenty years.
U.S Attorney Press Release
My Article on Protecting Investors
U.S Attorney Press Release
My Article on Protecting Investors
Sundance Announces Online Distribution Opportunities for Sundance Institute Films
iTunes, Amazon Instant Video, Hulu, Netflix, SundanceNOW and YouTube to Participate, with New Video as Exclusive Aggregation Partner.
Keri Putnam, Executive Director of the non-profit Sundance Institute, announced an expansion of the Institute’s Artist Services program, which enables Sundance Institute artists to reach audiences, raise funding and receive support through an educational and resources site.
Filmmakers can now make their films available online to consumer markets via iTunes, Amazon, Hulu, Netflix, SundanceNOW, and YouTube while still retaining ownership of their work and making independent decisions about strategies for each outlet. Each partner will identify and promote these film projects to their audiences, while in turn, the Institute will endorse their availability through its own marketing and promotional efforts and through the vast social community developed by the Institute.
New Video, the Institute’s exclusive aggregation partner for distribution across these portals, will offer all eligible Sundance Film Festival and Lab titles a unique gateway to digital distribution that emphasizes filmmaker ownership and control.
In addition, the Institute has also entered into a deal with Topspin Media to provide its artists with direct marketing tools and fulfillment services. Topspin is a direct marketing and retail software platform for musicians, filmmakers and authors that provides tools for independent artists to increase awareness of their work and build relationships with fans.
Among the first films and filmmakers to use these services will be two selections from the 2011 Sundance Film Festival: Connected: An Autoblogography about Love, Death & Technology by director Tiffany Shlain, which premiered in the U.S. Documentary Competition section and On the Ice, by director Andrew Okpeaha MacLean, which premiered in the U.S. Narrative Competition section.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Wednesday, July 06, 2011
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
The Hangover II: Tyson Tattoo Copyright Infringement Suit
Just weeks before the release of the much anticipated sequel to the highest grossing comedy of all time, The Hangover, tattoo artist S. Victor Whitmill filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Warner Brothers. Whitmill alleged that the facial tattoo worn by actor Ed Helms in The Hangover II, which duplicated the tattoo Whitmill designed for boxing champ Mike Tyson, infringed on his copyright in the tattoo. Specifically, Whitmill sought a preliminary injunction, which if granted, would have halted the film’s long awaited Memorial Day weekend release.
When determining whether or not to grant an injunction, a judge considers the likelihood of the claim succeeding at trial while simultaneously evaluating the hardships that would result if the injunction were granted. Luckily for Hangover fans everywhere, Judge Catherine D. Perry, the U.S. District Court Judge presiding over The Hangover II copyright suit, denied Whitmill’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Judge Perry concluded that the harm it would cause to both Warner Bros. and third parties were simply too great. At the time Whitmill sought to enjoin the film’s release, Warner Bros. had already spent nearly $80 million on promoting the film and it had released prints of the film to over 3,700 theaters across the country. If The Hangover II’s release was halted, these theaters which had been promoting the film and selling advanced tickets would have lost millions of dollars. Further, Warner Bros. would likely sustain additional monetary losses because it would have been exposed to damage claims by these thousands of theaters across the country.
Despite Judge Perry’s decision to deny the preliminary injunction, Warner Bros. was not entirely off the hook. . Whitmill additionally sought a permanent injunction for what he alleged was “reckless copyright infringement," which if granted, would prevent further distribution of the film, including its DVD release. Judge Perry allowed this copyright infringement claim to go forward and indicated in her court opinion that there was a strong likelihood that the powerhouse production studio could be liable for copyright infringement in its recreation of Tyson’s tattoo without first obtaining Whitmill’s permission or consent.
However, the outcome of this case may not be as clear cut as Judge Perry’s opinion would lead one to believe. The question of how far a copyright holder’s rights extend in artwork that is on someone else’s body is unclear. . Up until this point, there have been only a handful of copyright suits involving tattoos, all of which were settled out of court. Thus, there is little legal precedent that can be used to determine the outcome of this lawsuit. Clearly artwork, even in the form of a tattoo, can be protected under copyright law. On the other hand,
Whitmill’s argument that he owns the rights to the tattoo on Tyson’s body was two-fold. First, Whitmill’s alleged that Tyson signed a tattoo release form prior to getting the tattoo, which indicated that “all artwork, sketches and drawings related to my tattoo and any photographs of my tattoo are property of Paradox-Studio Dermagraphics [Whitmill’s business].” Further, Whitmill provided the court with a copy of his copyright registration of the tattoo that went into effect on April 19, 2011.
Warner Bros. contended that even if Whitmill owned a copyright to the tattoo, it had a legal right to reproduce the tattoo in The Hangover II under the fair use doctrine. The fair use doctrine is an exception to the exclusive rights granted by copyright law which allows for limited use of copyrighted artwork without first obtaining permission from the original creator. This doctrine has been used as a defense to claims of copyright infringement in a variety of cases, including when someone recreates work owned by another rights holder in order to parody it. Warner Bros. argued that the tattoo on Helm’s face in The Hangover II was used to parody Tyson, who makes a personal appearance in the film. To successfully invoke the fair use defense, a four factor test must be satisfied. As indicated by the U.S. Copyright Office, these four factors include: “(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes (2) the nature of the copyrighted work (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.”
Judge Perry characterized Warner Bros. fair use argument as “silly.” She found that “there was no parody” and the use of “the entire tattoo in its original form, not in parody form” was a blatant copyright infringement. Since Judge Perry presided only over the issue of whether the film’s initial Memorial Day weekend release could be halted, her court opinion was not the final word on the case. Instead, her decision served as a green light for Whitmill’s claim against Warner Bros. to go forward to trial.
However, before reaching trial, Warner Bros. and Whitmill “amicably” settled the copyright infringement lawsuit during a mediation session. Details of the settlement have not been released. What we do know is that The Hangover II’s DVD release will not be halted and, to the delight of Hangover fans everywhere, the Tyson tattoo on Helms’ face in the film will be there to stay.
U.S. Copyright Office on Fair Use
Findlaw
Written with assistance from law student Elizabeth Schechtman.
When determining whether or not to grant an injunction, a judge considers the likelihood of the claim succeeding at trial while simultaneously evaluating the hardships that would result if the injunction were granted. Luckily for Hangover fans everywhere, Judge Catherine D. Perry, the U.S. District Court Judge presiding over The Hangover II copyright suit, denied Whitmill’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Judge Perry concluded that the harm it would cause to both Warner Bros. and third parties were simply too great. At the time Whitmill sought to enjoin the film’s release, Warner Bros. had already spent nearly $80 million on promoting the film and it had released prints of the film to over 3,700 theaters across the country. If The Hangover II’s release was halted, these theaters which had been promoting the film and selling advanced tickets would have lost millions of dollars. Further, Warner Bros. would likely sustain additional monetary losses because it would have been exposed to damage claims by these thousands of theaters across the country.
Despite Judge Perry’s decision to deny the preliminary injunction, Warner Bros. was not entirely off the hook. . Whitmill additionally sought a permanent injunction for what he alleged was “reckless copyright infringement," which if granted, would prevent further distribution of the film, including its DVD release. Judge Perry allowed this copyright infringement claim to go forward and indicated in her court opinion that there was a strong likelihood that the powerhouse production studio could be liable for copyright infringement in its recreation of Tyson’s tattoo without first obtaining Whitmill’s permission or consent.
However, the outcome of this case may not be as clear cut as Judge Perry’s opinion would lead one to believe. The question of how far a copyright holder’s rights extend in artwork that is on someone else’s body is unclear. . Up until this point, there have been only a handful of copyright suits involving tattoos, all of which were settled out of court. Thus, there is little legal precedent that can be used to determine the outcome of this lawsuit. Clearly artwork, even in the form of a tattoo, can be protected under copyright law. On the other hand,
Whitmill’s argument that he owns the rights to the tattoo on Tyson’s body was two-fold. First, Whitmill’s alleged that Tyson signed a tattoo release form prior to getting the tattoo, which indicated that “all artwork, sketches and drawings related to my tattoo and any photographs of my tattoo are property of Paradox-Studio Dermagraphics [Whitmill’s business].” Further, Whitmill provided the court with a copy of his copyright registration of the tattoo that went into effect on April 19, 2011.
Warner Bros. contended that even if Whitmill owned a copyright to the tattoo, it had a legal right to reproduce the tattoo in The Hangover II under the fair use doctrine. The fair use doctrine is an exception to the exclusive rights granted by copyright law which allows for limited use of copyrighted artwork without first obtaining permission from the original creator. This doctrine has been used as a defense to claims of copyright infringement in a variety of cases, including when someone recreates work owned by another rights holder in order to parody it. Warner Bros. argued that the tattoo on Helm’s face in The Hangover II was used to parody Tyson, who makes a personal appearance in the film. To successfully invoke the fair use defense, a four factor test must be satisfied. As indicated by the U.S. Copyright Office, these four factors include: “(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes (2) the nature of the copyrighted work (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.”
Judge Perry characterized Warner Bros. fair use argument as “silly.” She found that “there was no parody” and the use of “the entire tattoo in its original form, not in parody form” was a blatant copyright infringement. Since Judge Perry presided only over the issue of whether the film’s initial Memorial Day weekend release could be halted, her court opinion was not the final word on the case. Instead, her decision served as a green light for Whitmill’s claim against Warner Bros. to go forward to trial.
However, before reaching trial, Warner Bros. and Whitmill “amicably” settled the copyright infringement lawsuit during a mediation session. Details of the settlement have not been released. What we do know is that The Hangover II’s DVD release will not be halted and, to the delight of Hangover fans everywhere, the Tyson tattoo on Helms’ face in the film will be there to stay.
U.S. Copyright Office on Fair Use
Findlaw
Written with assistance from law student Elizabeth Schechtman.
Monday, April 25, 2011
The Right of Privacy
Filmmakers are often uncertain how far they can go when shooting documentaries, without invading the privacy of others. Generally speaking, persons caught on camera in a public place do not have a legal right to preclude others from photographing them. But a lot depends on how their photo is used, and whether it is newsworthy. If the photo is being used on a product, like pickles, you will need to secure a depiction release. But the same photo appearing in a newspaper would not provide grounds for a successful suit for invasion of privacy.
The United States Constitution does not mention a right of privacy. According to the United States Supreme Court, however, such a right is implicit in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The right of privacy has been defined as the right to live one’s life in seclusion, without being subjected to unwarranted and undesired publicity. In other words, it is the right to be left alone.
Like defamation, the right of privacy is subject to constitutional restrictions. The news media, for example, is not liable for defamatory statements that are newsworthy unless they are made with knowing or reckless disregard of the truth (i.e., actual malice). Unlike defamation, a cause of action for invasion of privacy does not require any injury to one’s reputation.
Suppose you were in your backyard sunbathing in the nude--your backyard is surrounded by a solid wood fence preventing passersby from seeing you. Suddenly a photographer for The National Enquirer hops over the fence and snaps your picture. Soon the photograph is displayed in newspaper tabloids near supermarket checkout stands across the nation. Can you sue for defamation?
No, because you were sunbathing in the nude and truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Could you sue for invasion of privacy? Yes. You have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your enclosed backyard.
Suppose you were sunbathing in the nude on your front porch, in open public view. Could you bring a successful action for invasion of privacy? No, because you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy under these circumstances. Thus, whether an intrusion into your privacy will be actionable depends on whether you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Many defenses to defamation apply to invasion of privacy. But truth is not a defense. Revealing matters of public record cannot be the basis for an invasion of privacy action because the information is already public. Express and implied consent are valid defenses. If you voluntarily reveal private facts to others, you cannot recover for invasion of your privacy.
Privacy actions typically fall into four factual patterns.
Intrusion into One’s Private Affairs
This category includes such activities as wiretapping and unreasonable surveillance. The intrusion must be highly offensive. Whether an intrusion is highly offensive depends on the circumstances. Most people would find it offensive to discover a voyeur peering through their bedroom window. On the other hand, a salesman knocking on your front door at dinnertime may be obnoxious, but will not be sufficiently offensive to state a cause of action.
Public Disclosure of Embarrassing Private Facts
One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability for invasion of privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that:
a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and
b) is not of legitimate concern to the public. In other words, it is not newsworthy.
An example of this type of invasion of privacy would occur if someone publicizes embarrassing derogatory information on another person, publicizes it and the information is not of legitimate interest to the public.
Appropriation
An action for appropriation of another’s name or likeness is similar to action for invasion of one’s right of publicity. The former action seeks to compensate the plaintiff for the emotional distress, embarrassment and hurt feelings that may arise from the use of one’s name or likeness on a product. The latter action seeks to compensate the plaintiff for the commercial value arising from the exploitation of one’s name and likeness.
As with the right of publicity, a person cannot always control the use of his name and likeness by another. While you can prevent someone from putting your face on their pancake mix, you cannot stop Time magazine from putting your face on its cover. Thus the use of someone’s name or likeness as part of a newsworthy incident would not be actionable.
False Light
Publicity placing a plaintiff in a false light will be actionable if the portrayal is highly offensive. This type of invasion of privacy is similar to defamation but harm to reputation is not required. An example of false light invasion of privacy could entail a political dirty trick such as placing the name of a prominent Republican on a list of Democratic contributors. Although this person’s reputation may not be harmed, he has been shown in a false light.
CLIENT CORNER
NTSF:SD:SUV
Congratulations to our client producer Jon Stern on completion of his first TV season of the outrageous comedy National Terrorism Strike Force: San Diego: Sport Utility Vehicle (NTSF: SD:SUV).
The series is produced for Cartoon Network’s Adult Swim (Turner Broadcasting) and is a parody of the numerous police procedurals on network television.
The series features Paul Scheer, Rob Riggle, Brandon Johnson and June Raphael among others. Trailer at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKylO_zfGIs
The series features Paul Scheer, Rob Riggle, Brandon Johnson and June Raphael among others. Trailer at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKylO_zfGIs
Forks Over Knives
Brian's Wendel's documentary Forks Over Knives will be theatrically released beginning with a 19 city roll out on May 6, 2011. The feature film examines the claim that most, if not all, of the degenerative diseases that afflict us can be controlled, or even reversed, by rejecting our present
menu of animal-based and processed foods.
menu of animal-based and processed foods.
Forks Over Knives (FOK) will play at Landmark, Regal and AMC theaters, among others.
An advance screening in Portland, Oregon generated $42,000 over five weeks at Regal Fox Tower theater. The film was featured on the CNN.com: http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2011/03/03/vegan-on-the-silver-screen; The film was also featured on Oprah.com: http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Diet-Power-Video;
Information on the film and the trailer are available at http://www.forksoverknives.com.
Last Fast Ride
Last Fast Ride will be shown at the Newport Beach Film Festival on May 1, 2011. The film produced by Shannon Factor and directed by Lilly Scourtis Ayers premiered at Slamdance. This documentary is about Marian Anderson,a controversial and influential punk rock lead singer and songwriter who died at the age of 33 from a heroin overdose.
Through a combination of concert footage, photographs, and interviews with key people in Marian's life, director Lilly Ayers pieces together the portrait of a fragmented and damaged girl who was left to fend for herself in a world of danger and exploitation. Narrated by punk rock legend and actor Henry Rollins, this riveting film covers Marian's idyllic youth, her tormented adolescence, and her tragic adult life, climaxing in an unforgettable ending.
The film will screen at the Triangle Square, theater 1, 1870 Harbor Blvd., Costa Mesa, CA 92627 at 8:00 PM Sunday, May 1, 2011. http://lastfastridefilm.com/
The film will screen at the Triangle Square, theater 1, 1870 Harbor Blvd., Costa Mesa, CA 92627 at 8:00 PM Sunday, May 1, 2011. http://lastfastridefilm.com/
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Jimi Hendrix Right of Publicity Suit
The Right of Publicity is the right that individuals have to control the use of their name and likeness in a commercial setting. You cannot put a picture of Cher on your brand of pickles without her permission. Everyone has a right of publicity but it is particularly valuable for celebrities who can earn large fees from endorsing products.
The right is determined under state law. Each state applies its own laws, and the states provide varying treatment on a number of issues. For example, the states decide whether this right is inherited by one's heirs or is a personal right, that dies with the celebrity.
California courts first held that the right of publicity was personal and did not descend. In 1984, however, the California legislature changed the law. The legislators enacted Civil Code section 990 which provides that the right of publicity descends for products, merchandise and goods, but does not descend for books, plays, television and movies. A similar statute, California Civil Code section 3344 prohibits the unauthorized use of the name and likeness of living persons on products, except for news and public affairs uses. . Both statutes attempt to balance First Amendment rights of journalists and business people against rights of publicity of celebrities and their heirs.
Generally, the state law that applies is the law where the celebrity was domiciled when he or she dies. The state of Washington, however, attempted to expand its rights of publicity so that it would cover even those who did not reside in Washington when they died.
That Washington law, the Washington Personality Rights Act (“WPRA”), was reviewed in a recent decision regarding Jimi Hendrix’s estate's right of publicity. A federal judge in ruled that WPRA), violated the U.S. Constitution. The court concluded that applying this law regardless of the law of the domicile of the individual at the time of death was arbitrary and unconstitutional.
WPRA was initially passed in 1998 after a prior decision concluded that Hendrix' publicity rights didn't descend to his father and sole heir, Al Hendrix, since Jimi Hendrix didn't reside in Washington at the time of his death. The law applied retroactively.
The suit was brought by Experience Hendrix, L.L.C. which owns several songs written by Jimi Hendrix and various federally registered trademarks incorporating Hendrix’s name, image, and song titles. They sued defendant Hendrixlicensing.com, a seller of Jimi Hendrix merchandise, and sought to enjoin it from using various song titles and lyrics and use of his name and likeness.
Even though the plaintiff did not allege any claims under WPRA, the court reviewed it because the essence of plaintiff’s allegation was that Hendrix’s right of publicity did not expire upon his death. Under New York law, where Hendrix was domiciled at the time of his death, the right of publicity did not survive his death.
The Defendant argued successfully that such a choice-of-law directive violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause and Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.
The court also found the law arbitrary because applying it would result in uncertainty regarding the ownership and existence of a right of publicity because it applies only in Washington, and that almost all states except Indiana have determined that the law of the person’s domicile should apply.
The decision can be read at: CASE
Note that this decision could be reversed by a higher court.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Entertainment Law Resources Blog: Copyright Registration Checklist Scripts or compl...
Entertainment Law Resources Blog: Copyright Registration Checklist Scripts or compl...: "You can now register your scripts and films over the internet with the electronic copyright office, the ECO system. LI..."
Copyright Registration Checklist Scripts or completed Motion Pictures
You can now register your scripts and films over the internet with the electronic copyright office, the ECO system. LINK Here is a checklist to gather the information you will need to complete an application. To Register a Script: What is title of the script? Are there any alternative titles? Has the script or a previous version been registered with the U.S. copyright office? If so, provide registration number: _____ Who wrote the script? List all writers and description of what each contributed. Give full names. For individuals, give date of birth. If the person is deceased, provide year of death. Which persons or companies currently own the script? If a company, give full legal name and state of incorporation. Did the writers create the script for themselves or were they creating the script for an employer? If the latter, who was employer? What is the address of each owner? Is the author (owner) a U.S. Citizen? Was ownership of the script ever assigned or transferred? If so, explain. Is this script original or based on another work (like a book)? What year was script that you are registering completed? Has the script been published? (Publication is distribution to the public. Most scripts are not published). If script was published, what nation was it first published in? To Register a Motion Picture: What is the title of the motion picture? Are there any alternative titles? Is the motion picture a documentary or a narrative fictional film? Has the motion picture or a previous version been registered with the U.S. copyright office? If so, provide registration number: _____________ and the title it was registered under. Who wrote the underlying script that was the basis for the motion picture? Who owned the script prior to production? Was the script registered? If so, under what title and what was the registration number. Who directed the motion picture? Provide full name(s). Who produced the motion picture? For individuals, give date of birth. If the person is deceased, provide year of death. Who owns the completed motion picture? (Either individuals or a company). Provide full legal name, address and state of incorporation. Was the motion picture created by individuals as its owners or was it created for a company? What is the address of the owner? Is the author (owner) a U.S. Citizen? Was ownership of the motion picture ever assigned? If so, explain. Is this motion picture based on another work (such as a book or play)? What year was production completed? Has the motion picture been distributed to the public? If distributed, what nation was it first released in? Was a previous version of this motion picture registered for copyright? Does the motion picture incorporate any pre-existing copyrighted works such as music, stock footage, artwork or photographs? You will also need a brief one paragraph description or synopsis of the the motion picture. LAST FAST RIDE Congratulations to our clients Shannon Factor and Lilly Scourtis Ayers for having their film shown at Slamdance 2011. The Slamdance opening night party party (Jan. 21) will feature the punk band InSaints with an unannounced special guest. The InSaints and their late frontwoman, Marian Anderson, is the subject of a Slamdance doc called "Last Fast Ride." She was a controversial and influential lead singer and songwriter who died at the age of 33 from a heroin overdose. Through a combination of concert footage, photographs, and interviews with key people in Marian's life, director Lilly Ayers pieces together the portrait of a fragmented and damaged girl who was left to fend for herself in a world of danger and exploitation. Narrated by punk rock legend and actor Henry Rollins, this riveting film covers Marian's idyllic youth, her tormented adolescence, and her tragic adult life, climaxing in an unforgettable ending. Film Website LAST FAST RIDE |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)