Expert Opinions From Expert Lawyers

Review One: “Trademark and Copyright Law Podcasts” from Lexis Nexis with Walter Palmer and Christina Pinheiro Palmer of the Pinheiro Palmer Advogados law firm in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil - http://www.pinheiro-palmer.adv.br/

The best advice that can be derived from these podcasts, which are a legal update and recap about the new trademark, copyright, and patent laws effecting Brazil in 2010, and the changes being made to the PTO, is that you absolutely must be familiar with foreign law. Working in the film industry, if you plan on shooting in a country that is not the United States (I am saying this a current citizen and using it as a general basis since I am familiar with U.S. law) then you absolutely must look into the different laws affecting the area that you want to travel to. This also extends to the reaches of trademarks and copyrights.

This also leads to being careful about specific cities you are filming in and special events occurring around the area. It was mentioned in the podcast that as soon as the 2016 Olympics were announced that a law preventing ambush marketing went into effect in Rio de Janeiro. This law gives the federal government control to protect signs, flags, emblems, anthems, etc. and all international things relating to the 2016 Olympic and Paralympic games. It even protects the phrase itself. So you have to be very careful that you are not getting in the way of short-term, specialized laws such as these.

This is also true for areas where you should not film. Be mindful of sacred cultural and religious areas, landmarks, ceremonies, and the like. There are many areas around the world where it may be illegal or frowned upon to be filming or trespassing in the area. Always be sure you know the customs and laws of the country and city where you are going to be heading!

http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/downloadandsupportcenter/media/p/51.aspx

Review Two: “The Surefire Way to End Online Piracy: End Copyright” from Legal Talk Network with Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington D.C. - http://www.cepr.net/index.php/biographies/dean-baker/

Mister Baker had a lot of interesting things to say about the concept of how copyright should be done away with. He commented with how the way the entertainment industry works now, and with how vast and accommodating the Internet is, that it seems pointless to have copyright around still today. He concurred that goods should be sold at their marginal value, and with the Internet, that currently makes their value zero. Therefore it only makes sense to put things up for free for consumers. Artists should be compensated for their work, but they will find other ways to make money, such as concerts, etc.

He brought up a good point that has been on the minds of the younger generations: why pay for it if you don’t have to? Baker contends that people will spend money on things like music and movies, but if it’s available for free, honestly what is the point?

This is a huge issue for emerging generations coming into the entertainment industry and something a lot of people have to think about. How can movie companies make money if not for ticket and DVD sales? Future generations will have to learn to adapt and get creative because it’s very obvious that the climate of the industry has changed, people do not make money the same way, and it will not be turning back.

http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/suffolk-law/2012/01/the-surefire-way-to-end-online-piracy-end-copyright/

Review Three:  “Entertainment Law & the Challenges of Celebrity” from Legal Talk Network with Gordon Firemark, an independent entertainment lawyer in Los Angeles, California - http://firemark.com/

This was a very interesting take on the demands of being an entertainment lawyer and some of the common subjects that come up. The biggest issues, Mr. Firemark said, were defamation and individual privacy, especially with things like reality TV, documentary style movies, and podcasts being increasingly popular. Even if you are not making profit off of something the basic laws of entertainment apply, and the words “fair use” are far more stretched thin and narrow than most people would like to believe.

If you’re going to be filming something, especially in public, and especially with other people, and you plan on doing anything with it aside from showing your friends and family, there is always the chance that you will run into legal matters. Even if you are doing a film review that you put online, the production company can cite copyright infringement and even defamation or slander depending on the nature of what you have to say.

He also cautioned about working with “troubled actors” which is a very relevant and hot-button issue with celebrities like Lindsay Lohan and Charlie Sheen who we can’t seem to get enough of as we watch them spiral more and more out of control. There is always a large money factor with being able to work with an actor with a reputation such as this. But Firemark warned that you have to remember that they have the reputation for a reason. Productions can lose a lot of money with working with an actor who is in constant trouble and may even have to halt production. Be mindful of who you are working with and the risks you are taking.

http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2010/10/entertainment-law-the-challenges-of-celebrity/

Three Little Entertainment Legal Cases

Michael Phelps could lose Olympic medals.

Record setting Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps is in danger of a hefty fine or even being stripped of his gold medals for the promotional photos that leaked on the Internet during the Olympic games that showed him posing for the new Louis Vuitton campaign. The ads violate the International Olympic Committee’s Rule 40, which states that athletes cannot be seen promoting any sponsor other than the Olympics during the games period. This year that period ranged from July 18^th through August 15^th. Had the new ads not premiered until their original, intended date of August 16^th there would be no controversy, but unfortunately that was not the case.

The penitently for this, in accordance with IOC regulations, states that "a competitor or a team may lose the benefit of any ranking obtained in relation to other events at the Olympic Games at which he or it was disqualified or excluded; in such case the medals and diplomas won by him or it shall be returned to the IOC" (Chase, 2012.)

My thoughts: The most reasonable answer to this dilemma would be a fine. Since neither Phelps and his representatives, nor the Louis Vuitton office released the photos – there was no word from famed photographer Annie Leibovitz who snapped the pictures – a stripping of medals seems like an excessive punishment. While it is in direct violation of the contract Phelps entered into when the Olympics began, and a punishment does have to be handed down, since it was not something Phelps did intentionally and maliciously against the Olympics, a fine seems like the best sentence to be handed down to him. It’s a good reminder than no matter how successful ones gets, if a contract or implied contract goes into effect, it must be adhered to until the period where the contract becomes void.

Outside Source: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/olympics-fourth-place-medal/michael-phelps-could-trouble-louis-vuitton-photos-141804124--oly.html

Modern Family child actors renegotiate their contracts.

The recent renegotiation of the adult cast members of the popular comedy Modern Family resulted in a boycotted table read of the fourth season scripts, suing 20^th Century Fox, and threatened to push back recording new episodes. This was not the case with its younger cast members though their salary discussions came just a day after the decisions for their older co-workers became final. The adult cast, with exception of veteran actor Ed O’Neill who already got paid a higher salary and renegotiated separately, went from making an estimated $65,000 per episode to a staggering $175,000 per episode. This excludes any bonuses or stipends that they were originally demanding per episode ($50,000) as well.

The children banded together much in the same way the adult members did when they went in to renegotiate, with their eyes on a prospective $70,000 per episode, which they were granted. Much like O’Neill though, the oldest of the “child actors” Sarah Hyland, who is actually 21, negotiated separately as she was already paid higher than the rest of the young cast members. The youngest member, 5-year-old Aubrey Anderson-Emmons was denied any renegotiation since she has only been with the show for one season.

My thoughts: The entire process of attempting to be paid more money for the show became grossly blown out of proportion for this cast. They already had a very sizeable payday, and because of the action of actually suing for more money, many loyal fans of the show are now looking at the actors in a different light. In the end the move could prove to be more detrimental to the show than being paid more was beneficial for the actors because it could mean less ratings from a disappointed public who feels they handled themselves poorly. Contract renegotiations are a standard part of any television program that runs for several seasons, especially ones as popular as Modern Family has become. But with such a steep pay increase being demanded, the actors came out looking greedy and demanding in the end.

Outside Sources: http://tv.yahoo.com/news/modern-family-kids-now-seeking-raises-003500158.html & http://tv.yahoo.com/news/modern-family-kids-pay-raises-season-4-003100555.html

Amanda Bynes in continuous distress.

Continuous legal troubles seem to be standard when it comes to the young, Hollywood elite, especially when they’ve been in the industry as long as Amanda Bynes has. However, she never seemed to be the type to stir up trouble until this past year when, after her young retirement, she seemed to start down a slippery slope that has included several DUI’s, hit and runs, and other car accident allegations. She has even been arrested at least once for her recent woes. Yet that is about the extent of the trouble. Her biggest issue just seems to be that she keeps getting in trouble as opposed to having to pay any substantial fines or other punishment.

My thoughts: Whenever celebrities get into consistent trouble like this in such a short period of time (think Charlie Sheen, Lindsay Lohan) nothing ever seems to be done about it. Maintaining public image is very important when you’re a celebrity and showing that you have integrity and ability to follow and uphold the law falls into that category. Few celebrities ever seem to go to jail or really face any harsh punishment for the crimes that they commit. While it is not jail-worthy if you rear-end someone, repeated traffic and DUI violations should warrant more than a slap on the wrist for someone who is looked to so often. The law should fall on everyone equally, and when you’re in the public eye so much, you have an obligation to show that you won’t try to slip under the radar if there is ever a situation, which you need to pay the price for.

Outside Sources: http://tv.yahoo.com/news/amanda-bynes-in-another-car-accident.html & http://omg.yahoo.com/blogs/aline/amanda-bynes-gets-strange-makeover-202418391.html