California is home to many celebrities and public figures, and the paparazzi is regularly and continually make attempts to take photos of these public individuals, or to score interviews with them. Public figures are individuals who have placed themselves in public view, such as actors and actresses, sports athletes, and politicians – many people involved in the entertainment industry are considered to be public figures. But city attorneys, authors, and average citizens who publicly advocate to influence resolution on public issues have all been considered to be public figures in California as well.

Sometimes the paparazzi crosses a line into something that feels like an invasion of the public figure’s privacy in order to capture a picture or to get a statement. But since these public figures are people of interest, and have placed themselves in the public sphere, where is the line between private and public?

Privacy Rights In California

Everyone in California, from celebrity to average Joe, is entitled to roughly the same right of privacy under the California Constitution, Article 1, Section 1. However, those individuals who are considered to be public figures tend to have a more difficult time obtaining recovery when their privacy is violated than private individuals do.

There are four causes of action for invasion of privacy tort in California that have arisen through case law, meaning through decisions made by the courts. These invasions of privacy include:

1. Intrusion into private matters/private spaces. Public figures have little reprieve from invasions of privacy when they are out in public, but when they are in private spaces or engaged in private matters, they retain a right of privacy. Usually a public figure’s home serves as a private sanctuary where the individual can reasonably expect some privacy.
2. Public disclosure of private facts. It is an invasion of privacy for someone to publicly disclose private facts that would be offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person concerning another where those facts are of no legitimate public concern. Facts that are not newsworthy or are not widely known may be considered private.
3. Misappropriation of a person’s name or likeness. Sometimes also referred to as one’s right of publicity, it is an invasion of another’s privacy to misappropriate the name or likeness of another, in particular for commercial gains. This is particularly relevant to public figures whose name or image is used without permission to endorse products or services.
4. Portraying a person in a false light. It is impermissible for an individual to portray another in a false light, i.e., portray another in a way that is highly offensive and implied to be true when it is actually false.

California law additionally provides some protections of privacy under Cal. Civil Code Section 1708.8, which are particularly relevant to the techniques used by the paparazzi to get photographs of public figures. These laws prohibit a person from entering on to the private property of another without permission for the purposes of taking a photograph or making a recording.

In October of 2014, a judge rejected a lawsuit filed by writers Stephanie Counts and Shari Gold claiming copyright infringement of their work by Fox’s ‘New Girl’ television series.

In January of last year, the writers sued William Morris Endeavor (WME) Entertainment, Fox, Liz Meriwether (showrunner of New Girl) and executive producer Peter Chernin for allegedly basing the ‘New Girl’ series on the writers’ own proposals for a movie or television series which they said would have been titled Square One.  As defendants in the suit, Fox demanded a dismissal of the charges saying in court documents that “the only similarities between the works arise from general, non-protectable ideas.”  In October, U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson rejected the lawsuit against Fox and the other defendants, saying the copyright infringement claims were ambiguous.

The judge ultimately dismissed the claim without prejudice, meaning the writers could bring the claim against the defendants again.  However, after the plaintiffs/writers had rejected a settlement offer of $10,000 allegedly extended by Fox and switched lawyers, the statute of limitations came into play, suggesting that perhaps they did not obtain an explicit tolling agreement in order to extend the time to file the claim.

Ultimately, on June 12 of this year Judge Wilson granted WME (William Morris Endeavor) Entertainment’s motion to dismiss the idea theft claim.  This time the judge dismissed the claim with prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs cannot file a lawsuit against the defendants again.  The Court found that Counts and Gold failed to allege any facts which would excuse the writers from timely filing of the claim.

As Los Angeles business attorneys specializing in entertainment law, we know these types of copyright infringement claims are made frequently in the entertainment industry.  Writers, designers, and other artists or “creatives” often feel that their ideas and works have effectively been stolen.  In some situations this is indeed the case, in others it may not be.  Do not allow the statute of limitations to dictate the outcome of your claim. For copyright infringement and other entertainment issues, trust the team at Spotora & Associates for unparalleled legal guidance and support.

Recently, it was announced that Twenty-First Century Fox and Walt Disney Co. would no longer run Verizon FiOS commercials in certain markets that advertise Verizon’s cable package, arguing that the company’s FiOS TV, a cable program that is said to be cheaper and slimmer than basic cable, violated existing agreements.

According to a news article at L.A. Biz, Verizon called the move made by the two companies, along with Comcast Corporation, an “anticompetitive tactic.” A spokeswoman for Verizon revealed to the New York Times that Disney would pull ads run for the cable program at television stations in New York including A & E and WABC, in addition to ESPN radio. In Philadelphia, the ABC affiliate pulled advertising for the FiOS custom TV stations. Fox has decided to pull the Verizon ads from WNYW, its New York affiliate, and YES, a sports cable channel.

According to another article at Reuters, Walt Disney Co. did run the Verizon ads in Pittsburgh, Boston, and Washington, D.C. last week. Disney declined to comment on the commercials, while a spokesperson for Fox told the Times that the company desired to keep the company’s discussions regarding commercials confidential.

Verizon’s FiOS Custom TV package makes it possible for customers to sign up for a basic package consisting of 36 channels; customers are also able to add on two news, sports, children’s program, or other genre-specific packages. With a cost of $55 per month, the package targets those who have chosen streaming services over cable due to cost.

On Wednesday, April 22, Disney notified Verizon via e-mail that the company would not run FiOS Custom TV ads on their channels, claiming that the ad violates contract agreements. Verizon maintains that the company, under current agreements with media companies to offer the slimmed-down service, is within its rights by giving subscribers their basic package of 36 fixed channels for the monthly charge.

Ultimately, at the bottom of the dispute is that while pay-TV providers desire to break up the large bundles of channels being offered by online companies and cable rivals at the current time, media companies are attempting to keep specific channels that are popular in the larger packages they offer in an effort to protect business.

At the time of news reports, Verizon and Disney had no comments on the pulled television ads.

The Los Angeles business attorneys at Spotora & Associates realize that the business and entertainment worlds are highly competitive, and the claims arising from television programming package agreements can be particularly complex. Whether your company is being accused of violating a contract or another entity is in breach of your agreement, contact us right away and our senior associates will identify and enforce your contractual rights to resolve the issue as efficiently as possible.

More than two decades after ‘What About Bob’ came out, Richard Dreyfuss is taking Disney to court over what monies may be owed after accountants refused to take a look at Disney’s books to see what may be owed. Dreyfuss has sued Walt Disney Pictures for breach of contract and additional claims after Disney allegedly refused to let Robinson & Company perform an audit for Dreyfuss and the widow of Raymond Wagner, producer of Turner & Hooch.

Why will Disney not allow auditors to review the ledgers related to Turner & Hooch and What About Bob? According to news reports, Robinson & Company is a particularly aggressive and effective auditor who typically recovers large damages for clients, according to a recent article at Deadline Hollywood. The filing, which includes seven filings made by Dreyfuss, claims that Disney is hostile regarding audits in general, and will not allow Robinson & Company, the auditor chosen by Dreyfuss, to audit the film giants’ ledgers; therefore, accounting under the supervision of the court is warranted. According to Dreyfuss, Wagner, and other plaintiffs in the case, Disney does not understand the intricacies involved in Hollywood accounting and only wants to use PricewaterhouseCoopers, Deloitte, KPMG, or Ernst & Young, the largest and most well-known accounting firms in the nation.

The filing claims that historically, motions picture companies abhor having to pay net and gross profit participants significant amounts, and have withheld substantial profits from those participants. Auditing companies who audit the entertainment industry including television and motion picture industries often fine that profit participants are owed monies, which is the reason for profit participation auditors.

Although there is reportedly a three year waiting list to perform an audit on Disney properties, Dreyfuss has apparently decided that he is a large enough talent to attempt to collect what is rightfully his in terms of profits. According to news reports, Turner & Hooch generated $72 million in revenue in the U.S., with What About Bob? generating $64 million in revenues in the U.S. and Canada since its release in May of 1991. In addition to movie theater revenues, international sales and home videos are thought to add up to a substantial amount for the two films in one way or another.

In the end, Dreyfuss and Wagner believe they have an opportunity to explore issues including how net profits are calculated by raising the issues of auditors. The complaint claims that the ‘Big Four’ accounting firms named above have no competence or reputation relevant to auditing such big names as Disney; Robinson, the auditing firm hired by Dreyfuss, is reported to be results-driven, tenacious, and tough.

As reputable LA entertainment attorneys, the staff at Spotora & Associates realize there are many complexities involved when it comes to profit participants and the entertainment world. Auditing is one small nuance of the overall picture, however when you have issues regarding whether monies are being paid out fairly, it is important to choose a Los Angeles business lawyer who is highly experienced and capable in these matters.

If you are serious about the music you create as a composer, you should be serious about music licensing.

Music is everywhere in the world of entertainment: Movies, television, radio advertisements and commercials. There is always a need for top-notch songs and artists.

“For an upcoming composer, licensing music is a vital step in growing a career,” said Anthony Spotora, a Los Angeles-based entertainment and business lawyer. “Licensing music means that your creation is not only protected from illegal use but can also bring a source of income and bigger name recognition. If the people behind a commercial or feature film like your composition, for instance, they will request a music license for the piece.”

While music licensing can be lucrative, it is important to become educated about the process and to receive adequate representation to secure the best deals for oneself.

There are several options for music licensing. One of the best-known options is to register and become a member of ASCAP, BMI or SESAC, which are also known as performing rights organizations (“PRO”).

Such companies collect millions of dollars annually for composers and publishers for so-called performance royalties, but you must be registered as a member to see this income.

“Performing rights organizations act as middlemen, essentially,” Spotora said. “When a song is  ‘performed’ – this includes usage in commercials, airplay, etc. – the user pays the PRO rather than the copyright holder directly. The copyright holder is then paid a royalty by the PRO.”

A separate option is to connect with a publishing company. The publisher will handle issues such as music licensing, collecting royalties and negotiating licensing figures. If your publisher works hard and is well-connected, it can generate serious income for you as a composer and catapult your career to new heights.

If you are a composer, it is important you understand how to properly protect your music as well as secure the most desirable music licensing deals. For questions about legal matters pertaining to music licensing, contact an experienced entertainment attorney.

Anthony Spotora is a Los Angeles entertainment lawyer and Los Angeles business attorney. To learn more, visit Spotoralaw.com.

Your business has a great name, logo and slogan to stimulate brand recognition. Are those creations copyrightable?

One of the most common questions an intellectual lawyer gets asked relates to copyrighting a brand name, title or a logo. Is it possible to copyright those creations? The short answer is no, and in fact, brand names, short phrases, business names and slogans are explicitly excluded from protection; something that usually comes as a significant disappointment to businesses hoping to protect their identities.

The exclusion is actually quite wide and is applicable to any kind of a title, short ad expression, catch-phrase or name. Let’s say your forte was collecting and writing about recipes the great chefs of the world made famous. There are a lot of people who would copy those recipes and give them a whirl. Isn’t that a copyright violation? In the instance of labels, formulas, recipes and ingredient lists, the answer is they are not protected by copyright. However, the text with the directions, explanations and other descriptions may be eligible for copyright. Tread cautiously.

What about a person who wants to use a name in business/commerce? This is different. Business names, brand names and even slogans may be protected. Trademark law says those things are protected if and when they are used in commerce to make a product stand out from someone else’s. Just to throw a spanner into the works, trademark law also says you have exclusive rights to a trademark if you are the first user (under certain conditions). You would need to speak to an intellectual property lawyer about this to find out how it may apply to your circumstances.

In general, there is some trademark protection available automatically if you use your marks in commerce/business. But you still need to register a trademark federally in order to be covered nationwide.

Just to backtrack a bit, that bestselling cookbook about the world’s greatest chefs has recipes and formulas in it, and they aren’t protected by copyright or trademark law. If you want to protect them, you either have to consider that they are trade secrets, or patent them. To that end, you can only patent a recipe or formula if it is new and not just a combo of things already in existence. Drug makers pull that kind of stunt all the time by combining two existing drugs into one and calling it a new drug.

What about the recipe for Pepsi or Dr. Pepper? While these two drinks are recipes, their origin is a formula and is therefore a trade secret. That means they’re protected indefinitely just so long as no one exposes them. A patent would grant up to 20 years protection. If you don’t know if your product or other good may be copyrightable or qualify for a patent, ask an intellectual property attorney. Finding out now saves potential litigation grief later.

Anthony Spotora is a Los Angeles business attorney, intellectual property and entertainment lawyer.  To learn more, visit Spotoralaw.com.

So you’re a talented songwriter and damn it, you deserve a big publishing deal! Now, if only a well-connected, successful, efficient music publisher would listen to your music with the same enthusiasm in which you created it, it’d be a done deal! You’d be set!

So, how-oh-how do you get to that music publisher so he or she can offer you the deal you have worked so hard for and that you most certainly deserve? How do you find that person that will share in your passion that transcends into your music, who really understands each song, who will do everything he or she can to sell and/or license those songs over and over again?

Well, think back for a minute to all of the networking events you’ve attended; to the places where you wrote those songs for countless hours; to the pitch meetings you landed; to those encouraging meetings you held with your manager. Now, think of the one thing each of those places or events had in common → you!

Your publisher is your greatest untapped resource and quite likely, it is you! Who better knows your music? Who better can you entrust it with? Who better to really work hard for the money? Who better to run your business, than you? Likely, nobody!

Upon inspection, you would find that many, if not most successful songwriters in any large publishing company are, more times than not, persons that first became successful music publishers on their own. They simply learned, some for the sake of survival, how to pitch their music; how to develop and manage their catalog; how to secure and protect their copyrights; how to build not only a business plan, but a business team and; how to create a presence or ‘buzz’ for themselves in the infamous ‘industry.’ And, once they had done so and in turn, established for themselves an operable entity, they then also stood in a much greater position to enter into a coventure relationship with a larger, more productive and more lucrative company.

Taking this strategic and time-tested approach to building your career can prove invaluable! It is simply reasonable and not only common but, common sense, that a large publishing company is much more likely to coventure with an established, smaller company than it is to bring on a beginning writer where they would have to assume a greater risk and the consequent burden of making the relationship successful.

Also, you may wish to keep in mind that most publishing deals nowadays are co-publishing deals whereby the writer receives 100% of the writer’s share of income and also a portion of the publisher’s monies. Does this sound like a deal that favors the writer? Well that’s only because it does! Maybe not such a terrible idea after all, this be-your-own-publisher idea, eh!?

If you’re still finding this to be a daunting task and need inspiration, just read the biographies of songwriting legends like Carole King and Jerry Leiber who followed a similar path. You’ll see that it may be more fiction than fact that days existed where songwriters worked in isolation, tapping their foot to the beat of their own drummer while their songs were being shopped all over town. Rather, an aggressive, strategic and well-thought out approach that is focused on shaping those musically-inclined dreams into reality is not only time-tested, but reasonably, provides more probable results.

Are there any guarantees? Well of course not! You don’t need anyone to tell you that. However, while common sense is sometimes not all that common; common sense here will tell you that creating your own publishing company and working hard to develop not only its operations but, its value, stands a much better chance of tendering you the riches and success you seek than does waiting for someone to show up at your door and offer it to you. Don’t get me wrong. . . it can happen; but I might rather choose the former approach . . .at least until someone comes a-knockin’!

The creative process that is so closely tied to the success of the entertainment industry often raises questions regarding ownership of creative works. While copyrights usually rest with the creator of a work, certain agreements can be made that transfer these rights to another party.

Generally, copyrights rest with the author or authors who originally create a work. However, the Copyright Act of 1976 contains a major exception, the “Work Made for Hire” Doctrine, which challenges the fundamental principle that copyright ownership lies with the individual who creates the work. In the case of a “Work Made for Hire,” the party for whom the work was completed is considered the author and thus holds the copyrights to the work created rather than the party who actually authored the work.

A Work Made for Hire is not, however, any work that you pay someone to create for you. In addition, it is not any work that you and a developer simply agree is a Work Made for Hire. Rather, “Work Made for Hire” is a specifically defined term in Copyright Law and applies only when certain conditions are met.

Disputes over what constitutes a “Work Made for Hire” often arise over two main issues: the distinction between an employee and a non-employee or independent contractor and whether or not the work in question qualifies as one or more of the nine categories outlined in the Copyright Act.

Section 101 of the Copyright Act defines a “work made for hire” as either:

1.  a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or

2.  a work by a freelancer (independent contractor) which is specially ordered or commissioned for use as a translation, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a contribution to a collective work, as an atlas, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as a supplementary work such as a preface to a book, a forward or a musical arrangement, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire.

If the condition of category one is met, copyright ownership belongs to the employer unless an employment contract specifies that the creation of copyrightable material is not within the scope of employment. If the creation of the work falls outside the scope of employment then the employee, and not the employer, would have copyright ownership of the work.

If the conditions in category two are met, then the party hiring the freelancer would own the copyrights. If, however, these requirements are not strictly followed and the work falls outside the nine categories enumerated by the Copyright Act or a written agreement does not exist, then the freelancer would retain copyright ownership in the work.

Los Angeles intellectual property attorney, Anthony Spotora, commented, “It is the lack of a written instrument specifying the intended “Work-Made-for-Hire” relationship with independent contractors that commonly creates “Work-Made-for-Hire” copyright ownership issues. All too often, the intended owner seeks to argue that a “Work-Made-for-Hire” relationship was agreed upon, although it was stated only verbally. Subsequently, authorship of the work at issue ultimately winds up with its creator, rather that the intended owner. The second biggest misperception in freelance arrangements is that a written agreement specifying that a work is intended to be created on a “Work-Made-for-Hire” basis makes it so when, in fact, that is only the case if the work falls into one of the nine exceptions listed in Section 101 of the U.S. Copyright Act.”

Anthony Spotora is a Los Angeles entertainment lawyer and Los Angeles business attorney. To learn more, visit Spotoralaw.com.

&nbsp

Selling show ideas in Hollywood is no easy feat. It not only requires the ability to create a great pitch, but also the know-how and willingness to follow established procedures for selling a show.

In order to sell a show idea, it’s necessary to create a great pitch. There are several elements that should be included in a pitch: a logline, a synopsis, and a treatment. A logline is a one-sentence description of the show. A synopsis is a brief summary of the show including information about the main characters and the theme of the show. A treatment is much like a synopsis of a show idea but is a more inclusive document which includes detailed descriptions of the characters and the show’s plot. Writing a treatment is an essential step as it is the primary medium through which show ideas are typically presented to TV producers and executives.

As an artist, you will want to determine which networks to submit your show idea to. You will want to consider the nature of your programming and whether or not it is in alignment with the types of shows each network produces. Once the appropriate networks have been identified, you should learn the submission guidelines for each. Some networks may accept unsolicited treatments and show pitches but, these are of the minority. The majority of networks require artists to have an agent or even an entertainment lawyer acting as his or her representative. Knowing and following the proper procedures for each network is an essential step in increasing an artist’s odds of having their show idea accepted.

Now, it is no secret that securing an agent can be a very challenging task. In order to overcome this challenge, artists must be willing to network; they should consider engaging a credible, proven manager and they would be wise to also consider developing a more formal, strategic plan for success with their entertainment attorney.

For artists who are able to secure an agent, he or she can help connect them with development executives – individuals who have the power to turn ideas into paychecks. When meeting with a development executive, artists must be able to accurately convey the concept of their show in a manner that is simple yet intriguing. This is where a well-written logline, synopsis, and treatment come into play. If an artist has taken the time to prepare these documents properly, the executive will be able to see the show’s potential.

Once an artist successfully pitches a show idea, it is more likely to be optioned for purchase. At this stage, an artist should utilize the expertise of their entertainment attorney to help negotiate the specific terms of the agreement. Most often, the writer will be paid an option fee up front for the company to have the exclusive rights to sell and/or produce the project with a network or third-party buyer. Once the option is exercised, the writer will then receive the negotiated purchase price and may additionally receive a small percentage of participation in the fees received by the production company for producing the show.

Navigating these negotiations can be difficult and an experienced entertainment attorney can offer artists the guidance they need to successfully sell their show ideas.

To learn more, visit https://www.spotoralaw.com/.

This past spring, one of the Department heads we work with at FremantleMedia invited us to attend the live performance of an “American Idol” taping. This taping, or rather, pop-hysteria, led to conversations relating to the management of those that do not win the title of the next “American Idol”.

Now we all know that the winner is locked into a contract with Music Label/Management Company, “19”, but what of the other near-Idols? Who gets to run their proverbial show? This question, in accompaniment to some of the surrounding conversations and eager talent managers, reminded us of a piece of legalese that has come up time and time again in our practice. The issue: Managers vs. Agents.

Whether you are a bona fide Talent Manager, a Stage Mom, or the girlfriend who listened to her boyfriend’s band play one night at the local pub and decided to serve as its manager, you should understand the differences between the roles that managers and agents are legally entitled to play. . . for your own good!

For starters, agents are licensed by the state they work in and most commonly earn their money by negotiating deals for their clients. Typically, they also enter into a client agreement which is, in pertinent part, regulated by industry labor unions such as, the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), the Writers Guild of America (WGA) and, the Directors Guild of America (DGA). Through these regulated agreements, the commissions that agents charge their clients are legally bound to a prescribed percentage. Furthermore, it should be noted that agents may not serve as a producer on their clients’ projects.

On the other hand, managers are not commission-regulated, do not need a license to ‘manage’ and, can charge their clients 15% or more. . . and often do. Moreover, managers may produce film or television if they wish to and so of course, they are also afforded the ‘glamour’ element in that they might find themselves in the spotlight one Award evening with an Emmy or an Oscar in tow.

In light of these representative differences, and as you might imagine, the ever-evolving entertainment industry has shifted gears over the years to accommodate and benefit from both of these roles. Without surprise to anyone, these specialty services have impacted not only the way talent pursues work, but the manner in which movies and television are actually made.

So what’s the big deal!? We all have a job to do, right!?

Well, one common issue arises from infuriated agents who argue that managers who attach themselves to their clients’ projects as producers are not legitimate producers and are consequently driving up production costs. Subsequent to such a contention, agents have put pressure on industry guilds by lobbying to either deregulate agents, or regulate managers. And, while no exact resolution has been reached to date, SAG has begun to pay closer attention to the black letter law and has consequently cracked down on the procurement of employment by managers for their clients. On the what you ask? On getting the talent a gig!

In California, Labor Code Sec. 1700.4(a) defines “talent agency” as “a person or corporation who engages in the occupation of procuring, offering, promising, or attempting to procure employment of engagements for an artist.” Moreover, Sec. 1700.5 provides that “[n]o person shall engage in or carry on the occupation of a talent agency without first procuring a license…from the Labor Commissioner.”

Therefore, ATTENTION ALL MANAGERS: Be Weary of The Services You Provide!

Procuring employment for your artist-client is not only illegal without proper licensing but, should you attempt to collect any unpaid fees, you can rightfully not only be denied those monies for having performed a service you were not licensed to perform but, you can also be ordered to return any fees already received!

So what’s the bottom-line? Both forms of talent reps are still widely used and widely needed in the ‘industry’. However, it is important that Managers know their role in their clients’ professional lives and also know the potential consequences they may face if they knowingly (or even unknowingly) provide services reserved for licensed Agents.