Recently in contracts Category

November 9, 2009

Film Distributors, Indemnity and Struggling Artists

double-indemnity.jpgDear Rich: Struggling Artist makes an anti-establishment film, which is mostly original material. In one segment, with a satirical intent, he deliberately shows McDonalds' "golden arches" and uses a Hannah Montana song on the soundtrack. Struggling Artist knows the material is copyrighted and trademarked, but he believes that he has a fair use defense and that it's OK to use it. Distributor picks up Struggling Artist's film for DVD distribution. In the contract he signs with Distributor, Struggling Artist guarantees that he owns all the copyrights to the material he supplies. Distributor takes the masters Struggling Artist gives him and sends them to a third party to be duplicated onto DVD. A month later, McDonalds and Hannah Montana file lawsuits against Distributor for trademark and copyright infringement (as Struggling Artist has no money). Is Distributor liable for any judgment in favor of the plaintiffs? Does the contract clause where Struggling Artist assures Distributor he owned the rights to the material help him? The short answer is that the distributor will be liable for infringement and the contract clause will only help if the distributor can obtain some payment from the artist. By the way, we're not sure where you fit in - as distributor or artist - so as Joni Mitchell says, we'll look at this from both sides now. 
Indemnity. The Dear Rich Staff  believes that the clause you're referring to is either a warranty - in which the artist promises the film does not infringe -- or an indemnity clause - in which the artist agrees to pay for any damages resulting from any claim of infringement. Either way the distributor can likely go after the artist for reimbursement if someone sues. Some distributors don't just rely on these contractual promises; they ask to see the documentation verifying the licenses and permissions. 
Fair Use and Other Defenses. The concept of "fair use" is primarily for copyrighted works - the Hannah Montana song -- and not for trademarks (the golden arches). Trademark fair use applies to a different type of defense. As noted above, even if the distributor prevailed, the distributor would most likely have to pay its own attorney fees. So being right doesn't mean that the artist and distributor are free of financial liabilities. Also, you didn't mention if the anti-establishment film is a documentary or feature film. A documentary is likely to provide stronger defenses. (BTW, in today's completely co-opted world does the term "anti-establishment" have any meaning anymore?) 
Insurance and Other Odds and Ends. Does the distributor have insurance? If so, you can be sure that the insurer will proceed after the artist and obtain a judgment (and the distributor may do the same on its own). The artist may not have anything of value right now but a judgment will last for many years should the artist earn or inherit anything in the future.
Struggling Artist? We're not sure why the term "struggling artist" bugs us. But really, everyone's struggling to some extent -- even Lindsay Lohan -- and the artist in your question just got a distribution deal which means he or she is way ahead of the game, at least in the struggle-reduction department. Ennyway, just a thought ... and we'll try and get over ourselves.

For more information about copyright and trademark infringement, see my book Patent, Copyright & Trademark: An Intellectual Property Desk Reference.
November 6, 2009

Indiana Jonesing

LEGO-Indiana-Jones--The-Videogame-1-1.jpgDear Rich: I am a filmmaker and am preparing to make a corporate promotional film for a well known life insurance company in which the chairman will be depicted as a fedora wearing, dusty leather jacket clad character, potentially with a whip, who will recover a stone artifact from a temple of some kind. After recovering the stone he will use its power to do little more than clear the skies and raise some smiles. He may walk over a rope-bridge or use a foxline to reach the other side of a gauge, there is also a chance he may escape in a plane ... but he will be freshly shaven, and will not chased by stone boulders. Do you think this presents a problem in terms of copyright infringement? Let's make sure we have this correct. You are using the fedora, whip, and leather jacket and you want to borrow from the plots of the movie, and you're using these elements to promote a life insurance company. 
Forest or the Trees Dept. Hmm ... We could go into discussions about substantial similarity, the abstractions test, and trademark infringement (and we could review a previous post on this subject). But it really comes down to whether the folks that own the Indiana Jones trademarks and copyrights feel that your insurance company is channeling its brand. 
If You Build it, They Will Sue. Possibly, Lucasfilm's legal team may not care -- for example, if it's a one-shot promo film, the similarities are primarily generic (typical pulp adventure hero stuff) and your film has limited exposure (just shown at a company getaway). But if it smells like you're emulating the franchise for a deep-pocketed client, then you and the insurance company will be dragged into a dispute. Our suggestion would be that if the Indiana Jones motif was the insurance company's idea, seek an indemnity provision in your contract. If it was your idea, either ditch it, or check your contract to make sure that you are not indemnifying the insurance company. 
Full Disclosure: The Dear Rich Staff has never seen an Indiana Jones movie, dressed like the main character, been attracted to Indiana Jones or the women in his films, or considered the Lego possibilities.

More questions about copyright law? Check out my book Patent, Copyright & Trademark: An Intellectual Property Desk Reference.
October 14, 2009

Who Gives Permission -- the Publisher or the Author?

dickens_oliver_twist.gifDear Rich: I work for a small non-profit with offices in the UK and California. Our mission concerns the protection of both biological and cultural diversity. In an effort to fulfill this mission, our group created a community study program that includes a reader featuring works written by leading ecological scholars and activists. We're updating the curriculum and most of the authors have agreed enthusiastically to let us use their material for free. However, a few of them do not hold rights to their work and the publishers are asking for fees that are prohibitive. We're trying to find substitutes. Do we need to get both the authors' and the publishers' permission if the books attribute copyright only to the authors?The short answer is that the copyright owner is usually -- but not always -- the person to give permission. The reason we need to provide a longer answer is that often the author retains copyright ownership but grants exclusive rights to a publisher. So even though the book's title page says Copyright 2009 Dear Rich, the publisher still controls all rights and can even file an application for copyright registration as the owner of those exclusive rights.
How can you tell who owns what? Usually, you need to ask the publisher. As a very general rule, authors of articles in scholarly journals and other periodical publications traditionally retain subsequent print publication rights. Also, as a general rule, most authors of books do not control the right to copy portions of their published books since print reproduction rights is one of the exclusive rights universally granted to book publishers. (Note, in the event that the publisher stops selling the book, these rights commonly revert to the author -- or at least they used to in the old days of publishing ...). So even though the author may be enthusiastic about including the work (and may be listed as copyright owner), the publisher may be the one who has to okay the use.
We support your work and wish publishers would support it too (instead of making you beg like Oliver Twist). If the Dear Rich Staff  made more money we would shovel it towards our favorite conservation nonprofit located in the nearby (and beautifully named) town of Petaluma.

Want to learn more about who can give permission? See my book Getting Permission: How to License & Clear Copyrighted Materials Online & Off. 
September 11, 2009

When Authors Are Readers

bogosian.jpgDear Rich: My book publishing contract has a provision that allows my publisher to make audiobooks. Except the book's been out for a year and they haven't done it. Do they have a contractual obligation to do it? What if I want to do it myself? (I think I am the best person to read my book.)  We'd have to see your contract but usually the publisher doesn't have an obligation to produce the audiobook, even though they own the rights. Most likely the standard that applies to the publisher is that it has to act in good faith and do what's commercially reasonable. And if the publisher determines that it's not commercially reasonable, it's "ixnay" for audiobook production. 
What's commercially reasonable? 
The party line on audiobooks is that a publisher usually sells one audiobook for every 10 print copies (sometimes the ratio is lower). So if your book sells 5,000 copies in its first year, it might not be commercially reasonable to produce an audiobook (at a cost between $2,000 to $10,000) if it will only sell 500 copies. It's possible -- though not likely -- that your contract will have a " use it or lose it" provision that says something to effect that if, after a certain amount of time, the company has not exercised certain rights, those rights revert to you -- for example audiobook rights. So look for any reversion clauses.
What About DIY?
Even if the rights don't revert, the publisher may be open to having you do it yourself. But the Dear Rich staff warns that unless you have had experience creating, producing and mastering, you'll need to hire and pay for some audio services in order to get a competitive sound quality. Having produced some extensive projects, we can say with conviction that it takes quite a bit of work to create a professional audiobook.
Are You the Best Person to Read It?
A professional reader will give you the most bang for your buck. But if you don't have any bucks, then "read by the author" may be the way to go. Unfortunately, not every author is as gifted at writing as performing; here are some exceptions: Eric Bogosian, David Sedaris, Joshilyn Jackson, Ron McLarty and Malcolm Gladwell

To learn more about copyright law, take a look at my book Patent, Copyright & Trademark: An Intellectual Property Desk Reference.
July 22, 2009

Can You Waive a Jury Trial in an NDA?

Thumbnail image for MICKEYSPILLANE.jpgDear Rich: I have a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) with a provision that includes the following language (which I haven't normally seen before) "[E]ach Party expressly waives any right to a trial by jury in any dispute arising in connection with this Agreement." Is this a common thing to ask? And if it's not by jury trial, then is the dispute simply kept in a courtroom with just a judge for the final decision? The short answers to your question are that (1) it is becoming more common to ask for jury waivers, and (2) yes, if you sign the agreement and a trade secret dispute arises you will have a bench trial in which a judge presides (unless you are in a state court dispute in California or Georgia where pre-dispute contractual waivers are not enforced). It's true that the Seventh Amendment guarantees your right to a jury trial but that right has been chipped away by various rulings. For example, you don't have the right to a jury in a battle over an injunction -- an order by the court to do or not do something. Since injunctions are a key remedy sought in trade secret lawsuits, you won't be giving up that aspect of your potential battle. 
Why Waive the Jury?
Jury waivers are usually sought by corporate entities who perceive that jurors tend to be biased against them, or because of the potential savings in money (less spent on attorney fees), and time (bench trials are much faster), and because of concerns that a jury would not grasp the technical nature of the dispute. These provisions are usually enforceable in NDA agreements (though not in all agreements) and they must be entered into "knowingly and voluntarily."  All that said, another reason to waive the jury trial is so that the Dear Rich Staff will not have to  make so many appearances in the Jury Assembly Room at 850 Bryant Street in San Francisco which is where we are right now. (Yes, the Dear Rich Staff is blogging live from S.F. Jury Duty -- is this the only city where citizens review jury duty like it was a movie? --   and we sure wish the guy next to us would stop trying to brush the potato chip crumbs in our lap -- oh good, he's done!). And oh yeah, our three favorite jury movies: