A number of directors are pursuing litigation against the digital indie film distributor 1091 Pictures for failing to make promised revenue-sharing payments after selling their films to the platform, now owned by Chicken Soup for the Soul Entertainment. Helmers are scrambling to reclaim distribution rights to their work out of fear that 1091 Pictures’ parent company could declare bankruptcy.
Filmmakers say they are owed their share of distribution revenue from licensing deals with 1091 but Chicken Soup for the Soul Entertainment has not come through with payments. Some have taken the company to court, including small-claims court, to press their cases.
Chicken Soup for the Soul Entertainment acknowledges that the company, which also owns Redbox and Crackle, has faced “cash flow issues,” as CEO Bill Rouhana told Variety. The company already disclosed that it was unable to file its third-quarter earnings information on time.
“The company has been working to address cash...
Filmmakers say they are owed their share of distribution revenue from licensing deals with 1091 but Chicken Soup for the Soul Entertainment has not come through with payments. Some have taken the company to court, including small-claims court, to press their cases.
Chicken Soup for the Soul Entertainment acknowledges that the company, which also owns Redbox and Crackle, has faced “cash flow issues,” as CEO Bill Rouhana told Variety. The company already disclosed that it was unable to file its third-quarter earnings information on time.
“The company has been working to address cash...
- 12/20/2023
- by Addie Morfoot
- Variety Film + TV
On Monday, Paramount Pictures celebrated its 357 million global box-office performance for “Top Gun: Maverick” — and faced a federal copyright lawsuit from the heirs of the late Ehud Yonay, author of the 1983 magazine story that inspired the original “Top Gun.”
Nearly four decades ago, Paramount secured rights to “Top Guns,” an article published in the May 1983 issue of the now-folded California magazine; Yonay received a writing credit for the article on the original 1986 film, with a screenplay by Jim Cash and Jack Epps Jr.
In 2018, Yonay’s heirs filed for what’s known as termination rights. So now they argue it is them — not Paramount — who currently owns the underlying rights to make any movies based on “Top Guns.” They claim Paramount didn’t ask for permission — or pay them to make “Maverick.”
The plaintiffs are Ehud’s window Shosh and his son Yuval. On June 6, they asked a Los Angeles...
Nearly four decades ago, Paramount secured rights to “Top Guns,” an article published in the May 1983 issue of the now-folded California magazine; Yonay received a writing credit for the article on the original 1986 film, with a screenplay by Jim Cash and Jack Epps Jr.
In 2018, Yonay’s heirs filed for what’s known as termination rights. So now they argue it is them — not Paramount — who currently owns the underlying rights to make any movies based on “Top Guns.” They claim Paramount didn’t ask for permission — or pay them to make “Maverick.”
The plaintiffs are Ehud’s window Shosh and his son Yuval. On June 6, they asked a Los Angeles...
- 6/7/2022
- by Chris Lindahl
- Indiewire
Grindstone Entertainment Group, a division of Lionsgate, has acquired the North American rights to the upcoming World War II action-thriller “Wolf Hound.” The movie will see a multi-platform release this summer.
“Wolf Hound” marks the feature film directorial debut of Michael B. Chait and boasts a screenplay by co-producer Timothy Ritchey and a story by Chait. Emmy Award-winning commercial producer Sue Witham produced the movie along with Chait for his production company Tmu Pictures.
The film is inspired by the real-life Nazi special operations unit Kg 200 that shot down, repaired and flew Allied aircraft as Trojan horses. “Wolf Hound” takes place in 1944 Nazi-occupied France and stars James Maslow (“Big Time Rush”) as Captain David Holden, a Jewish American fighter pilot, and Trevor Donovan (“90210”) as Nazi ace Major Erich Roth. Ambushed behind enemy lines, Holden must rescue a captured B-17 Flying Fortress bomber crew, evade the enemy stalking him at every...
“Wolf Hound” marks the feature film directorial debut of Michael B. Chait and boasts a screenplay by co-producer Timothy Ritchey and a story by Chait. Emmy Award-winning commercial producer Sue Witham produced the movie along with Chait for his production company Tmu Pictures.
The film is inspired by the real-life Nazi special operations unit Kg 200 that shot down, repaired and flew Allied aircraft as Trojan horses. “Wolf Hound” takes place in 1944 Nazi-occupied France and stars James Maslow (“Big Time Rush”) as Captain David Holden, a Jewish American fighter pilot, and Trevor Donovan (“90210”) as Nazi ace Major Erich Roth. Ambushed behind enemy lines, Holden must rescue a captured B-17 Flying Fortress bomber crew, evade the enemy stalking him at every...
- 1/10/2022
- by Brent Lang
- Variety Film + TV
“India Sweets and Spices” is an independent film about immigrants who face family complications and romantic entanglements in America.
India Sweets & Spices is a chain of Indian grocery stores across Southern California. Now the grocery chain, founded in 1984, is raising hell over the movie, which debuted at Tribeca earlier this month.
Raj Jawa, whose father started the franchise, has begun to wage an online campaign accusing the filmmakers of stealing his family’s trademark. He has written to the filmmakers’ representatives, urging them to change the title.
“We built up this goodwill and this name for years,” Jawa said in an interview. “And they’re just going to slap it on their product for marketing purposes.”
The director, Geeta Malik, is based in Los Angeles with graduate film degree from UCLA. The script for “India Sweets and Spices,” originally called “Dinner With Friends,” won an Academy’s Nicholl fellowship in 2016. In it,...
India Sweets & Spices is a chain of Indian grocery stores across Southern California. Now the grocery chain, founded in 1984, is raising hell over the movie, which debuted at Tribeca earlier this month.
Raj Jawa, whose father started the franchise, has begun to wage an online campaign accusing the filmmakers of stealing his family’s trademark. He has written to the filmmakers’ representatives, urging them to change the title.
“We built up this goodwill and this name for years,” Jawa said in an interview. “And they’re just going to slap it on their product for marketing purposes.”
The director, Geeta Malik, is based in Los Angeles with graduate film degree from UCLA. The script for “India Sweets and Spices,” originally called “Dinner With Friends,” won an Academy’s Nicholl fellowship in 2016. In it,...
- 6/23/2021
- by Gene Maddaus
- Variety Film + TV
The battle of truth versus fiction in Clint Eastwood’s “Richard Jewell” intensified Thursday as screenwriter Billy Ray shot back at Kevin Riley, the editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Riley, who has criticized the movie for suggesting that reporter Kathy Scruggs traded sex for news tips while reporting on the investigation into the 1996 Atlanta bombing, has lawyered up in preparation for a defamation lawsuit. Ray is calling that threatened suit a “distraction campaign” to divert attention from what he claims is the paper’s sloppy reporting on the case that led to the shattered reputation of Jewell, a security guard who was treated as the prime suspect in the case.
Scruggs was one of the reporters who named Jewell as a suspect in the bombing. Jewell was innocent, but the newspaper’s report helped put Jewell’s life under scrutiny for an extended period of time, prompting him to file...
Scruggs was one of the reporters who named Jewell as a suspect in the bombing. Jewell was innocent, but the newspaper’s report helped put Jewell’s life under scrutiny for an extended period of time, prompting him to file...
- 12/13/2019
- by Chris Lindahl
- Indiewire
California IMDb Age Law Contested
By Mark Litwak
Actresses often complain about age discrimination in the movie business. Even relatively young actresses claim they have experienced discrimination. Olivia Wilde was reportedly denied the role of Leonardo DiCaprio’s wife in The Wolf of Wall Street when she was 28 years-old, ten years DiCaprio’s junior, with the role given to Margot Robbie who was only 23. [1]
IMDb Listing of Olivia Wilde
It is not always easy to determine the age of an actor by their appearance at a time when plastic surgery is ubiquitous. One frequently used source to determine an actor’s age is IMDb.com and its professional version, IMDb pro.com, which are widely used for casting in the entertainment industry. Consequently, many actors do not want to reveal their true age on their IMDb profiles because they believe it may put them at a competitive disadvantage.
In 2013, actress,...
By Mark Litwak
Actresses often complain about age discrimination in the movie business. Even relatively young actresses claim they have experienced discrimination. Olivia Wilde was reportedly denied the role of Leonardo DiCaprio’s wife in The Wolf of Wall Street when she was 28 years-old, ten years DiCaprio’s junior, with the role given to Margot Robbie who was only 23. [1]
IMDb Listing of Olivia Wilde
It is not always easy to determine the age of an actor by their appearance at a time when plastic surgery is ubiquitous. One frequently used source to determine an actor’s age is IMDb.com and its professional version, IMDb pro.com, which are widely used for casting in the entertainment industry. Consequently, many actors do not want to reveal their true age on their IMDb profiles because they believe it may put them at a competitive disadvantage.
In 2013, actress,...
- 3/29/2018
- by Sydney Levine
- Sydney's Buzz
On March 13, the Writers Guild of America will begin negotiations with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers for a new three-year contract, and some early reports indicate the union is prepared to strike if its demands are not met.
It would be the first WGA strike in nearly a decade; the last one was the 100-day walkout that crippled the 2007-08 television season — a period of calamity that forced major networks to reduce their episode orders, prompted some late-night shows to air without a writing staff, and fueled the rise of reality TV.
WGA declined to comment on its negotiations, but veteran entertainment lawyer Mark Litwak cautions that things are still in the “posturing” stage until negotiations actually begin. “WGA is saying, ‘We’re gonna strike if we don’t get what we want,'” Litwak says.
Strike or not, the television industry has changed dramatically in the past 10 years.
It would be the first WGA strike in nearly a decade; the last one was the 100-day walkout that crippled the 2007-08 television season — a period of calamity that forced major networks to reduce their episode orders, prompted some late-night shows to air without a writing staff, and fueled the rise of reality TV.
WGA declined to comment on its negotiations, but veteran entertainment lawyer Mark Litwak cautions that things are still in the “posturing” stage until negotiations actually begin. “WGA is saying, ‘We’re gonna strike if we don’t get what we want,'” Litwak says.
Strike or not, the television industry has changed dramatically in the past 10 years.
- 3/7/2017
- by Andrew Lapin
- Indiewire
Filmmaking with its numerous employees and production responsibilities is more of a business than art. And every business, no matter how small, needs some form of legal counsel. In the world of indie law, there are few names as prominent as Attorney Mark Litwak. He has represented filmmakers for twenty years and written several books on the subject. He is one of the indies’ most active advocates. He teaches entertainment law at USC. His website, Entertainment Law Resources offers filmmakers many tips and insights.
Here he takes on Errors and Omissions Insurance, a must for every filmmaker wanting distribution.
Filmmaker Malpractice Insurance
By Mark Litwak, Esq.
Errors and Omissions Insurance (also known as E&O Insurance) is malpractice insurance for filmmakers. These policies protect against claims of defamation, invasion of privacy, infringement of the right of publicity, idea and story theft, copyright infringement, plagiarism, piracy, and the unauthorized use of names and trademarks. Some policies cover unfair competition and failure to provide screen credit.
Even cautious filmmakers may find themselves facing a lawsuit through no fault of their own. Liability can arise even if they did not knowingly violate another’s rights and were diligent in securing all the rights they believed were needed.
Suppose a producer inadvertently infringes a copyrighted song in the course of placing it on the soundtrack of a film. Although the producer did not intend to violate the songwriter’s rights, and licensed the song from what appeared to be a reputable publisher, she can nevertheless be liable for damages. Although the filmmaker honestly believed she was licensing music from the legitimate owner of those rights, if that company did not have the rights they purported to have, the filmmaker may be liable. While a judge could reduce the damages awarded against an innocent infringer, compared to those who intentionally infringe another’s work, the attorney fees and costs to defend such a suit can be astronomical.
However, if the filmmaker has E&O insurance, it will cover potential liability as well as defense costs. Like other insurance policies, there is a deductible, which is usually $10,000 or more. A typical policy provides three years of coverage for $1 million per claim and $3 million for aggregate claims. E&O insurance does not cover intentional wrongdoing or any pre-existing claims. The insurance carrier will assume liability for negligent (careless) acts, but not for deliberate wrongdoing.
Insurers have different concerns based on the type of film being considered for coverage. Movies can be factual or fictional, original or derivative, or any possible combination. When a script is original, meaning it is not based on a pre-existing work, its origins must be determined to ensure that it is wholly original and nothing has been copied from another copyrighted work. If the script is derivative, then the filmmaker needs to secure rights from the owner of the original work it is based on.
When a film is based on a true story, the screenplay should be derived from primary sources (e.g., court transcripts, interviews with witnesses), and not secondary sources (e.g., another author’s work product), unless permission has been obtained to use such secondary sources or the information is not protected under copyright.
Some filmmakers tell fictional stories that are inspired by true events, such as the 1959 film "Compulsion." In this case, an author wrote a book based on the real life kidnapping and murder of a young boy by Nathan Leopold. Although, Leopold's name did not appear in the movie based on the book, the promotional materials made it clear it was a work of fiction based on the crime. Then there are movies that are presented as factual, such as docudramas and biopics,that may not be entirely factual. Often dramatic liberties are taken, such as rearranging events in a different order or combining secondary characters into a composite character.
With a fictional story, like Spider-man, it is important that the characters not infringe the copyright of another work. With a docudrama, the insurer may want to know if the filmmaker acquired life story rights of persons portrayed in the film and if a true story has been changed for dramatic reasons. Such changes could damage the reputations of living persons portrayed in the story.
Because the issues are complex, insurance companies usually ask applicants for the name of their production attorney and will frequently contact the attorney to ensure that all necessary releases and licenses have been secured and that the work complies with the insurer’s clearance policies.It is best to employ an attorney before production starts, so that appropriate contracts are used from the outset. If paperwork needs to be re-done after production, it can be very expensive and maybe impossible, if the filmmaker is unable to locate actors, crew, and vendors to have them to sign revised agreements. In addition, if a film has to be re-edited because certain footage cannot be cleared, that can be very expensive.
Almost all distributors in North America will not distribute a picture without E & O insurance. Errors and Omissions insurance may also be referred to as Media Perils, media liability insurance or libel insurance. Some filmmakers do not even think about E & O insurance until a distribution deal for their film is being negotiated and they notice among the delivery items is a requirement for the producer to provide a certificate of insurance. They may be surprised to learn that distributors expect the filmmaker to secure and pay for E & O insurance, which costs thousands of dollars and it may take weeks for the insurer to process an application. Before issuing a policy, the insurer may want to review releases, permissions, and copyright and title reports. If the filmmaker is claiming fair use or public domain as the basis for certain materials incorporated in a film, she may need to secure a legal opinion to support the claim. If music is incorporated on the soundtrack, synchronization, performance and master use licenses may be needed. Filmmakers, who are missing essential contracts or information, will not be able to secure insurance or the insurance will exclude certain types of claims, which usually means most distributors will decline to distribute the picture.
In order to apply for insurance, filmmakers will need to complete a detailed application that asks for many details about the production and its clearance procedures and chain of title, including the identity of their production lawyer. The application requires the filmmaker to declare that all the information in the application is true, accurate, and not misleading. If the filmmaker misrepresents any facts, the insurance company will have an escape route to refuse to provide coverage against a lawsuit against the filmmaker. The insurance company can use this against the filmmaker and in the event of a claim, contend that the policy was procured by fraud and the policy can be rescinded.
There are different types of policies. A “claims made” policy only covers lawsuits that arise during the policy period. An “occurrence” policy covers all claims arising out of occurrences during the policy period even if the suit is filed years after the policy has expired. If you purchase a “claims made” policy, you need to renew the policy to continue coverage after the initial period expires.
Lawsuits are subject to different statutes of limitations. Defamation actions usually have short statutes, often one year from when the defamatory statement is first published. Copyright claims must be brought within three years from when a claim accrues, but there is a “separate-accrual rule” that treats each successive violation of a copyright as a new infringing act. Thus, each time a copy of the work is sold or distributed, the claim period could begin again. Copyright often endures for the lifetime of the author plus 70 years, so protection can last for many years. Moreover, some claims may not begin to run until the plaintiff discovers the infringement. While many claims that are covered under an E & O insurance policy often arise soon after a film’s initial public release, sometimes claims surface years later.
When filmmakers purchase a policy, they are the Named Insured and typically they add the distributor as an additional insured. An “additional insured” is an individual or entity added to the coverage of the policy often for no extra cost. In many instances employment agreements or guild regulations require adding talent as additional insureds. For instance, the Writer’s Guild Minimum Basic Agreement provides that guild writers be added the producer’s policy. The coverage of an additional insured is generally limited to claims asserted against that additional insured rising out of the activities of the Named Insured.
A checklist for applying for Errors and Omissions Insurance can be reviewed here: http://www.marklitwak.com/uploads/2/2/1/9/22193936/client_insurance_qs.pdf
Mark Litwak is a veteran entertainment attorney and producer’s rep based in Los Angeles, California. He is an adjunct professor at USC Gould School of Law, and the creator of the Entertainment Law Resources website with lots of free information for filmmakers (www.marklitwak.com). He is the author of six books including: Dealmaking in the Film and Television Industry, Contracts for the Film and Television Industry, and Risky Business: Financing and Distributing Independent Film. He can be reached at law2[At]marklitwak.com .
Here he takes on Errors and Omissions Insurance, a must for every filmmaker wanting distribution.
Filmmaker Malpractice Insurance
By Mark Litwak, Esq.
Errors and Omissions Insurance (also known as E&O Insurance) is malpractice insurance for filmmakers. These policies protect against claims of defamation, invasion of privacy, infringement of the right of publicity, idea and story theft, copyright infringement, plagiarism, piracy, and the unauthorized use of names and trademarks. Some policies cover unfair competition and failure to provide screen credit.
Even cautious filmmakers may find themselves facing a lawsuit through no fault of their own. Liability can arise even if they did not knowingly violate another’s rights and were diligent in securing all the rights they believed were needed.
Suppose a producer inadvertently infringes a copyrighted song in the course of placing it on the soundtrack of a film. Although the producer did not intend to violate the songwriter’s rights, and licensed the song from what appeared to be a reputable publisher, she can nevertheless be liable for damages. Although the filmmaker honestly believed she was licensing music from the legitimate owner of those rights, if that company did not have the rights they purported to have, the filmmaker may be liable. While a judge could reduce the damages awarded against an innocent infringer, compared to those who intentionally infringe another’s work, the attorney fees and costs to defend such a suit can be astronomical.
However, if the filmmaker has E&O insurance, it will cover potential liability as well as defense costs. Like other insurance policies, there is a deductible, which is usually $10,000 or more. A typical policy provides three years of coverage for $1 million per claim and $3 million for aggregate claims. E&O insurance does not cover intentional wrongdoing or any pre-existing claims. The insurance carrier will assume liability for negligent (careless) acts, but not for deliberate wrongdoing.
Insurers have different concerns based on the type of film being considered for coverage. Movies can be factual or fictional, original or derivative, or any possible combination. When a script is original, meaning it is not based on a pre-existing work, its origins must be determined to ensure that it is wholly original and nothing has been copied from another copyrighted work. If the script is derivative, then the filmmaker needs to secure rights from the owner of the original work it is based on.
When a film is based on a true story, the screenplay should be derived from primary sources (e.g., court transcripts, interviews with witnesses), and not secondary sources (e.g., another author’s work product), unless permission has been obtained to use such secondary sources or the information is not protected under copyright.
Some filmmakers tell fictional stories that are inspired by true events, such as the 1959 film "Compulsion." In this case, an author wrote a book based on the real life kidnapping and murder of a young boy by Nathan Leopold. Although, Leopold's name did not appear in the movie based on the book, the promotional materials made it clear it was a work of fiction based on the crime. Then there are movies that are presented as factual, such as docudramas and biopics,that may not be entirely factual. Often dramatic liberties are taken, such as rearranging events in a different order or combining secondary characters into a composite character.
With a fictional story, like Spider-man, it is important that the characters not infringe the copyright of another work. With a docudrama, the insurer may want to know if the filmmaker acquired life story rights of persons portrayed in the film and if a true story has been changed for dramatic reasons. Such changes could damage the reputations of living persons portrayed in the story.
Because the issues are complex, insurance companies usually ask applicants for the name of their production attorney and will frequently contact the attorney to ensure that all necessary releases and licenses have been secured and that the work complies with the insurer’s clearance policies.It is best to employ an attorney before production starts, so that appropriate contracts are used from the outset. If paperwork needs to be re-done after production, it can be very expensive and maybe impossible, if the filmmaker is unable to locate actors, crew, and vendors to have them to sign revised agreements. In addition, if a film has to be re-edited because certain footage cannot be cleared, that can be very expensive.
Almost all distributors in North America will not distribute a picture without E & O insurance. Errors and Omissions insurance may also be referred to as Media Perils, media liability insurance or libel insurance. Some filmmakers do not even think about E & O insurance until a distribution deal for their film is being negotiated and they notice among the delivery items is a requirement for the producer to provide a certificate of insurance. They may be surprised to learn that distributors expect the filmmaker to secure and pay for E & O insurance, which costs thousands of dollars and it may take weeks for the insurer to process an application. Before issuing a policy, the insurer may want to review releases, permissions, and copyright and title reports. If the filmmaker is claiming fair use or public domain as the basis for certain materials incorporated in a film, she may need to secure a legal opinion to support the claim. If music is incorporated on the soundtrack, synchronization, performance and master use licenses may be needed. Filmmakers, who are missing essential contracts or information, will not be able to secure insurance or the insurance will exclude certain types of claims, which usually means most distributors will decline to distribute the picture.
In order to apply for insurance, filmmakers will need to complete a detailed application that asks for many details about the production and its clearance procedures and chain of title, including the identity of their production lawyer. The application requires the filmmaker to declare that all the information in the application is true, accurate, and not misleading. If the filmmaker misrepresents any facts, the insurance company will have an escape route to refuse to provide coverage against a lawsuit against the filmmaker. The insurance company can use this against the filmmaker and in the event of a claim, contend that the policy was procured by fraud and the policy can be rescinded.
There are different types of policies. A “claims made” policy only covers lawsuits that arise during the policy period. An “occurrence” policy covers all claims arising out of occurrences during the policy period even if the suit is filed years after the policy has expired. If you purchase a “claims made” policy, you need to renew the policy to continue coverage after the initial period expires.
Lawsuits are subject to different statutes of limitations. Defamation actions usually have short statutes, often one year from when the defamatory statement is first published. Copyright claims must be brought within three years from when a claim accrues, but there is a “separate-accrual rule” that treats each successive violation of a copyright as a new infringing act. Thus, each time a copy of the work is sold or distributed, the claim period could begin again. Copyright often endures for the lifetime of the author plus 70 years, so protection can last for many years. Moreover, some claims may not begin to run until the plaintiff discovers the infringement. While many claims that are covered under an E & O insurance policy often arise soon after a film’s initial public release, sometimes claims surface years later.
When filmmakers purchase a policy, they are the Named Insured and typically they add the distributor as an additional insured. An “additional insured” is an individual or entity added to the coverage of the policy often for no extra cost. In many instances employment agreements or guild regulations require adding talent as additional insureds. For instance, the Writer’s Guild Minimum Basic Agreement provides that guild writers be added the producer’s policy. The coverage of an additional insured is generally limited to claims asserted against that additional insured rising out of the activities of the Named Insured.
A checklist for applying for Errors and Omissions Insurance can be reviewed here: http://www.marklitwak.com/uploads/2/2/1/9/22193936/client_insurance_qs.pdf
Mark Litwak is a veteran entertainment attorney and producer’s rep based in Los Angeles, California. He is an adjunct professor at USC Gould School of Law, and the creator of the Entertainment Law Resources website with lots of free information for filmmakers (www.marklitwak.com). He is the author of six books including: Dealmaking in the Film and Television Industry, Contracts for the Film and Television Industry, and Risky Business: Financing and Distributing Independent Film. He can be reached at law2[At]marklitwak.com .
- 8/23/2015
- by Sydney Levine
- Sydney's Buzz
Filmmakers and profit participants often complain about distributors that engage in creative bookkeeping. This is one area where filmmakers concede the studios are sufficiently imaginative in their thinking. A frequent criticism is that distributors devise new and ingenious ways to interpret a contract so that all the revenue stays with them. Filmmakers believe that net profits are often illusory. Rarely does a share of net profits actually result in money received.
I have been involved in many creative accounting disputes and recovered millions of dollars for filmmakers cheated by distributors. As a result of my experience, whenever I negotiate a distribution deal, I always try to tightly define and limit expenses that are recoupable to those that are “direct, auditable, out-of-pocket, reasonable and necessary.” This means the distributor has to produce a receipt showing a legitimate payment to a third party in order to deduct that expense. Less precise wording can leave enough ambiguity for a distributor to argue over which deductions are proper.
I recently won an award from a distributor that engaged in many of the typical tactics used to defraud filmmakers. Even though the distribution deal clearly prohibited the deduction of overhead, interest or legal fees, an audit revealed that the distributor had deducted those expenses. The distributor even tried to claim its own attorney fees for negotiating the initial distribution deal with the filmmaker, as well as payment to his lawyer contesting the filmmaker’s right to terminate the agreement. The filmmaker was clearly within his rights to terminate the agreement, after the distributor repeatedly failed to provide producer statements and payments due.
The distributor tried to write off wages paid to staff members from ranging from executives to interns, and also deducted charges for cell phone calls, meals and entertainment and even staff parking. Perhaps most outrageous, the distributor paid fees to one of its own top executives and attempted to hide this payment by making the payment to a company owned by the executive that had ostensibly provided marketing services for the film. Since producer statements are summaries lacking in detail, none of this misconduct was revealed until an audit was undertaken.
Distributors have attempted to hide their misconduct with missing or incomplete records. However, in cases where records essential to proving damages are in a distributor’s exclusive control, the courts have shifted the burden of proof to the distributor, to prove that their deductions are legitimate.
No doubt, there are numerous instances where producers or distributors have cooked the books to avoid paying back-end compensation to those entitled to it. Expenses incurred on one movie might be charged to another. Phony invoices can be used to document expenses that were never incurred. Some ruses are more subtle, and not readily apparent to the uninitiated.
Various court decisions have held that distributors have a duty to exercise good faith and fair dealing toward filmmakers. In Celador Int’l, Ltd. v. Disney Co., the court held that when a party has an interest in profits from a business, the person managing that business has to act in such a manner as to protect the interest of the profit participants. Celador created and executive produced a show entitled “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire,” which was highly successful in the United Kingdom. Celador later entered into an agreement with ABC and Buena Vista Television (both Disney subsidiaries) for a version of the Series to be produced for distribution in North America. Under the agreement negotiated by the parties, Celador was entitled to 50% profit participation. Celador alleged that Disney breached its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because Disney assigned production of the Series to Valleycrest Productions, Ltd. (“Valleycrest”), a subsidiary of Disney, rather than seeking competitive deals from third-party producers. According to Celador: “ABC agreed orally to license the Series for an ‘imputed per-episode license fee equal to Valleycrest’s per-episode production costs’.... As a result, the network exhibition of the Series could never reach profits after production costs, distribution fees, distribution costs, overhead, interest, etc. were deducted from any gross receipts.” Consequently, the Series never generated any profits for Celador while Disney benefited in the form of cost savings and increased profits to Disney affiliates. As a result of decisions like Celador, filmmakers often try to restrict the distributor from making deals with affiliated companies or sub-distributors, unless the filmmaker consents to such arrangements.
It is important to understand that the major studios determine profits for participants using their own special accounting rules as set forth in their net profit definitions. The accounting profession has generally agreed-upon rules called Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (Gaap). There are special guidelines for the motion picture industry called Financial Accounting Standards Bulletin 53 (Fasb 53). These rules provide, among other things, for the accrual method of accounting. Under this method, revenues are recognized when earned, and expenses are recognized when incurred. But distributors do not necessarily follow these rules. They may use Gaap and Fasb 53 when accounting to their shareholders, or reporting to their bankers, but they often resort to their own Alice in Wonderland-type rules when they calculate net profits for participants. They may recognize revenue only when it is actually received, while taking expenses when incurred. So if the distributor licenses a film to a television network, the distributor may not count the license fee as revenue until they actually receive it. Even when they receive a non-refundable advance, they might not count it as income until the time of the broadcast. Meanwhile, they count expenses immediately, even if they have not paid those expenses yet. This mismatching of revenues and expenses allows the distributor to delay payment to participants. It also allows distributors to charge producers interest for a longer time on the outstanding “loan” extended to a producer to make the film.
The Art Buchwald case illuminates some of the devices Paramount used to deny payment to net profit participants. Art Buchwald was a Pulitzer Prize winning author and syndicated columnist who alleged that Paramount Pictures stole his script idea and turned it into the 1988 movie "Coming to America." Although the movie generated more than $288 million in worldwide box office revenues, according to Paramount it had earned no net profit according to the profit definition in Buchwald's contract. The trial judge found many of Paramount’s accounting practices to be unconscionable and refused to enforce them. Paramount appealed, but the case was settled before the Court of Appeals could issue a definitive ruling on the issue.
If Buchwald had won the appeal, the precedent could have caused severe repercussions for all the major studios. That is because Paramount’s “net profit” definition was virtually identical to the definitions found throughout the industry. If Buchwald’s contract was invalid because it was unconscionable, then many other contracts could likewise be contested.
However, Buchwald could have lost the appeal. The trial judge in Buchwald used the doctrine of unconscionability to invalidate a contract that Buchwald was trying to enforce. Courts have traditionally embraced this doctrine only when it was used as a defense, or shield, against enforcement of an unfair contract, rather than as a sword to enforce the terms of a contract against another. Courts have typically relied on the doctrine to protect uneducated people who have been taken advantage of. If an unscrupulous door-to-door salesman sells a refrigerator for an exorbitant price to a poor, illiterate consumer on an installment plan using a boilerplate contract not open to negotiation, the judge might refuse to enforce the contract because it “shocks the conscience of the court.”
Buchwald, however, was hardly a poor, defenseless victim. He was an intelligent, wealthy, and acclaimed writer represented by the William Morris Agency. If a judge was willing to rewrite his contract because it was unfair, then why not rewrite thousands of other writer contracts? Indeed, why not rewrite any unfair contract? Where does one draw the line? If any contract can be contested simply because it is unfair, then how can anyone safely rely upon the terms of a contract? And how can one conduct business if you cannot be sure your contracts will be enforceable?
Under long-established precedent, courts refuse to invalidate contracts simply because they are unfair. Law students are taught the principle that even a peppercorn—something worth less than a penny—can be valid consideration. This means that if you are foolish enough to sign a contract to sell your $200 bike for a dime, do not expect a court to bail you out of a bad deal. Absent fraud, duress, or some other acceptable ground to invalidate a contract, courts do not second-guess the wisdom of what the parties agreed to.
While the trial judge in the Buchwald case thought the doctrine of unconscionability could be invoked to invalidate a net profit definition, it bears noting that another Los Angeles Superior Court came to a different conclusion. In reviewing the accounting practices of Warner Bros. in the "Batman" case, the judge found that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the studio’s net profits definition was unconscionable. The court noted that one of the plaintiffs who had negotiated the Warner Agreement was a former general counsel and senior executive of a major motion picture studio who “knew all the tricks of the trade,” and was knowledgeable about how these agreements worked.
Regardless of whether the Buchwald decision would have been upheld on appeal, the dispute has had an impact on the industry. The major studios have rewritten their contracts, replacing the phrase “net profits” with such terms as “net proceeds.” They want to avoid any implication that the back-end compensation promised participants has anything to do with the concept of profitability.
As a result of many highly publicized creative-accounting disputes, anyone who has clout insists on receiving either large up-front payments or a share of gross revenue. Distributors have consequently lost the ability to share risk with talent. Budgets have escalated to accommodate large up-front fees, with major stars now demanding $20 million per picture. Moreover, stars and directors have little incentive to minimize production expenses, since it doesn’t affect their earnings.
Not all complaints about creative accounting concern accounting errors. Many grievances reflect the inequality of the deal itself. The studio uses its leverage and superior bargaining position to pressure talent to agree to a bad deal. The distributor then accounts in accordance with the terms of the contract and can avoid paying out any revenue to participants because of how net profits are defined. The contract may be unfair, but the studio has lived up to its terms. It is only after the picture becomes a hit that the actor bothers to read the fine print of his employment agreement. This is not creative accounting. This is an example of a studio negotiating favorable terms for itself.
Keep in mind that there is no law requiring distributors to share their profits with anyone. Indeed, in most industries, workers do not share in their employer’s profits. Moreover, when a major studio releases a flop, losses are not shared; they are borne by the studio alone.
More on Mark Litwak:
Mark Litwak is a veteran entertainment attorney and producer’s rep based in Beverly Hills, California. He is an adjunct professor at USC Gould School of Law, and the creator of the Entertainment Law Resources website with lots of free information for filmmakers ( www.marklitwak.com). He is the author of six books including: Dealmaking in the Film and Television Industry, Contracts for the Film and Television Industry, and Risky Business: Financing and Distributing Independent Film. He can be reached at law2[At]marklitwak.com
Mark will be conducting an all-day seminar in New York City on April 24th, 2015 called "Self Defense for Writers and Filmmakers" with Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts...
I have been involved in many creative accounting disputes and recovered millions of dollars for filmmakers cheated by distributors. As a result of my experience, whenever I negotiate a distribution deal, I always try to tightly define and limit expenses that are recoupable to those that are “direct, auditable, out-of-pocket, reasonable and necessary.” This means the distributor has to produce a receipt showing a legitimate payment to a third party in order to deduct that expense. Less precise wording can leave enough ambiguity for a distributor to argue over which deductions are proper.
I recently won an award from a distributor that engaged in many of the typical tactics used to defraud filmmakers. Even though the distribution deal clearly prohibited the deduction of overhead, interest or legal fees, an audit revealed that the distributor had deducted those expenses. The distributor even tried to claim its own attorney fees for negotiating the initial distribution deal with the filmmaker, as well as payment to his lawyer contesting the filmmaker’s right to terminate the agreement. The filmmaker was clearly within his rights to terminate the agreement, after the distributor repeatedly failed to provide producer statements and payments due.
The distributor tried to write off wages paid to staff members from ranging from executives to interns, and also deducted charges for cell phone calls, meals and entertainment and even staff parking. Perhaps most outrageous, the distributor paid fees to one of its own top executives and attempted to hide this payment by making the payment to a company owned by the executive that had ostensibly provided marketing services for the film. Since producer statements are summaries lacking in detail, none of this misconduct was revealed until an audit was undertaken.
Distributors have attempted to hide their misconduct with missing or incomplete records. However, in cases where records essential to proving damages are in a distributor’s exclusive control, the courts have shifted the burden of proof to the distributor, to prove that their deductions are legitimate.
No doubt, there are numerous instances where producers or distributors have cooked the books to avoid paying back-end compensation to those entitled to it. Expenses incurred on one movie might be charged to another. Phony invoices can be used to document expenses that were never incurred. Some ruses are more subtle, and not readily apparent to the uninitiated.
Various court decisions have held that distributors have a duty to exercise good faith and fair dealing toward filmmakers. In Celador Int’l, Ltd. v. Disney Co., the court held that when a party has an interest in profits from a business, the person managing that business has to act in such a manner as to protect the interest of the profit participants. Celador created and executive produced a show entitled “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire,” which was highly successful in the United Kingdom. Celador later entered into an agreement with ABC and Buena Vista Television (both Disney subsidiaries) for a version of the Series to be produced for distribution in North America. Under the agreement negotiated by the parties, Celador was entitled to 50% profit participation. Celador alleged that Disney breached its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because Disney assigned production of the Series to Valleycrest Productions, Ltd. (“Valleycrest”), a subsidiary of Disney, rather than seeking competitive deals from third-party producers. According to Celador: “ABC agreed orally to license the Series for an ‘imputed per-episode license fee equal to Valleycrest’s per-episode production costs’.... As a result, the network exhibition of the Series could never reach profits after production costs, distribution fees, distribution costs, overhead, interest, etc. were deducted from any gross receipts.” Consequently, the Series never generated any profits for Celador while Disney benefited in the form of cost savings and increased profits to Disney affiliates. As a result of decisions like Celador, filmmakers often try to restrict the distributor from making deals with affiliated companies or sub-distributors, unless the filmmaker consents to such arrangements.
It is important to understand that the major studios determine profits for participants using their own special accounting rules as set forth in their net profit definitions. The accounting profession has generally agreed-upon rules called Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (Gaap). There are special guidelines for the motion picture industry called Financial Accounting Standards Bulletin 53 (Fasb 53). These rules provide, among other things, for the accrual method of accounting. Under this method, revenues are recognized when earned, and expenses are recognized when incurred. But distributors do not necessarily follow these rules. They may use Gaap and Fasb 53 when accounting to their shareholders, or reporting to their bankers, but they often resort to their own Alice in Wonderland-type rules when they calculate net profits for participants. They may recognize revenue only when it is actually received, while taking expenses when incurred. So if the distributor licenses a film to a television network, the distributor may not count the license fee as revenue until they actually receive it. Even when they receive a non-refundable advance, they might not count it as income until the time of the broadcast. Meanwhile, they count expenses immediately, even if they have not paid those expenses yet. This mismatching of revenues and expenses allows the distributor to delay payment to participants. It also allows distributors to charge producers interest for a longer time on the outstanding “loan” extended to a producer to make the film.
The Art Buchwald case illuminates some of the devices Paramount used to deny payment to net profit participants. Art Buchwald was a Pulitzer Prize winning author and syndicated columnist who alleged that Paramount Pictures stole his script idea and turned it into the 1988 movie "Coming to America." Although the movie generated more than $288 million in worldwide box office revenues, according to Paramount it had earned no net profit according to the profit definition in Buchwald's contract. The trial judge found many of Paramount’s accounting practices to be unconscionable and refused to enforce them. Paramount appealed, but the case was settled before the Court of Appeals could issue a definitive ruling on the issue.
If Buchwald had won the appeal, the precedent could have caused severe repercussions for all the major studios. That is because Paramount’s “net profit” definition was virtually identical to the definitions found throughout the industry. If Buchwald’s contract was invalid because it was unconscionable, then many other contracts could likewise be contested.
However, Buchwald could have lost the appeal. The trial judge in Buchwald used the doctrine of unconscionability to invalidate a contract that Buchwald was trying to enforce. Courts have traditionally embraced this doctrine only when it was used as a defense, or shield, against enforcement of an unfair contract, rather than as a sword to enforce the terms of a contract against another. Courts have typically relied on the doctrine to protect uneducated people who have been taken advantage of. If an unscrupulous door-to-door salesman sells a refrigerator for an exorbitant price to a poor, illiterate consumer on an installment plan using a boilerplate contract not open to negotiation, the judge might refuse to enforce the contract because it “shocks the conscience of the court.”
Buchwald, however, was hardly a poor, defenseless victim. He was an intelligent, wealthy, and acclaimed writer represented by the William Morris Agency. If a judge was willing to rewrite his contract because it was unfair, then why not rewrite thousands of other writer contracts? Indeed, why not rewrite any unfair contract? Where does one draw the line? If any contract can be contested simply because it is unfair, then how can anyone safely rely upon the terms of a contract? And how can one conduct business if you cannot be sure your contracts will be enforceable?
Under long-established precedent, courts refuse to invalidate contracts simply because they are unfair. Law students are taught the principle that even a peppercorn—something worth less than a penny—can be valid consideration. This means that if you are foolish enough to sign a contract to sell your $200 bike for a dime, do not expect a court to bail you out of a bad deal. Absent fraud, duress, or some other acceptable ground to invalidate a contract, courts do not second-guess the wisdom of what the parties agreed to.
While the trial judge in the Buchwald case thought the doctrine of unconscionability could be invoked to invalidate a net profit definition, it bears noting that another Los Angeles Superior Court came to a different conclusion. In reviewing the accounting practices of Warner Bros. in the "Batman" case, the judge found that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the studio’s net profits definition was unconscionable. The court noted that one of the plaintiffs who had negotiated the Warner Agreement was a former general counsel and senior executive of a major motion picture studio who “knew all the tricks of the trade,” and was knowledgeable about how these agreements worked.
Regardless of whether the Buchwald decision would have been upheld on appeal, the dispute has had an impact on the industry. The major studios have rewritten their contracts, replacing the phrase “net profits” with such terms as “net proceeds.” They want to avoid any implication that the back-end compensation promised participants has anything to do with the concept of profitability.
As a result of many highly publicized creative-accounting disputes, anyone who has clout insists on receiving either large up-front payments or a share of gross revenue. Distributors have consequently lost the ability to share risk with talent. Budgets have escalated to accommodate large up-front fees, with major stars now demanding $20 million per picture. Moreover, stars and directors have little incentive to minimize production expenses, since it doesn’t affect their earnings.
Not all complaints about creative accounting concern accounting errors. Many grievances reflect the inequality of the deal itself. The studio uses its leverage and superior bargaining position to pressure talent to agree to a bad deal. The distributor then accounts in accordance with the terms of the contract and can avoid paying out any revenue to participants because of how net profits are defined. The contract may be unfair, but the studio has lived up to its terms. It is only after the picture becomes a hit that the actor bothers to read the fine print of his employment agreement. This is not creative accounting. This is an example of a studio negotiating favorable terms for itself.
Keep in mind that there is no law requiring distributors to share their profits with anyone. Indeed, in most industries, workers do not share in their employer’s profits. Moreover, when a major studio releases a flop, losses are not shared; they are borne by the studio alone.
More on Mark Litwak:
Mark Litwak is a veteran entertainment attorney and producer’s rep based in Beverly Hills, California. He is an adjunct professor at USC Gould School of Law, and the creator of the Entertainment Law Resources website with lots of free information for filmmakers ( www.marklitwak.com). He is the author of six books including: Dealmaking in the Film and Television Industry, Contracts for the Film and Television Industry, and Risky Business: Financing and Distributing Independent Film. He can be reached at law2[At]marklitwak.com
Mark will be conducting an all-day seminar in New York City on April 24th, 2015 called "Self Defense for Writers and Filmmakers" with Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts...
- 4/14/2015
- by Mark Litwak
- Sydney's Buzz
Continuing to look outside the traditional TV development process, Fox Broadcasting Co. has inked a first-look deal with Burning Love producer Jonathan Stern and executive/producer Keith Quinn. Under the pact, Fox will have first-look rights to comedy projects developed by Stern and Quinn that are suitable for development on digital platforms, such as Hulu and Roku, with the eventual goal of becoming TV series on Fox, FX, Fxx or other networks. Additionally, Stern and Quinn will provide distribution and producing services (via Stern’s Abominable Pictures) for select projects that The Lonely Island develop under their deal with Fox. “Jon and Keith have a proven track record of making outrageous digital comedy series that have graduated to successful on-air shows,” said Kiliaen Van Rensselaer, Svp of Multi-Platform Programming for Fox. Stern and Quinn’s collaboration began when Stern pitched Burning Love to Quinn at Paramount – the series, executive-produced by Stern,...
- 5/20/2014
- by NELLIE ANDREEVA
- Deadline TV
Novice actors are generally thought to have very little power in Hollywood. Many wait tables and drive taxis while awaiting their big break. Even top stars usually have little control over their films, compared to producers, directors and the studios that finance and distribute them. However, all that may change as a result of a recent court decision.
In a case that may have far-reaching implications for the movie industry, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that an actress had established a likelihood of success in her claim of copyright infringement, on the basis she had an independent interest in a film by virtue of her performance in it, without signing any document granting rights to the producer.
Cindy Lee Garcia had agreed to perform a minor role in an independent film with the working title “Desert Warrior.” She thought she was playing a character in an Arabian adventure story and worked for three days and received $500 dollars for her performance. However, Garcia’s scene was never used in the film she thought she was appearing in. Instead a five-second clip was used in a controversial anti-Islamic 13-minute video trailer titled the “Innocence of Muslims.” Her performance was partially dubbed so that her character appeared to be asking, “Is your Mohammed a child molester?”
Not surprisingly this film caused outrage in the Muslim world, with protests and violence injuring hundreds and killing more than 50 persons. One Egyptian cleric issued a fatwa, calling for the killing of all those involved with the movie, and Garcia received numerous death threats. She was forced to take extensive security precautions when traveling and relocated her home and business as a precaution. This is the film that sparked international media attention when the Obama administration mentioned it as possible cause for the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
The case is precedent setting because it acknowledges that an actor can have a separate copyright interest in a film they are hired to perform in. Under this rationale, if a producer has not secured the rights to their actors’ performances, a single actor could conceivably halt distribution of a blockbuster film causing enormous losses to its owners.
Producers generally secure rights to their actor’s performance either on the basis of 1) the actor being an employee working within the scope of their employment; 2) with a written work for hire agreement; or 3) by having the actor sign an assignment of their rights. However, considering the exigencies of production, it is not unusual for the production to fail to sign up a few actors. The repercussions for failing to have signed legally binding agreements with every actor may be more profound than previously thought.
In this case, the actress contacted Google and attempted to have the film removed from YouTube. Google refused, because they did not think that she had any ownership interest in the film. After filing eight takedown notices under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to no avail, she brought suit. The trial court denied her request for an injunction to remove the film from YouTube. While she did not claim copyright ownership in the entire film, she did assert that her performance within the film was independently copyrightable and that she retained an interest in that copyright. That, she argued, should be enough to force Google to take down the film from the Internet.
Her performance was based on a script given her, so her creative contributions were only her body language, facial expression and reactions to other actors in the scene. Judge Kozinski, writing for the majority, found that “An actor’s performance, when fixed, is copyrightable if it evinces “some minimal degree of creativity . . . ‘no matter how crude, humble or obvious’ it might be.”[1] He explained, “That is true whether the actor speaks, is dubbed over or, like Buster Keaton, performs without any words at all.”
The court reasoned that an actor’s performance that’s part of a larger film, may itself constitute an independently copyrightable “work.” Admittedly, the actress did not write or have any ownership in the script or other scenes in the movie. The court noted that “Where, as here, an actor’s performance is based on a script, the performance is likewise derivative of the script, such that the actor might be considered to have infringed the screenwriter’s copyright. And an infringing derivative work isn’t entitled to copyright protection.” The court then reasoned that because the producers gave her the script they implicitly granted her a license to perform the screenplay. So while Garcia did not have any claim on the underlying script, and her contributions were minimal, they were likely sufficient for her to prevail and secure an injunction stopping distribution of the movie.
The case is also extraordinary for what it says about the status of actors as employees. It is generally thought within the industry that cast members should be characterized as employees of the production company. This is certainly the position that the IRS takes when it comes to penalizing producers who attempt to hire cast as independent contractors. California has cracked down on employers who mischaracterize employees. As of January 1, 2012, a new California law creates large penalties for employers who misclassify their workers as independent contractors. Labor Code Section 3357 creates a rebuttable presumption that a worker is an employee.
The key issue in determining whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor is the extent the employer controls the work of the employee. Actors have very little control over when, where and how they perform their roles. That is why the industry almost always pays them as employees. However, the Ninth Circuit found that because the actress was hired for a specific task, worked only three days and received no health or other traditional employment benefits, she was not an employee. This is contrary to other cases, which have found that actors should be classified as employees rather than independent contractors. Furthermore, if actors are not employees, then they may not be covered by worker’s compensation insurance and the producer can be liable for their workplace injuries.
While a producer can secure ownership of a performance with a work for hire contract, Garcia did not sign one, and she claims a purported agreement signed by her is a forgery. The court dismissed the argument that Garcia granted the producer an implied license to use her performance by performing in the film. Since Garcia was told she’d be acting in an adventure film set in ancient Arabia and that was not the case, the court concluded that the scope of any implied license was exceeded. “The film differs so radically from anything Garcia could have imagined when she was cast that it can’t possibly be authorized by any implied license she granted…” according to Judge Kozinski. In other words, because the producer misled Garcia as to the nature of the film, any consent was void. Under this rationale, producers who mislead cast members about a film could find themselves without any rights to their performance. Many day players and extras are never given the entire script to review when hired.
This single decision is remarkable by changing a number of basic principles on which the movie industry operates. It provides the basis for an actor to claim copyright ownership in his or her performance in a film that they did not write, direct or produce. It creates doubt as to whether cast members working for just a few days should be classified as employees rather than independent contractors. And it raises the specter that if a film is significantly changed by its producers, or if they don’t make full disclosure to an actor, they could end up without consent to use their footage absent a signed agreement. Moreover, while professionals in the movie industry make a concerted effort to secure signed releases from cast and crew, that is not the case with amateur filmmakers who upload millions of homemade videos onto the internet. This decision could provide the basis for anyone appearing in such a movie to demand that YouTube remove it if they don’t approve of their performance.
Judge N.R. Smith criticized the majority decision in his dissent pointing out “We have never held that an actress’s performance could be copyrightable.” The author of a work is the person who exercises creative control over the creation of a work and fixes it in a fixed tangible medium of expression. Garcia “was not the originator of ideas or concepts. She simply acted out others’ ideas or script. Her brief appearance in the film, even if a valuable contribution to the film, does not make her an author,“ he wrote. And Garcia did not record her performance into a tangible medium of expression, one of the criteria for copyright protection.
This is not the first case where a minor contributor to a film claimed copyright ownership in it. In Aalmuhammed v. Lee [ii], a consultant for the movie Malcolm X brought suit against Spike Lee and his production company, claiming to be a joint author. The consultant maintained that he reviewed and made revisions to the script, which were included in the film. The Ninth Circuit in a 2000 decision said, “[m]ost of the revisions . . . were to ensure the religious and historical accuracy and authenticity of scenes depicting Malcolm X’s religious conversion and pilgrimage to Mecca.” Although the consultant claimed he had directed Denzel Washington and other actors, created two new scenes, supplied his own voice for voice-overs and edited parts of the movie, the court concluded that in order for a joint work to exist, each author must make an independently copyrightable contribution. And while this consultant provided valuable input for the film, the court held that was not copyrightable.
The Supreme Court as far back as 1884[iii] held that a photographer who took a picture of Oscar Wilde was its author for copyright purposes. The person who controls the creation of a work is deemed its author, not the subject who poses for a picture. In another case a person who closely supervised the filming of a movie was deemed the author of the movie, not the person who actually photographed it. The author had created storyboards for a film documenting the underwater wreck of the Titanic, identified specific camera angles and shooting sequences, and directed the underwater filming from a ship on the surface. [iv] So the person who exercises creative control over a work has been considered its author, not those employed to fulfill his vision.
Although Google has taken down the film, it has filed an emergency motion to stay the decision pending a rehearing before a larger panel at the 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals. Google argues that “Under the panel’s rule, minor players in everything from Hollywood films to home videos can wrest control of those works from their creators, and service providers like YouTube will lack the ability to determine who has a valid copyright claim.”
This is that rare decision which unites Internet companies, movie studios and First Amendment advocates in opposition.
About Mark Litwak: Mark Litwak is a veteran entertainment attorney and producer’s rep based in Beverly Hills, California. He is the author of six books including: Dealmaking in the Film and Television Industry, Contracts for the Film and Television Industry, and Risky Business: Financing and Distributing Independent Film. He is an adjunct professor at USC Gould School of Law, and the creator of the Entertainment Law Resources with lots of free information for filmmakers ( www.marklitwak.com). He can be reached at law2@marklitwak.com
[1] Citing Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 345 (1991) (quoting 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 1.08[C][1]).
See, e.g. Durae v. Industrial Acc. Commission (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 691 (stuntman was an employee); Johnson v. Berkofsky-Barret Productions, Inc., 211 Cal.App;3d at 1067 (actor was an employee).
[ii] Aalmuhammed v. Lee, 202 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 2000).
[iii] Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 61 (1884)
[iv] Lindsay V. R.M.S. Titanic, Et A, 1999, Copr.L.Dec. P 27, 96752 U.S.P.Q.2d 1609...
In a case that may have far-reaching implications for the movie industry, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that an actress had established a likelihood of success in her claim of copyright infringement, on the basis she had an independent interest in a film by virtue of her performance in it, without signing any document granting rights to the producer.
Cindy Lee Garcia had agreed to perform a minor role in an independent film with the working title “Desert Warrior.” She thought she was playing a character in an Arabian adventure story and worked for three days and received $500 dollars for her performance. However, Garcia’s scene was never used in the film she thought she was appearing in. Instead a five-second clip was used in a controversial anti-Islamic 13-minute video trailer titled the “Innocence of Muslims.” Her performance was partially dubbed so that her character appeared to be asking, “Is your Mohammed a child molester?”
Not surprisingly this film caused outrage in the Muslim world, with protests and violence injuring hundreds and killing more than 50 persons. One Egyptian cleric issued a fatwa, calling for the killing of all those involved with the movie, and Garcia received numerous death threats. She was forced to take extensive security precautions when traveling and relocated her home and business as a precaution. This is the film that sparked international media attention when the Obama administration mentioned it as possible cause for the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
The case is precedent setting because it acknowledges that an actor can have a separate copyright interest in a film they are hired to perform in. Under this rationale, if a producer has not secured the rights to their actors’ performances, a single actor could conceivably halt distribution of a blockbuster film causing enormous losses to its owners.
Producers generally secure rights to their actor’s performance either on the basis of 1) the actor being an employee working within the scope of their employment; 2) with a written work for hire agreement; or 3) by having the actor sign an assignment of their rights. However, considering the exigencies of production, it is not unusual for the production to fail to sign up a few actors. The repercussions for failing to have signed legally binding agreements with every actor may be more profound than previously thought.
In this case, the actress contacted Google and attempted to have the film removed from YouTube. Google refused, because they did not think that she had any ownership interest in the film. After filing eight takedown notices under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to no avail, she brought suit. The trial court denied her request for an injunction to remove the film from YouTube. While she did not claim copyright ownership in the entire film, she did assert that her performance within the film was independently copyrightable and that she retained an interest in that copyright. That, she argued, should be enough to force Google to take down the film from the Internet.
Her performance was based on a script given her, so her creative contributions were only her body language, facial expression and reactions to other actors in the scene. Judge Kozinski, writing for the majority, found that “An actor’s performance, when fixed, is copyrightable if it evinces “some minimal degree of creativity . . . ‘no matter how crude, humble or obvious’ it might be.”[1] He explained, “That is true whether the actor speaks, is dubbed over or, like Buster Keaton, performs without any words at all.”
The court reasoned that an actor’s performance that’s part of a larger film, may itself constitute an independently copyrightable “work.” Admittedly, the actress did not write or have any ownership in the script or other scenes in the movie. The court noted that “Where, as here, an actor’s performance is based on a script, the performance is likewise derivative of the script, such that the actor might be considered to have infringed the screenwriter’s copyright. And an infringing derivative work isn’t entitled to copyright protection.” The court then reasoned that because the producers gave her the script they implicitly granted her a license to perform the screenplay. So while Garcia did not have any claim on the underlying script, and her contributions were minimal, they were likely sufficient for her to prevail and secure an injunction stopping distribution of the movie.
The case is also extraordinary for what it says about the status of actors as employees. It is generally thought within the industry that cast members should be characterized as employees of the production company. This is certainly the position that the IRS takes when it comes to penalizing producers who attempt to hire cast as independent contractors. California has cracked down on employers who mischaracterize employees. As of January 1, 2012, a new California law creates large penalties for employers who misclassify their workers as independent contractors. Labor Code Section 3357 creates a rebuttable presumption that a worker is an employee.
The key issue in determining whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor is the extent the employer controls the work of the employee. Actors have very little control over when, where and how they perform their roles. That is why the industry almost always pays them as employees. However, the Ninth Circuit found that because the actress was hired for a specific task, worked only three days and received no health or other traditional employment benefits, she was not an employee. This is contrary to other cases, which have found that actors should be classified as employees rather than independent contractors. Furthermore, if actors are not employees, then they may not be covered by worker’s compensation insurance and the producer can be liable for their workplace injuries.
While a producer can secure ownership of a performance with a work for hire contract, Garcia did not sign one, and she claims a purported agreement signed by her is a forgery. The court dismissed the argument that Garcia granted the producer an implied license to use her performance by performing in the film. Since Garcia was told she’d be acting in an adventure film set in ancient Arabia and that was not the case, the court concluded that the scope of any implied license was exceeded. “The film differs so radically from anything Garcia could have imagined when she was cast that it can’t possibly be authorized by any implied license she granted…” according to Judge Kozinski. In other words, because the producer misled Garcia as to the nature of the film, any consent was void. Under this rationale, producers who mislead cast members about a film could find themselves without any rights to their performance. Many day players and extras are never given the entire script to review when hired.
This single decision is remarkable by changing a number of basic principles on which the movie industry operates. It provides the basis for an actor to claim copyright ownership in his or her performance in a film that they did not write, direct or produce. It creates doubt as to whether cast members working for just a few days should be classified as employees rather than independent contractors. And it raises the specter that if a film is significantly changed by its producers, or if they don’t make full disclosure to an actor, they could end up without consent to use their footage absent a signed agreement. Moreover, while professionals in the movie industry make a concerted effort to secure signed releases from cast and crew, that is not the case with amateur filmmakers who upload millions of homemade videos onto the internet. This decision could provide the basis for anyone appearing in such a movie to demand that YouTube remove it if they don’t approve of their performance.
Judge N.R. Smith criticized the majority decision in his dissent pointing out “We have never held that an actress’s performance could be copyrightable.” The author of a work is the person who exercises creative control over the creation of a work and fixes it in a fixed tangible medium of expression. Garcia “was not the originator of ideas or concepts. She simply acted out others’ ideas or script. Her brief appearance in the film, even if a valuable contribution to the film, does not make her an author,“ he wrote. And Garcia did not record her performance into a tangible medium of expression, one of the criteria for copyright protection.
This is not the first case where a minor contributor to a film claimed copyright ownership in it. In Aalmuhammed v. Lee [ii], a consultant for the movie Malcolm X brought suit against Spike Lee and his production company, claiming to be a joint author. The consultant maintained that he reviewed and made revisions to the script, which were included in the film. The Ninth Circuit in a 2000 decision said, “[m]ost of the revisions . . . were to ensure the religious and historical accuracy and authenticity of scenes depicting Malcolm X’s religious conversion and pilgrimage to Mecca.” Although the consultant claimed he had directed Denzel Washington and other actors, created two new scenes, supplied his own voice for voice-overs and edited parts of the movie, the court concluded that in order for a joint work to exist, each author must make an independently copyrightable contribution. And while this consultant provided valuable input for the film, the court held that was not copyrightable.
The Supreme Court as far back as 1884[iii] held that a photographer who took a picture of Oscar Wilde was its author for copyright purposes. The person who controls the creation of a work is deemed its author, not the subject who poses for a picture. In another case a person who closely supervised the filming of a movie was deemed the author of the movie, not the person who actually photographed it. The author had created storyboards for a film documenting the underwater wreck of the Titanic, identified specific camera angles and shooting sequences, and directed the underwater filming from a ship on the surface. [iv] So the person who exercises creative control over a work has been considered its author, not those employed to fulfill his vision.
Although Google has taken down the film, it has filed an emergency motion to stay the decision pending a rehearing before a larger panel at the 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals. Google argues that “Under the panel’s rule, minor players in everything from Hollywood films to home videos can wrest control of those works from their creators, and service providers like YouTube will lack the ability to determine who has a valid copyright claim.”
This is that rare decision which unites Internet companies, movie studios and First Amendment advocates in opposition.
About Mark Litwak: Mark Litwak is a veteran entertainment attorney and producer’s rep based in Beverly Hills, California. He is the author of six books including: Dealmaking in the Film and Television Industry, Contracts for the Film and Television Industry, and Risky Business: Financing and Distributing Independent Film. He is an adjunct professor at USC Gould School of Law, and the creator of the Entertainment Law Resources with lots of free information for filmmakers ( www.marklitwak.com). He can be reached at law2@marklitwak.com
[1] Citing Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 345 (1991) (quoting 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 1.08[C][1]).
See, e.g. Durae v. Industrial Acc. Commission (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 691 (stuntman was an employee); Johnson v. Berkofsky-Barret Productions, Inc., 211 Cal.App;3d at 1067 (actor was an employee).
[ii] Aalmuhammed v. Lee, 202 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 2000).
[iii] Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 61 (1884)
[iv] Lindsay V. R.M.S. Titanic, Et A, 1999, Copr.L.Dec. P 27, 96752 U.S.P.Q.2d 1609...
- 3/5/2014
- by Mark Litwak
- Sydney's Buzz
Area 23a announced on Monday [5] that Dislecksia: The Movie will open theatrically in cities across the Us in October.
Dyslectic director Harvey Hubbell V [pictured] put together a team of neuroscientists, educators, celebrities and business leaders with dyslexia to talk about the disease.
“After many years of being painfully misunderstood during my schooling, I knew I had to make a film to create the greatest awareness for dyslexia for the countless individuals of all ages that are unnecessarily struggling to thrive and be understood,” said Hubbell.
Mark Litwak negotiated the deal on behalf of Captured Time Productions, with Paul Cohen consulting on the acquisition and marketing.
Dyslectic director Harvey Hubbell V [pictured] put together a team of neuroscientists, educators, celebrities and business leaders with dyslexia to talk about the disease.
“After many years of being painfully misunderstood during my schooling, I knew I had to make a film to create the greatest awareness for dyslexia for the countless individuals of all ages that are unnecessarily struggling to thrive and be understood,” said Hubbell.
Mark Litwak negotiated the deal on behalf of Captured Time Productions, with Paul Cohen consulting on the acquisition and marketing.
- 8/5/2013
- ScreenDaily
When it comes to film distribution, "Domestic" is usually defined as the U.S. and Canada, as well as their possessions, territories, commonwealths, protectorates and trusteeships. For the U.S., these include the U.S. Virgin Islands, Saipan American Samoa, Guam, Wake Island and Puerto Rico.
However, many domestic deals also encompass the Bahamas, Bermuda, Saba Island, St. Eustatius Island, St.Kitts Island and St. Maarten Island. These are not affiliated with either the U.S. or Canada. So why are they considered part of the Domestic territory? Simply because certain television channels have satellite footprints that cover these areas, and buyers demand these rights be included.
Producers need to be careful in defining the scope of territories granted to distributors. It is customary for independent producers to enter into separate foreign and domestic deals. If the filmmaker assigns Bermuda to an international distributor, that could prevent their domestic distributor from making a lucrative deal with HBO. Indeed, it may deter a domestic distributor from acquiring the title. Thus, to maximize revenues a producer has to make sure they don't sacrifice a beneficial deal because they thoughtlessly assigned away rights to a small territory.
The term "distributor" is so broad that it encompasses many different types of companies. The major studios such as Paramount and Sony typically distribute pictures directly to theaters, license them to television channels like Showtime, and manufacture their own packaged media (i.e., DVDs) for sale to mass merchants and video rental outlets. Major studios may also distribute their pictures in selected foreign territories and contract with local distributors elsewhere.
Smaller independent distributors exploit movies in a variety of different ways. Some book films into theaters and then assign television and home video rights to third parties. Others are basically home video labels that manufacture and market DVDs. Some of these companies license directly to television while others use intermediaries. However, a home video label may decide to build awareness by releasing a film in theaters, which may require the assistance of a third party. Filmmakers pursuing this type of release may have difficulty determining what kind of distributor they are dealing with.
Filmmakers pursuing this type of release may have difficulty determining what kind of distributor they are dealing with.
Theatrical releases help the distributor persuade filmmakers to make a deal even if it is unprofitable by itself. If a smaller distributor attempts to theatrically release an indie film, they face stiff competition from the majors. Major distributors can demand the best theaters and dates because they have a steady flow of desirable movies; independents are left to choose from the leftovers.
Some home video companies even deal directly with mass merchants like Wal-Mart,while the others have to go through intermediaries like Anderson Merchandisers, that ship and pack product from numerous companies for delivery to mass merchants.
The point is that distributors operate differently and filmmakers need to do their homework before making commitments. If multiple companies in the chain of distribution deduct significant fees and expenses, the revenue stream that goes to the filmmaker/investors can slow to a trickle. So when a distributor says they distribute to theatrical, home video and television media, you should ask: "O.K. Exactly how you do that? What intermediary companies do you use, and what kind of fees and expenses do they deduct?"
One type of home video deal is known as a sub-label deal. Here two companies split the responsibilities for acquiring, marketing and distributing titles. Typically one company, such as Lionsgate, handles the physical distribution of titles and collection of revenue. The other company, the sub-label, is responsible for acquiring titles and creating the key art and marketing materials. The two share revenue.
There is nothing inherently wrong with a sub-label deal if the filmmaker understands how distribution fees are collected, expenses are recouped, and the amounts are reasonable. However, in many of these deals the filmmaker thinks they are sharing in the wholesale price remitted by buyers like Blockbuster or Wal-Mart. The filmmaker is unaware that he or she is really receiving just a share of what is remitted to the sub-label from the parent company.
In these deals, "Gross Receipts" has been defined and calculated on the revenue received by the sub-label after the parent company has deducted its fees and expenses. The cumulative effect may be that little or no revenue flows down to the filmmaker. The filmmaker thinks he or she is receiving 25 percent of the wholesale price of each DVD sold, when actually he or she receiving 25 percent of the funds remitted to the sub-label. A well-drawn contract will carefully define "Gross Receipts" as the wholesale price which is the amount remitted from the home video buyers, and not the amount remitted to the sub-label. Filmmakers need to ask specific questions when selecting a distributor in order to avoid unpleasant surprises.
These days, almost all distributors try to acquire so-called ancillary and new media rights so they can license movies to such companies as iTunes, Netflix, Hulu and Amazon. Many of these new media buyers don't like to acquire individual titles and prefer to deal with aggregators who can license them bunches of films at a time.
About Mark Litwak: Mark Litwak is a veteran entertainment attorney and Producer’s Rep based in Beverly Hills, California. He is the author of six books including: Reel Power: The Struggle for Influence and Success in the New Hollywood, Dealmaking in the Film and Television Industry, Contracts for the Film and Television Industry, and Risky Business: Financing and Distributing Independent Film. He is the author of the CD-rom program Movie Magic Contracts, and the creator of the Entertainment Law Resources website at www.marklitwak.com. He can be reached at law2@marklitwak.com...
However, many domestic deals also encompass the Bahamas, Bermuda, Saba Island, St. Eustatius Island, St.Kitts Island and St. Maarten Island. These are not affiliated with either the U.S. or Canada. So why are they considered part of the Domestic territory? Simply because certain television channels have satellite footprints that cover these areas, and buyers demand these rights be included.
Producers need to be careful in defining the scope of territories granted to distributors. It is customary for independent producers to enter into separate foreign and domestic deals. If the filmmaker assigns Bermuda to an international distributor, that could prevent their domestic distributor from making a lucrative deal with HBO. Indeed, it may deter a domestic distributor from acquiring the title. Thus, to maximize revenues a producer has to make sure they don't sacrifice a beneficial deal because they thoughtlessly assigned away rights to a small territory.
The term "distributor" is so broad that it encompasses many different types of companies. The major studios such as Paramount and Sony typically distribute pictures directly to theaters, license them to television channels like Showtime, and manufacture their own packaged media (i.e., DVDs) for sale to mass merchants and video rental outlets. Major studios may also distribute their pictures in selected foreign territories and contract with local distributors elsewhere.
Smaller independent distributors exploit movies in a variety of different ways. Some book films into theaters and then assign television and home video rights to third parties. Others are basically home video labels that manufacture and market DVDs. Some of these companies license directly to television while others use intermediaries. However, a home video label may decide to build awareness by releasing a film in theaters, which may require the assistance of a third party. Filmmakers pursuing this type of release may have difficulty determining what kind of distributor they are dealing with.
Filmmakers pursuing this type of release may have difficulty determining what kind of distributor they are dealing with.
Theatrical releases help the distributor persuade filmmakers to make a deal even if it is unprofitable by itself. If a smaller distributor attempts to theatrically release an indie film, they face stiff competition from the majors. Major distributors can demand the best theaters and dates because they have a steady flow of desirable movies; independents are left to choose from the leftovers.
Some home video companies even deal directly with mass merchants like Wal-Mart,while the others have to go through intermediaries like Anderson Merchandisers, that ship and pack product from numerous companies for delivery to mass merchants.
The point is that distributors operate differently and filmmakers need to do their homework before making commitments. If multiple companies in the chain of distribution deduct significant fees and expenses, the revenue stream that goes to the filmmaker/investors can slow to a trickle. So when a distributor says they distribute to theatrical, home video and television media, you should ask: "O.K. Exactly how you do that? What intermediary companies do you use, and what kind of fees and expenses do they deduct?"
One type of home video deal is known as a sub-label deal. Here two companies split the responsibilities for acquiring, marketing and distributing titles. Typically one company, such as Lionsgate, handles the physical distribution of titles and collection of revenue. The other company, the sub-label, is responsible for acquiring titles and creating the key art and marketing materials. The two share revenue.
There is nothing inherently wrong with a sub-label deal if the filmmaker understands how distribution fees are collected, expenses are recouped, and the amounts are reasonable. However, in many of these deals the filmmaker thinks they are sharing in the wholesale price remitted by buyers like Blockbuster or Wal-Mart. The filmmaker is unaware that he or she is really receiving just a share of what is remitted to the sub-label from the parent company.
In these deals, "Gross Receipts" has been defined and calculated on the revenue received by the sub-label after the parent company has deducted its fees and expenses. The cumulative effect may be that little or no revenue flows down to the filmmaker. The filmmaker thinks he or she is receiving 25 percent of the wholesale price of each DVD sold, when actually he or she receiving 25 percent of the funds remitted to the sub-label. A well-drawn contract will carefully define "Gross Receipts" as the wholesale price which is the amount remitted from the home video buyers, and not the amount remitted to the sub-label. Filmmakers need to ask specific questions when selecting a distributor in order to avoid unpleasant surprises.
These days, almost all distributors try to acquire so-called ancillary and new media rights so they can license movies to such companies as iTunes, Netflix, Hulu and Amazon. Many of these new media buyers don't like to acquire individual titles and prefer to deal with aggregators who can license them bunches of films at a time.
About Mark Litwak: Mark Litwak is a veteran entertainment attorney and Producer’s Rep based in Beverly Hills, California. He is the author of six books including: Reel Power: The Struggle for Influence and Success in the New Hollywood, Dealmaking in the Film and Television Industry, Contracts for the Film and Television Industry, and Risky Business: Financing and Distributing Independent Film. He is the author of the CD-rom program Movie Magic Contracts, and the creator of the Entertainment Law Resources website at www.marklitwak.com. He can be reached at law2@marklitwak.com...
- 12/10/2012
- by Mark Litwak
- Sydney's Buzz
Media Current is a monthly heads-up tracking developments effecting the indie film scene. It’s a big — and forever getting bigger – world out there, so readers are encouraged to e-mail me stories I’ve missed or something you believe is important for others in the indie community. I can be reached at drosennyc@verizon.net.
The Ifp’s Independent Film Week 2011
The Ifp market, established in 1979, was rebranded several years ago and was held this year at Lincoln Center’s Elinor Bunin Munroe Film Center. It drew a diverse, friendly crowd ranging from seasoned professionals long battling in the indie vineyard to newbies just out of film school struggling to make their first feature.
Ann Rose, formerly Ep original programming at the Sundance Channel, and I offer two heads-ups on the changing status of docs and new distribution options.
Grateful for Small Favors
Living in a metro-market, one can take...
The Ifp’s Independent Film Week 2011
The Ifp market, established in 1979, was rebranded several years ago and was held this year at Lincoln Center’s Elinor Bunin Munroe Film Center. It drew a diverse, friendly crowd ranging from seasoned professionals long battling in the indie vineyard to newbies just out of film school struggling to make their first feature.
Ann Rose, formerly Ep original programming at the Sundance Channel, and I offer two heads-ups on the changing status of docs and new distribution options.
Grateful for Small Favors
Living in a metro-market, one can take...
- 10/7/2011
- by David Rosen
- Filmmaker Magazine - Blog
Mark Litwak has great excerpt from his book Risky Business on his Entertainment Law Newsletter today dealing with default by distributors. He begins: Many years ago I represented a filmmaker who entered into an agreement with a small home-video distributor. The company had a decent reputation, and since there were no other offers for this $80,000 movie, a deal was struck. The filmmaker was promised a $40,000 advance for U.S. home video rights. The advance was payable in four installments over the course of a year. After the second installment was received, the distributor was acquired. The new owners stopped making payments to my client. There was no question that the company owed another $20,000, and that my client had fulfilled all of...
- 7/7/2010
- by Scott Macaulay
- Filmmaker Magazine - Blog
NEW YORK -- Odd Lot Entertainment's lot is getting a lot more crowded.
The Los Angeles-based production outfit has hired Keith Kauffman as senior vp business and legal affairs, Andrew Boyd as director of marketing and publicity, Yvette Pereira as manager of accounting and Shirley Kim as manager of international business affairs.
The company is promoting several from the inside as well. Natalya Petrosova has been bumped from vp to senior vp finance, and Chris Ranta has moved from an assistant position to manager of physical production. Odd Lot Entertainment vp development and acquisitions Eryl Woodlief will add on similar duties at the company's foreign sales division, Odd Lot International. Boyd will also handle marketing and publicity for the foreign arm.
Kauffman's last position was vp business and legal affairs at First Look Studios. Pereira served as a revenue accountant at Fidelity Investments. Boyd was director of International Marking at Mandate Pictures. Kim was a legal assistant at Mark Litwak & Associates.
The Los Angeles-based production outfit has hired Keith Kauffman as senior vp business and legal affairs, Andrew Boyd as director of marketing and publicity, Yvette Pereira as manager of accounting and Shirley Kim as manager of international business affairs.
The company is promoting several from the inside as well. Natalya Petrosova has been bumped from vp to senior vp finance, and Chris Ranta has moved from an assistant position to manager of physical production. Odd Lot Entertainment vp development and acquisitions Eryl Woodlief will add on similar duties at the company's foreign sales division, Odd Lot International. Boyd will also handle marketing and publicity for the foreign arm.
Kauffman's last position was vp business and legal affairs at First Look Studios. Pereira served as a revenue accountant at Fidelity Investments. Boyd was director of International Marking at Mandate Pictures. Kim was a legal assistant at Mark Litwak & Associates.
Devon Sawa, Matthew Lawrence and Sanoe Lake have signed on to star in the horror/sci-fi indie Hunter's Moon for Stouffer Entertainment. The story centers on a man (Sawa) who dreams that he and friends will die at the hands of a brutal, otherworldly creature. Fernanda Romero, Dan White, Siena Goines, Kevin Alejandro, Jennifer Howie and Ryan Judd round out the cast. Mark Stouffer is writer, director and producer of the film, which is executive produced by Mark Litwak and Jay Sedrish. Wendy Winks is co-producing.
- 9/16/2005
- The Hollywood Reporter - Movie News
Indican Pictures has acquired North American rights to Screen Door Jesus, written and directed by first-time director Kirk Davis. Set in a small East Texas town, the film centers on the events surrounding the appearance of an image of Jesus on a screen door. It stars Anjannette Comer, Buck Taylor, Myk Watford and Scarlett McAllister and features a score and songs by Back Porch Mary. Produced in 2003, the film has played the South by Southwest Film Festival and the Hamptons International Film Festival. The deal was brokered at the Cannes film market by producer's rep Mark Litwak and producer Sam Adelman on behalf of the film and Randolph Kret on behalf of Indican.
- 5/31/2005
- The Hollywood Reporter - Movie News
IMDb.com, Inc. takes no responsibility for the content or accuracy of the above news articles, Tweets, or blog posts. This content is published for the entertainment of our users only. The news articles, Tweets, and blog posts do not represent IMDb's opinions nor can we guarantee that the reporting therein is completely factual. Please visit the source responsible for the item in question to report any concerns you may have regarding content or accuracy.