John Tormey III, New York Entertainment Lawyer

New York Entertainment Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq. John J. Tormey III, PLLC: My name is John J. Tormey III. This is my blog. I am a New York lawyer, also admitted to practice in California and the District of Columbia. My focus is on entertainment, art, media, copyright, trademark, limited liability company law, and music A and R (Artist and Repertoire) matters. I formerly served as Counsel to The Walt Disney Company, and Senior Counsel and Senior Litigation Counsel to Miramax Films.

Showing posts with label New York. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Independent Contractors vs. Employees - Part II: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And Employment Attorney John J. Tormey III, Esq.

http://www.tormey.org/contractors2.htm

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq. – Entertainment Lawyer, Entertainment Attorney

John J. Tormey III, PLLC
1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188
New York, NY 10128

USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)
(212) 410-2380 (fax)
brightline@att.net
http://www.tormey.org

Independent Contractors vs. Employees - Part II: Written By New YorkEntertainment Lawyer And Employment Attorney John J. Tormey III, Esq.

This article is not intended to, and does not constitute, legal advice with respect to your particular situation and fact pattern. Do secure counsel promptly, if you see any legal issue looming on the horizon which may affect your career or your rights. What applies in one context, may not apply to the next one. Make sure that you seek individualized legal advice as to any important matter pertaining to your career or your rights generally.

Part I of this article discussed the distinction between hiring “independent contractors” versus “employees”, and some of the consequences thereby resulting. To give the hypothetical some real-life relevance to an entertainment lawyer like myself, how could, for example, a recording studio or a film production characterize its workers as the former (independent contractors), rather than the latter (employees)? If the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) or applicable Department of Labor (DOL) challenges the characterization of the workers as independent contractors as opposed to employees, is there anything that the film production or recording studio could have done in retrospect to seek to prevent or withstand the challenge – aside from calling its entertainment lawyer at the point of hire and asking the entertainment lawyer, that is?

A signed written agreement between the music or film studio and each worker, which among other things characterized each of them as an “independent contractor”, prepared by the entertainment lawyer, might have been helpful. But do not believe for a minute that agencies like the DOL and the IRS will view that self-serving contractual “independent contractor” vs. employee characterization as fully-dispositive, even when drafted by the entertainment lawyer. These agencies decidedly will not. Rather, the actual facts and circumstances surrounding the worker’s services must give additional support to the contractual characterization of an independent contractor as opposed to an employee. Moreover, things change. The facts and circumstances of work in the latter year may differ from what the entertainment lawyer’s drafting predicted them to be in the former year’s signed contract. See, e.g.:

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99921,00.html

In other words, the hiring company in the entertainment field should, at minimum, require all its independent contractor hires to sign independent contractor agreements prepared by the company’s entertainment lawyer, that among other things expressly disclaim an employee-employer relationship. But the smart company also further monitors the factual circumstances of that work relationship post-signature, to make sure that those facts continually support the contract and the “independent contractor” vs. employee characterization. Most independent contractor relationships themselves, as well as other forms of relationships, change over time and do not remain static. The entertainment lawyer can amend the pre-existing signed contract at the client’s further request.

This article will not rehash all factors in the past IRS “checklists” here, particularly because the governmental definition of independent contractor vs. employee continues to evolve and may have changed by the time you read this article. The hiring party should update itself on the IRS and DOL “independent contractor vs. employee” definitions anyway: (1) so to be sure to consider factors applicable to its own state and jurisdiction, and (2) so as to work off of the most updated definition Obviously it is wise to consult with one’s entertainment lawyer, accountant, and payroll company – particularly the latter two - before one rolls out an entertainment company payroll plan for independent contractors, employees or otherwise. Indeed, prospective advice should be obtained before the hiring party even make the hires. But below are some of the checklist factors which as an entertainment lawyer representing the hiring party I have found to have been given some significant weight in the context of past DOL actions. Query whether or not the hiring party will be able to “flip” any of them to its own favor and advantage, if the hiring party is ever challenged on its own characterizations of workers as independent contractors as opposed to employees:

A. Nature Of Services.

The entertainment lawyer first inquires of the hiring party, “What exact services or types of services does the claimed independent contractor worker perform?” If the hiring party is held to exercise or reserve the right to exercise sufficient supervision, direction, and control over the worker’s services, an “employer-employee” relationship may be established, even if such relationship was never intended by the hiring party thinking he or she was instead hiring an independent contractor rather than an employee. To this extent, a written job description in the agreement drafted by the entertainment lawyer suggesting that the worker toils independently, may support the company’s assertion of an “independent contractor” vs. an employee-employer relationship. But the written job description must be an accurate reflection of the facts, and must stay accurate going forward in time which is even more difficult. In any event the written job description scribed by the business owner’s entertainment lawyer, is not dispositive on “independent contractor vs. employee” question. Moreover, most media and entertainment hiring parties are unwilling to relinquish supervision, direction, and control over even its independent contractor hires, as a practical matter - much less instruct their entertainment lawyer do so in writing. Therefore, this “nature of services” item is a difficult checklist factor for the hiring party to “flip” to its own advantage in favor of an independent contractor adjudication as opposed to employee determination.

B. In Business For Himself/Herself.

The entertainment lawyer next asks, if this worker that the hiring party wishes to characterize as an independent contractor as opposed to employee, in business for himself or herself. For example, does this worker run his or her own business or corporation, or work through a “loan-out” entity? Does the worker have an independent consulting business? Does the worker advertise any business, or have the trappings or indicia of any self-standing business? If the worker is in business for himself or herself – and particularly if the worker can be documented by the hiring party’s entertainment lawyer to have been such, well-prior to the making of the hire in question – then that would be a strong suggestion that the worker is an independent contractor rather than an employee. In fact, the party wanting to hire a worker can choose to limit its hires only to those contractors that are already separately incorporated or functioning through a limited liability company, which the entertainment lawyer can normally confirm on-paper through the use of public-record databases. This “business for himself/herself” item is therefore a factor that can be flipped to the hiring party’s advantage in favor of an independent contractor determination over an employee characterization, if set-up carefully in advance, and a step in which it may be critical to involve the entertainment lawyer.

C. Invoicing Or Billing For Services.

Asks the entertainment lawyer to the hiring party, “Does the claimed independent contractor worker submit a bill or invoice for services?”. Most employees don’t. Most independent contractors do – or, should. Again, this is a factor that the hiring party can flip to its advantage in favor of an independent contractor characterization as opposed to an employee determination, if assessed and set-up carefully in advance, and a step with which the entertainment lawyer can help by assisting the documentation process. The party wanting to hire a worker can choose to limit its hires only to those claimed independent contractors that furnish or are willing to furnish periodic invoices. An employee would be unlikely to do so, and unlikely to be asked to do so. This “invoicing” factor will likely not be dispositive by itself, but could be helpful to the hiring party to support an independent contractor determination over an employee ruling.

D. Where, When And How Long.

The entertainment lawyer then asks the hiring party, “Is this worker claimed to be an independent contractor rater than an employee, told where to work each day? Or, when to work each day? Or, how long or how many hours to work each day?” The entertainment lawyer observes that a worker toiling off-premises is more likely to be characterized as an “independent contractor” rather than an employee. A worker on his or her own schedule is more likely to be characterized as an “independent contractor” rather than an employee. And, a worker who chooses his or her daily hour expenditure is more likely to be characterized as an “independent contractor” rather than an employee. But again, most hiring parties are unwilling to relinquish that kind of supervision, direction, and control over their hires much less instruct their entertainment lawyer do so in writing – be they employees or even independent contractors.

E. Review Of Work.

“Regarding the worker sought to be classified as an independent contractor rather than an employee”, asks the entertainment lawyer, “is this worker’s effort subject to review by anyone – particularly annual reviews? Is the worker’s effort reviewed as ‘satisfactory’ or ‘unsatisfactory’”? The more discretion of review that the company exercises, the more likely that this worker will be characterized as an “employee” rather than an independent contractor. One presumption would be that the remedy for a bad independent contractor would be simply to terminate rather than to review, which the hiring party might do through his or her counsel, or just on his or her own. But again, most hiring parties are unwilling to relinquish that kind of supervision, direction, and control over their hires, much less instruct their entertainment lawyer do so in writing – be they employees or even independent contractors.

F. Refusal Of Work Assignments.

This worker that the hiring party calls an independent contractor rather than an employee – the entertainment lawyer muses - can this worker refuse work assignments? Does this worker in fact refuse any work assignments? If so, what happens as a result? Though not an absolute, a worker entitled to refuse assignments is at least somewhat more likely to be characterized as an “independent contractor” rather than an employee. But again, most hiring parties are unwilling to relinquish that kind of supervision, direction, and control over their hires, much less instruct their entertainment lawyer do so in writing – be they employees or even independent contractors.

G. Tools And Office Space.

As for this worker that the hiring party claims to be an independent contractor as opposed to an employee, the entertainment lawyer inquires - what equipment or other tools or objects does this worker supply or bring to the job site by himself or herself, if any? Who provides the office space, if any? The more equipment and tools that the worker brings to the work site, the more likely it is that the worker will be characterized as an “independent contractor” rather than as an employee. If, on the other hand, the company provides an office, tools and equipment, the relationship looks more like an employee-employer employment relationship. In this day and age of laptop and telecommuting, we will more frequently see hiring parties try to flip this variable to their advantage in favor of an independent contractor determination as opposed to an employee determination. And this factor will not be ignored by the governmental authorities adjudicating the issue, or entertainment lawyers drafting the prospective agreements, either.

Again, please do not rely upon the excerpted list of “independent contractor vs. employee” factors above - it is only illustrative in the context of media and entertainment company hiring patterns in the past - and different tribunals may adjudicate different results. Any determination that a hiring party in the entertainment field makes about a worker’s status should be done only upon review with one’s own entertainment lawyer, one’s tax accountant, and one’s payroll company – particularly the latter two. The most important thing to remember is that the rule of “ipse dixit” does not apply to the “independent contractor vs. employee” question. In other words, just because the hiring party calls someone an “independent contractor” as opposed to an employee, does not make them so! (“Ipse dixit” is Latin for “he himself said so”).

There are structural modifications that the hiring party can make to the hiring relationship, as well as entertainment lawyer-drafted text, that will increase its chances of successfully claiming the worker to be an independent contractor rather than an employee. But there are seldom any absolutes in this regard. Finally, keep in mind that there is a real “Catch 22” to the “independent contractor v. employee” characterization. The entertainment lawyer will advise the hiring party that the hiring party must truly be willing to part with a substantial amount of supervision, direction, and control over a worker - and must in fact do so - in exchange for the privilege of paying them like an independent contractor rather than an employee. There is only a very limited extent to which a hiring party may be able to contract around this problem.

Click the “Articles” button at:

http://www.tormey.org/art.htm
to return to the main Articles page.

My law practice as an entertainment attorney includes state and federal employment law matters relating to independent contractors and employees and other human resource matters as they arise in the fields of music, film, publishing, television, Internet, and other media and industries. If you have questions about legal issues which affect your career, and require representation, please contact me:

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq.

John J. Tormey III, PLLC
1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188
New York, NY 10128

USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)
(212) 410-2380 (fax)
brightline@att.net
http://www.tormey.org

Page:
Independent Contractors vs. Employees - Part II

Title Metatag:

independent contractor,entertainment lawyer,employee

Meta Description:

entertainment attorney,employee,entertainment lawyer,independent contractor,labor,withholding,recording studio,New York

Keywords:

compensation,contracts,corporations,employees,employment,entertainment attorney,entertainment lawyer,independent contractors,labor,law firm,legal services,New York lawyer,union agreements,withholdings

entertainment attorney, entertainment lawyer, independent contractors, employees, independent contractor, entertainment lawyer, employee, entertainment attorney, employee, entertainment lawyer, independent contractor, labor, withholding, recording studio, New York, compensation, contracts, corporations, employees, employment, independent contractors, labor, law firm, legal services, New York lawyer, union agreements, withholdings

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT

http://www.tormey.org/contractors2.htm

Trickle-Down: Written By New York Music And Entertainment Lawyer And Film Attorney John J. Tormey III, Esq.

http://www.tormey.org/trickle.htm

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq. – Entertainment Lawyer, Entertainment Attorney

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY 10128 USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

brightline@att.net

http://www.tormey.org/

Trickle-Down: Written By New York Music And Entertainment Lawyer And Film Attorney John J. Tormey III, Esq.

Reports in the press of contract disputes of years past - one favorite of this music, film and entertainment lawyer which is entitled “Dixie Chicks Sue Sony” - discussed another installment in the seemingly-perennial process of music recording artists suing the record labels with which they previously signed contracts. According to “Dixie Chicks Sue Sony”, the Dixie Chicks claimed that they were due at least US$4.1 million in royalties under their contract, from their music label. See, e.g.:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1514747.stm

There is a commonality between this type of music dispute, and a “net profits” or “points” dispute in the context of film or television.

This music, film, and entertainment lawyer article, on the other hand, can offer no opinion on the merits of the Dixie Chicks litigation or contract, or opine with regard to the oft-wondered question in litigations of “which side is in the right?”. The statistical odds in any music, film, or other contract litigation about royalties, net profits, or “points”, are that the case will settle pursuant to a stipulation of confidentiality. Even if we learn of the details of the Dixie Chicks contract or the case’s resolution, we’ll therefore never really know for sure about how other similar music royalty or other contract disputes may have been reconciled. But notwithstanding the sizable amounts of money at stake, the Dixie Chicks-Sony case will likely be governed by certain principles common to all music and film industry contract disputes of its kind, as any entertainment lawyer like myself will tell you.

It really boils down to the timing of when a music artist, film talent, or other artist for that matter, is or should be paid under the contract. Though this may sound pedestrian, the equation is simple. The music and entertainment lawyer opines that, “Agreeing in a contract to be paid the bulk of one’s compensation later rather than sooner, increases the odds that one will be unhappy with the dollar amount of the royalty, “back end”, “net profits”, or “points” payment(s) at that later date”. Would the Dixie Chicks-Sony music contract litigation have never occurred, if the band’s paid-up-front recording advances had been larger? No one – not music and entertainment lawyer, and perhaps not even the parties to the lawsuit themselves - will ever really know that answer for sure, either.

But one cannot argue with the equation. As argued and hammered-out between music or other entertainment lawyer counsel in the contract negotiation, a larger up-front advance to the artist or group at least reduces the magnitude of later artist dissatisfaction with the “net profits”, “points”, or royalty stream of payments that follow. Arguably the Dixie Chicks would be in a better economic position, if suing under the contract for “only” US$1.1 million rather than US$4.1 million. The general form of equation holds up across film, television, publishing, and all other entertainment, media, and related realms. You are better off the earlier you are paid.

Holding aside the Dixie Chicks contract dispute example for a moment, the practical reality for other artists in the music industry is that they often sign record contracts - or now, 360 deals - without the help of a music and entertainment lawyer, before they become commercially successful. Every successful recording artist in the music industry has historically had a “breakthrough” album. What looks like a huge advance in a contract to a starving music artist in the context of an earlier record deal, may later look like a per diem to that same artist several years later after she or he has “made it”. And indeed, the record label’s frugality is understandable. Few if any economically-rational record labels are willing to plunk down a huge contractual advance for an artist who has yet to “make it” commercially, even if they have already retained the services of the best of music and entertainment lawyers. The music and entertainment lawyer can protect the artist. But under most all circumstances (apart from one great band and keyboard player that I know in Pittsburgh), the music and entertainment lawyer is not the one also making the music.

Again, these artist-payment contract disputes, in the music industry, film industry, and otherwise, are a function of time and timing. In this light, the Dixie Chicks are essentially fighting the economic identities that elements within the music industry unilaterally assigned to them several years ago, before they were hugely famous and successful. I do not know at what point in the timeline the Dixie Chicks may have retained high-powered music and entertainment lawyer counsel. But if the band was comparably famous and successful several years ago when they signed their deal, they would have likely commanded much more by way of sizable contractual advances, and would presumably thereby have been better secured against the risk of (alleged) back-end royalty payment deprivation by the record label.

It is ironic that within the past several months prior to the suit, the Dixie Chicks were the subject of a TV news magazine show, in which at least two relevant things were said: (1) one band member suggested that the ladies in the band might soon want to leave the music and entertainment business; and (2) one band member boasted on-camera about having procured the “best [recording contract] deal in Nashville”, or words to that effect. As far as the viewer of the TV program could see, no music or entertainment lawyer was physically present on-camera along with the ladies when these statements were made.

The thrust of the news magazine program was that even with “the best deal in Nashville”, (and presumably able music and entertainment lawyer counsel), an internationally-famous musical recording act had to endure a contractual situation wherein their label was accused of holding most of the money. According to press reports, the Dixie Chicks albums “Ready to Run” and “Wide Open Spaces” sold more than 19 million units, resulting in more than US$175 million in revenue. That approaches a quarter of a billion dollars, and would normally seem to justify the retention of music and entertainment lawyer counsel, at least for future deals. And yet the band’s lead singer dolefully attested on camera that she didn’t “even” have US$1 million in the bank herself at the time of the interview. She jokingly added that her label must have remodeled its Nashville offices based upon the success of her band’s music.

“Where is all of this money going?”, asks the artist-side music and entertainment lawyer, particularly. Well, we know or suspect where it is going. It is true that launching and promoting albums, and developing artists, requires major expenditures by the record label, likely in the millions of dollars. The label has to spend money to make money. The label has to spend money on its own music and entertainment lawyers to draft and negotiate the contracts, for that matter. The film studio or television production company will deploy similar rationales when defending “net profit”, “points”, or other back-end payment arrangements. But in the case of a successful recording and touring act, at least some of the incremental money above expenditures is going towards someone’s profit. It is reasonable to assume that the Dixie Chicks sued because they didn’t think they were receiving their fair share of same under the signed contract, and then convinced one or more music and entertainment lawyer litigators to same effect.

What logical deductions can we make from this case study, that apply to other individual musicians and bands – and perhaps to other media and art forms like film, television, and publishing in the context of royalties, “net profits”, and “points”? First, we need to back up, and keep in mind the first thing that music and other entertainment lawyers learn in practice. There are two principal ways for an artist to get paid for services under a contract: (1) “fixed compensation”, and (2) “contingent compensation”. Royalties are “contingent compensation”, and in the traditional but now fast-evaporating record contract model usually contingent upon either the manufacture or the sale of (non-returned) units. Strictly defined, “contingent” also means that it is possible they will never get paid. In film, television, and other realms, “points”, “back-end”, and “net profits” are all terms suggestive of forms of contingent compensation in a contract. One of my law professors back in the 1980’s was a well-known practicing entertainment lawyer with a music, film, and television practice, and much of our classroom workshops were comprised of haggling over proposed net profit definitions in draft contracts. The song remains the same today, in large part.

Music royalty calculations and film and TV “net profit” or back-end “points” definitions often take many pages of contract text to define - as a music, film, or entertainment lawyer will tell you. In defense of the companies, this verbosity is not always simply a product of the labels and studios and their entertainment lawyers so conspiring. Rather, the income streams in the music and film and TV businesses are truly hydra-headed and fairly sophisticated, and take some care and patience to define. As an entertainment lawyer I realize that this is all scant consolation to a screenwriter working through a studio’s or network’s 50-page written contract definition of “net profits” - or, in the music context, a recording artist immersed in arcane label record contract text purporting to delineate methods of royalty computation. Yet the complexity of calculating contingent compensation is a reality of the industry to which the film net profit or music royalty definition relates.

However, make no mistake about it. Accepting any form of contingent compensation, be it net profits, “points”, music royalties or otherwise, is tantamount to accepting someone else’s “trickle-down”, as any artist-side music and entertainment lawyer will argue. That is, the artist deputizes the company to collect the artist’s money, hold it (presumably) in trust, and then remit it in installments to the artist over time on a deferred basis. Do most people even do that with their own family members? As the music and entertainment lawyer will attest from observing others, and human nature and greed being powerful motivators that they are - the company will often thereupon pay the musical or other artist when it feels like it, and how much it feels like it, sometimes no matter what the contract says. And company “deductions” from the gross payment stream to arrive at “net” or “royalties”, can become extremely creative to say the least. Music and other entertainment industry audit contract disputes often revolve around the acceptability and fairness of such “deductions” from “net profits” or “points”, as fought and argued between entertainment lawyers on either side.

There are contractual ways for musical and other artists to even the proverbial scales of justice regarding their royalties, “net profits”, “points”, or other form of contingent compensation - typically best deployed through the artist’s entertainment lawyer. The most familiar method is the deployment of contractual “accounting” and “audit” clauses or provisions. The music or other artist can endeavor to contractually require the company to remit detailed written accountings of all revenues collected, and (carefully-circumscribed) deductions taken therefrom, on a regular basis. The clauses can be drafted by the artist’s entertainment lawyer. Accordingly, the music artist can also endeavor to reserve the contractual right to audit the books and records of the record company to ensure correct remittance of royalties. In the professional entertainment industry context, audits like this take place all the time, thus ensuring a livelihood for many entertainment industry accountants, entertainment lawyers, and others. It has been reported that wholly two-thirds of all entertainment industry audits result in findings of underpayments. Usually thereafter, the parties reach an economic settlement and move on with their lives. Sometimes, they don’t, and they litigate using music or entertainment lawyers instead. And as indicated above, the majority of litigations themselves settle before going to trial.

And there is hope. Industry custom, and film, music, and entertainment lawyer practice, does often contemplate that recording and other artists may also be paid on a “fixed” as well as on a “contingent” basis. In theory, the contractually-specified recording “advance” represents a fixed up-front payment to the music artist. But many - uh - “creative” record label forms transform the advance into a contingent payment as well, at least in part - this is sometimes referred to as the “recording fund” concept. Film producer compensation may be manipulated by the studio in similar fashion, by payment into a budget as opposed to payment directly to a producer’s bank account. For example, if the musical artist receives a US$300,000 “advance” under the contract, but must himself or herself direct-pay for the first album’s recording expenses out of his or her “own” pocket, then it would behoove the artist not to blow all US$300,000 on one weekend at Monte Carlo. In other words, the bulk of that US$300,000 may not in fact be a fixed payment to the artist, but instead may need to be applied to things like studio time and fees for session musicians. There are many artists out there who briefly thought they were rich for this reason, until the record contract was actually read and reviewed with their music and entertainment lawyer. Similarly, maybe the film producer should not write a check for that Lamborghini just yet, either.

What independent and unsigned artists will discover with or without a music or entertainment lawyer, particularly those music artists with talent, is that there may be plenty of folks along the road who will be willing to bargain for their exclusive recording services, promising no money in advance, but some fuzzy and inchoate “points” later on – with or without waving a proposed contract in front of the artist. This phenomenon is usually exactly what it sounds like - Wimpy’s “I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today”. Would-be entertainment company impresarios try to play actors and writers like this, all the time, too.

Sure, the music company and its entertainment lawyer may have a valid point that the artist should be required to share in some of the down-side risk that the recorded finished product will not sell. But by that analysis, the artist-side entertainment lawyer must also conclude that the musical artist should be paid some fixed compensation or “earnest money” up-front, and then some additional contingent compensation later should the project succeed. Otherwise, what assurance does the artist have that this company is truly serious, committed to the music project, and acting in good faith? And arguably, the up-front fixed payment to the artist should be at least sufficient to enable the artist to retain music and entertainment lawyer counsel to draft and negotiate an agreement clearly specifying how the back-end contingent compensation should be paid, and what the artist’s accounting and audit rights should be. The same rationale applies for back-end “net profits” or “points” deals in the film and television realms. The up-front payment at minimum should be the glue that cements the contract.

It is astounding, however, how many artists, typically without music or entertainment lawyer counsel, will agree to be paid for their hard work and their music or other work-product by “points” or “net profits” or other “back-end” alone, perhaps commemorated with writing on the back of a cocktail napkin, or even (gasp) on a handshake alone. Why are these artists selling themselves so short? Perhaps because they are dying for their first big break, and perhaps because they do not have sufficient confidence in their abilities such that they believe that another valuable opportunity will come along. So they don’t enlist the help of a music or entertainment lawyer, and often sign bad contracts or otherwise agree to bad deals.

But the point is, there should be some minimum standard of decency, perhaps along the lines of a well-known California case on point, Foxx v. Williams, and a California statute on point, Civil Code Section 3423:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/CIV/5/d4/1/3/3/s3423

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7532225346992492111&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Some deals are simply not worth an artist’s making. Some contracts are not worth signing, and perhaps shouldn’t even be allowed to be signed. Even a Santa Monica tenant desperate for a beachfront apartment should not move into a condemned premises where the floor is in danger of collapsing. And in that real estate situation, the local government - through the building code or equivalent - serves as “watchdog”, and prevents those tenants from striking those bad lease deals even if the tenant otherwise wants to do so. However, there is typically no governmental or other “watchdog” that prevents a music artist from entering into a bad recording contract, only perhaps case law and statutes that can be invoked only if the question is ever later litigated – and additionally perhaps, only an artist-side music and entertainment lawyer, if ever enlisted for the situation. Rather, as a practical matter, in the recording agreement context, the “watchdog” needs to be prospective and internalized. So too must the watchdog be internalized in every artist, in the film, television, and other industries and art forms. The music or other artist can only look to his or her common sense, and hopefully in some cases the artist’s music or entertainment lawyer’s experience and judgment - and this assessment must be made before signature of any contract.

In any case, the following is for certain. If a proposed music recording agreement with royalty covenants as exchanged between the music and entertainment lawyers does not contain these 3 components:

(A) an up-front advance “fixed compensation” payment to the music artist, (if only to show the company’s good faith, but sufficient enough that the artist will have been happy to have done the deal even if no back-end compensation is ever later collected by the artist); and

(B) an accounting clause; and

then, serious doubts should be raised as to whether the music artist should indeed look elsewhere for other career opportunities. At minimum, the proposed deal, as the Dixie Chicks might say, needs fixin’.

And the music artist should take heart, I suppose. Getting the “back-end payment”, “net profits”, or “points” bum’s contract rush from a company happens to music artists and other types of artists in all media and sectors, at all calibers and levels of experience and success, whether or not they are represented at the time by a music or entertainment lawyer. No matter how commercially-successful a musician becomes, there may always be doubts as to whether he or she is being royaltied or otherwise paid correctly – and sometimes it takes the music and entertainment lawyer litigators and the court system to scrutinize the contract to find out.

Click the “Articles” button at:

http://www.tormey.org/art.htm

to return to the main Articles page.

My music and film law practice as an entertainment lawyer includes the drafting, editing, negotiation, and closure of all contractual matters relating to film, music, television, publishing, Internet, and all other media and art forms. If you have questions about legal issues which affect your career, and require representation, please contact me:

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq.

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY 10128 USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

brightline@att.net

http://www.tormey.org/

Page:

Trickle-Down

Title Metatag:

music, entertainment lawyer, film, net profits, points, contracts

Meta Description:

music lawyer,entertainment attorney,film lawyer,net profits,back-end,points,NP,entertainment lawyer,New York,contracts

Keywords:

A and R,artist and repertoire,back-end,compensation,contracts,demo shopping,entertainment attorney,entertainment lawyer,legal services,music,music law,music lawyer,New York lawyer,points,producer,

talent agreements, entertainment attorney, entertainment lawyer, trickle down, music, entertainment lawyer, film, net profits, points, contracts, music lawyer, entertainment attorney, film lawyer, net profits, back end, points, NP, entertainment lawyer, New York, contracts, A and R, artist and repertoire, back end, compensation, contracts, demo shopping, legal services, music, music law, music lawyer, New York lawyer, points, producer, talent agreements

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT

http://www.tormey.org/trickle.htm

“Performance” Clauses In Entertainment Contracts: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And Music And Film Attorney John J. Tormey III, Esq.

http://www.tormey.org/performance.htm

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq. – Entertainment Lawyer, Entertainment Attorney

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY 10128 USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

brightline@att.net

http://www.tormey.org/

“Performance” Clauses In Entertainment Contracts: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And Music And Film Attorney John J. Tormey III, Esq.

Producing and editing a masterwork of recorded music is obviously a specialized art form. But so is the entertainment lawyer’s act of drafting clauses, contracts, and contractual language generally. How might the art of the entertainment attorney’s legal drafting a clause or contract affect the musician, composer, songwriter, producer or other artist as a practical matter? Many artists think they will be “home free”, just as soon as they are furnished a draft proposed record contract to sign from the label’s entertainment attorney, and then toss the proposed contract over to their own entertainment lawyer for what they hope will be a rubber-stamp review on all clauses. They are wrong. And those of you who have ever received a label’s “first form” proposed contract are chuckling, right about now.

Just because a U.S. record label forwards an artist its “standard form” proposed contract, does not mean that one should sign the draft contract blindly, or ask one’s entertainment lawyer to rubber-stamp the proposed agreement before signing it blindly. A number of label forms still used today are quite hackneyed, and have been adopted as full text or individual clauses in whole or in part from contract form-books or the contract “boilerplate” of other or prior labels. From the entertainment attorney’s perspective, a number of label recording clauses and contracts actually read as if they were written in haste - just like Nigel Tufnel scrawled an 18-inch Stonehenge monument on a napkin in Rob Reiner’s “This Is Spinal Tap”. And if you are a musician, motion picture fan, or other entertainment lawyer, I bet you know what happened to Tap as a result of that scrawl.

It stands to reason that an artist and his or her entertainment lawyer should carefully review all draft clauses, contracts, and other forms forwarded to the artist for signature, prior to ever signing on to them. Through negotiation, through the entertainment attorney, the artist may be able to interpose more precise and even-handed language in the contract ultimately signed, where appropriate. Inequities and unfair clauses aren’t the only things that need to be removed by one’s entertainment lawyer from a first draft proposed contract. Ambiguities must also be removed, before the contract can be signed as one.

For the artist or the artist’s entertainment attorney to leave an ambiguity or inequitable clause in a signed contract, would be merely to leave a potential bad problem for a later day - particularly in the context of a signed recording contract which could tie up an artist’s exclusive services for many years. And remember, as an entertainment lawyer with any longitudinal data on this item will tell you, the artistic “life-span” of most artists is quite short - meaning that an artist could tie up his or her whole career with one bad contract, one bad signing, or even just one bad clause. Usually these bad contract signings occur before the artist seeks the advice and counsel of an entertainment attorney.

One seemingly-inexhaustible type of ambiguity that arises in clauses in entertainment contracts, is in the specific context of what I and other entertainment lawyers refer to as a contract “performance clause”. A non-specific commitment in a contract to perform, usually turns out to be unenforceable. Consider the following:

Contract Clause #1: “Label shall use best efforts to market and publicize the Album in the Territory”.

Contract Clause #2: “The Album, as

delivered to Label by Artist, shall be produced and edited using only first-class facilities and equipment for sound recording and all other activities relating to the Album”.

One shouldn’t use either clause in a contract. One shouldn’t agree to either clause as written. One should negotiate contractual edits to these clauses through one’s entertainment lawyer, prior to signature. Both clauses set forth proposed contractual performance obligations which are, at best, ambiguous. Why? Well, with regard to Contract Clause #1, reasonable minds, including those of the entertainment attorneys on each side of the transaction, can differ as to what “best efforts” really means, what the clause really means if different, or what the two parties to the contract intended “best efforts” to mean at the time (if anything). Reasonable minds, including those of the entertainment lawyers on each side of the negotiation, can also differ as to what constitutes a “first-class” facility as it is “described” in Contract Clause #2. If these contractual clauses were ever scrutinized by judge or jury under the hot lights of a U.S. litigation, the clauses might well be stricken as void for vagueness and unenforceable, and judicially read right out of the corresponding contract itself. In the view of this particular New York entertainment attorney, yes, the clauses really are that bad.

Consider Contract Clause #1, the “best efforts” clause, from the entertainment lawyer’s perspective. How would the artist really go about enforcing that contractual clause as against a U.S. label, as a practical matter? The answer is, the artist probably wouldn’t, at end of day. If there ever were a contract dispute between the artist and label over money or the marketing expenditure, for example, this “best efforts” clause would turn into the artist’s veritable Achilles Heel in the contract, and the artist’s entertainment attorney might not be able to help the artist out of it as a practical matter:

Artist: “You breached the ‘best efforts’ clause in the contract!”

Label: “No! I tried! I tried! I really did!”

You get the idea.

Why should an artist leave a label with that kind of contractual “escape-hatch” in a clause? The entertainment lawyer’s answer is, “no reason at all”. There is absolutely no reason for the artist to put his or her career at risk by agreeing to a vague or lukewarm contractual marketing commitment clause, if the marketing of the Album is perceived to be an essential part of the deal by and for the artist. It often is. It would be the artist’s career at stake. If the marketing spend throughout the contract’s Term diminishes over time, so too could the artist’s public recognition and career as a result. And the equities should be on the artist’s side, in a contractual negotiation conducted between entertainment attorneys over this item.

Assuming that the label is willing to commit to a contractual marketing spend clause at all, then, the artist-side entertainment lawyer argues, the artist should be entitled to know in advance how his or her career would be protected by the label’s expenditure of marketing dollars. Indeed, asks the entertainment attorney, “Why else is the artist signing this deal other than an advance, marketing spend, and tour support?”. The questions may be phrased a bit differently nowadays, in the current age of the contract now known as the “360 deal”. The clauses may evolve, or devolve, but the equitable arguments remain principally the same.

The point is, it is not just performers that should be held to performance clauses in contracts. Companies can be asked by entertainment lawyers to subscribe to performance clauses in contracts, too. In the context of a performance clause - such as a record label’s contractual obligation to market and publicize an album - it is incumbent upon the artist, and the artist’s entertainment attorney if any, to be very specific in the clause itself about what is contractually required of the record company. It should never be left to a subsequent verbal side conversation. In other words, working with his or her entertainment lawyer, the artist should write out a “laundry-list” clause setting forth each of the discrete things that the artist wants the label to do. As but a partial example:

Contract Clause #3: “To market and publicize the Album in the Territory, you, Label, will spend no less than ‘x’ U.S. dollars on advertising for the Album during the following time period: ____________”; or even,

Contract Clause #4: “To market and publicize the Album in the Territory, you, Label, will hire the ___________ P.R. firm in New York, New York, and you will cause no less than ‘y’ U.S. dollars to be expended for publicity for and directly relating to the Album (and no other property or material) during the following time period: _____________”.

Compare Clauses #3 and #4, to Contract Clause #1 earlier above, and then ask yourself or your own entertainment attorney: Which are more hortatory? Which are more precise?

As for Contract Clause #2 and its vague unexplained definition of “first-class facilities and equipment” – why not have one’s entertainment lawyer instead just include in the contract a laundry-list clause of the names of five professional recording studios in the relevant city, that both parties, label and artist, prospectively agree constitute “first-class” for definitional purposes? This is supposed to be a contract, after all, the entertainment attorney opines. “Don’t leave your definitions, and therefore definitional problems, for a later document or a later day, unless you truly want to make a personal financial commitment to keeping more litigators awash in business debating bad clauses and bad contracts before the courts”.

If you don’t ask, you don’t get. Through the entertainment lawyer, the artist should make the label expressly sign on to a very specific contractual list of tasks in an appropriate clause, monitor the label’s progress thereafter, and hold the label to the specific contractual standard that the artist was smart enough to “carve in” in the clause through the entertainment attorney in the first instance.

* * * *

Again, consider Contract Clause #2, the “first class facilities and equipment” clause, from the entertainment lawyer’s perspective. Note that, unlike Contract Clause #1, this is a promise made by the artist to the label - and not a promise made by the label to the artist.

So, an artist might now ask his or her entertainment attorney:

“The shoe’s on the other foot, isn’t it?”

“‘First class’ in that clause is as vague and undefined a contractual standard as ‘best efforts’, isn’t it, entertainment lawyer?”

Entertainment attorney answer: “Right”.

“So, entertainment lawyer, there won’t be any harm in me, the artist, signing onto that contractual clause, will there, because I will be able to wiggle out of it if I ever had to, right?”

Entertainment attorney answer: “Wrong”.

The fact is, a contractual ambiguity in a performance clause is a bad thing - in either case - whether in the context of a label obligation to artist; or even in the context of an artist obligation to a label. The entertainment lawyer should advise that any contractual ambiguity in any clause could hurt the artist, even in the context of one of the artist’s own obligations to the other contracting party. Don’t rest on the linchpin of ambiguities in clauses when conducting business and relying on contracts - even if, in your musical art form itself, as Cameron Crowe once suggested of my first guitar hero Peter Frampton, you may happen to write “obscurantist” song lyrics while taking your own artistic license. Contracts need to be handled differently.

Here’s how ambiguity in your own contractual commitment to a label hurts you, from the entertainment lawyer’s perspective. The old-saw contractual principle of music “delivery” often finds the artist required to hand over documents to the label, as well as physical materials such as the album itself in the form of masters, digital masters, or “glass masters”, in order to get paid. By virtue of a contractually-delineated procedure vetted by and between entertainment attorneys, the label may be entitled to hold some (or even all) monies back, and not pay those monies to the artist until “delivery is complete” under the delivery clauses and delivery schedule in a contract. As one might therefore guess, “delivery” is a definite event whose occurrence or non-occurrence under the contract is oft-contested and sometimes even arbitrated or otherwise litigated by and between artists, labels, and the entertainment lawyers and litigators that represent them.

It is incumbent upon the artist and the artist’s entertainment attorney to prevent the label from drumming-up a pretextual “failed delivery” under any clause in the contract as an excuse for non-payment. In the context of Contract Clause #2 above, “first-class facilities and equipment” could easily become that pretext - the artist’s Achilles Heel in the litigation-tested contract contested between entertainment lawyer litigators. The label could simply take the position through counsel or otherwise that the delivered materials were not created at a “first-class” facility as contractually required in the relevant clause, no matter what facility was used. Why? Because “first-class” was never defined in any clause in the contractual document by either entertainment attorney on either side, as any particular facility.

And if no clause in the contract explicitly defined “first class” as an entertainment lawyer would have advised that it should do, then the artist could well be out the money, at least for the entire duration of an eminently avoidable multi-year litigation over what two dumb words mean. Worse yet, meanwhile, the label might be holding the money and laughing at the artist behind the artist’s back for his or her lack of contractual prescience. From the artist-side entertainment lawyer’s perspective, both of those horror-show possible eventualities and scenarios, are intolerable. They could have been avoided by a single, better clause – often the narrow reed upon which an artist’s success ultimately rests. (Ask Billy Joel. Ask Neil Young. Ask Bruce Springsteen. Ask George Michael. Ask John Fogerty).

What about prescience? How can this foreseeable contractual delivery dispute in the context of Contract Clause #2, be avoided by the entertainment lawyer? The simple solution in this case, again, is for the artist’s entertainment attorney to take a few extra minutes during the negotiations, and textually list-out, in a reply draft counter-proposed contract sent to the label, even if a single succinct clause, the actual facilities intended to be used. The artist-side entertainment lawyer can seek to make the label explicitly contractually pre-agree to the list of facilities, by name and address, in the body of the contract’s text. That is what a contract is for, anyway, as an entertainment attorney will tell you. When used correctly, a contract and its clauses really just comprise a dispute-avoidance tool. An entertainment contract should be a dispute-avoidance tool exchanged between entertainment lawyers. Also note that a contractual ambiguity in a clause could hurt an artist, regardless of whether it is embedded in one of the artist’s performance obligations, or even in one of the label’s performance obligations! The moral?: List all performance obligations. Break them down into discrete and understandable tasks, clause by clause. Approach it the same way an entertainment attorney would. Better yet – enlist the assistance of one before forming an opinion about the clauses or signing the contract.

Click the “Articles” button at:

http://www.tormey.org/art.htm

to return to the main Articles page.

My entertainment law practice includes the drafting, editing, negotiation, and closure of personal service agreements as well as all other entertainment transactional and advisory matters in the fields of music, film, television, publishing, Internet, and all other media and art forms. If you have questions about legal issues which affect your career, and require representation, please contact me:

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq.

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY 10128 USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

brightline@att.net

http://www.tormey.org/

Page:

“Performance” Clauses In Entertainment Contracts

Title Metatag:

entertainment lawyer, entertainment attorney, contracts, clauses

Meta Description:

entertainment attorney,entertainment lawyer,clauses, performance,contracts,music,film,New York,television,publishing,law

Keywords:

attorney,contracts,drafting,entertainment attorney,entertainment counsel,entertainment law,entertainment lawyer,entertainment litigation,film law,law practice,legal advice,legal services,

music law, New York lawyer, publishing law, television law, transactions, entertainment attorney, entertainment lawyer, performance clauses, entertainment contracts, entertainment lawyer, entertainment attorney, contracts, clauses, performance, contracts, music, film, New York, television, publishing, law, attorney, contracts, drafting, entertainment attorney, entertainment counsel, entertainment law, entertainment lawyer, entertainment litigation, film law, law practice, legal advice, legal services, music law, New York lawyer, publishing law, television law, transactions, clauses

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT

http://www.tormey.org/performance.htm

Monday, December 31, 2012

This Article Is Brought To You By The Letter Blank: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And Trademark Attorney John J. Tormey III, Esq.

http://www.tormey.org/letter.htm

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq. – Entertainment Lawyer, Entertainment Attorney

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY 10128 USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

brightline@att.net

http://www.tormey.org/

This Article Is Brought To You By The Letter Blank: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And Trademark Attorney John J. Tormey III, Esq.

Most of the American public including most all entertainment lawyers, heard about one of Oprah Winfrey’s well-publicized litigations a number of years ago. My understanding was that she was sued in Texas by a commercial cattle-oriented conglomerate. The plaintiffs apparently claimed that Oprah had inaccurately and unfairly maligned the culinary safety of cow meat, during one of her television programs. The Texas case seemed vaguely surreal and comic, even from the perspective of an entertainment lawyer - sort of like an overly-imaginative law school exam question. But next we must go from the sublime to the ridiculous. This next case was an entertainment lawyer and trademark lawyer’s delight. Talk about the eradication of your sacred cows. The local press in New York reported that a German “fetish magazine” named “O” sued one of Oprah’s companies and her publisher, over the sale of Oprah’s magazine bearing the equally-expansive title of “O”. Query if it was really a service mark dispute as opposed to a trademark dispute.

Perhaps even more befuddling, from the entertainment lawyer or publishing lawyer perspective or otherwise, the German “fetish” magazine somehow derived its own title from the erotic novel “Story of O” - serving as even more of a reminder that there is truly nothing new under the sun. And if this were not bizarre enough, the local press reported that Oprah’s company and publisher were prepared to change the name of her magazine to “O, The Oprah Magazine”, in an apparent attempt to assuage the seething service mark or trademark plaintiff and make the distinction between the two magazines more apparent.

Coincidentally, this lawsuit received even more attention from trademark lawyers, entertainment lawyers, and others, than usual, since Lions Gate was slated to release a film called “O” around the same time the suit materialized. I understand the Lions Gate film was somehow loosely based upon Shakespeare’s “Othello”. The Bard himself referred to the Globe Theatre as “this wooden ‘O’“. Maybe if we find Shakespeare’s heirs - perhaps arguably incarnate in the Bacon Brothers - we can thereby locate the real plaintiff who has something to complain about?

But come on. All kidding aside, could this trademark (or service mark) lawsuit really be happening? Yes. Yes it could. But maybe it shouldn’t be allowed to happen. The minds of reasonable trademark lawyers, entertainment lawyers, and others, may differ.

Let’s back up a step. Generally speaking, as entertainment lawyers or trademark lawyers will advise, one acquires trademark rights or service mark rights under U.S. law, by consistently using a trademark or service mark in connection with goods or services, and/or by registering the trademark or service mark with one or more appropriate governmental authorities.

Most people and businesses pick lousy names from a trademark or service mark perspective, and most people pick those names without the assistance of an entertainment lawyer or a trademark lawyer. The majority of marks go unregistered, and the majority of trademarks or service marks are never properly searched and cleared by a trademark lawyer, entertainment lawyer, or anyone else before use. Again, there is very little new under the sun, and as most all trademark and entertainment lawyers will attest, most word-paths have been tread upon by someone else previously. Then again, searching and registering a trademark or service mark, with or even without a trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer, is not without cost. So, many cost-constrained start-up businesses elect to just “wing it” and dispense with the search until they can afford to “get around to it”. And surprisingly, sometimes even major-league companies who can otherwise afford to so it, dispense with the trademark or service mark search, dispense with the services of the trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer, and just go ahead and use the proposed name. Ironically, this type of decision keeps trademark and entertainment lawyer litigators who work the back-end of these fact patterns, in business.

Trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers may sometimes advise their clients to select multiple-word names rather than one-word names - as rock-band-name trademarks or service marks, for example - since the statistical chances of infringing some other band’s name and trademark or service mark are likely thereby somewhat reduced. Most artists, on the other hand, are solely concerned about the aesthetics of the band name, and if a one-word band name sounds right to them, they will use it and darn the torpedoes. This type of decision can also keep trademark and entertainment lawyer litigators who work the back-end of these fact patterns, in business.

I have admittedly not yet trademark-searched any of the following band names. But as a trademark and entertainment lawyer, a proposed one-word band name like “Blur”, at first blush, would trouble me a bit more than the two-word “Def Leppard”, from a trademark or service mark perspective - since, without knowing anything else about the underlying facts, I would assume that the statistical chances were somewhat higher that another band might be named (or might have been recently named) “Blur”. When a trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer performs a search on a trademark or service mark or proposed mark, these kinds of concerns and historical analyses come into play.

Trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers may also sometimes advise their clients to try to use more incongruous word combinations as band-name trademarks or service marks, rather than predictable word combinations. By this rationale, “Squirrel Nut Zippers” (the first time, for the candy, that is!), or “Stone Temple Pilots” start to look pretty good as far as their trademark or service mark prospects, to say nothing I suppose about “Orchestral Manoeuvres In The Dark”. After all, what are the odds, the trademark lawyer queries, that the full name “Orchestral Manoeuvres In The Dark” name was used as a trademark or service mark by any other pop or rock band prior to or contemporaneously with 1986’s “If You Leave”? Then again, apart from entertainment lawyer legal concerns, the band and its handlers may have had trouble fitting the full name onto a record jacket sleeve, and may also have had trouble convincing record label A&R executives that the choice of name should be supported.

One must understand, therefore, that the prospect of trying to protect, let alone enforce and prevent others from using - a one-letter trademark or service mark, is the trademark lawyer’s or entertainment lawyer’s equivalent to fingernails scraping on a chalkboard. If a client walks into the office of a trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer and says “Hi. I’d like to protect, for my own exclusive use, the letter ‘W’“ - well, then absent some extreme fact pattern perhaps relating to a powerful Texas family, that lawyer can expect at least a long and tough road ahead - and perhaps a few broadsides of ridicule from the bench and other trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers at the bar as well. They might think that the so-subscribing lawyer took Sesame Street’s commercial endorsement announcement “This program was brought to you by the letter ‘W’”, a little too seriously when younger.

Most Americans conceive of “monopolies” as something anti-competitive, unfair to the consumer, and ultimately evil - especially given publicity in recent years accorded to the Microsoft case. But what is interesting about copyrights and trademarks and service marks, as a trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer will tell you, is that they are in fact legal monopolies protected by federal statute. A property right is, essentially, the right to exclude others from using that same property. That is conceptually quite similar to a monopoly. If I own my house, I can keep you off my land with a fence, and the law will back me up on that. If a company owns a registered trademark in “Chock Full o’ Nuts”, for example, then, through the efforts of its trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer counsel or otherwise, that company owns the right to exclude others from using the same name in connection with the sale of coffee, and perhaps related goods and services as well.

So here is the trademark lawyer entertainment lawyer philosopher question. Haven’t we as a society gone too far, when we even entertain the prospect of a company, or a celebrity, laying claim to a single LETTER of the ALPHABET as a service mark or trademark? Indeed, should any prior claimant be able to use the services if a trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer to legally monopolize the use of a letter of the alphabet, in connection with ANY kind of goods or services, magazine or otherwise? Should they and their trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers even be allowed into court with that kind of argument?

Are all individual Arabic numerals also now in play for trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers? We might as well allow some corporate behemoth to pull the character of Santa Claus out of the public domain, into the realm of copyright-protection, and charge a royalty whenever the fat man’s name or image is evoked. As for trademark versus service mark, does Mr. Claus provide goods or a service, when you get right down to it? And what about prior sources? Do the publishers of the first edition of Webster’s dictionary, or their successors, now have a valid trademark claim to assert through their trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer litigators, against Oprah and the German magazine, for the use of “their” letter of the alphabet as a service mark or trademark?

Harkening back to the Oprah cattle litigation, some cows are sacred. Some things should simply stay in the public domain. Section 105 of the U.S. Copyright Act, for example, excludes works “of the United States Government” from copyright protection. Shouldn’t letters of the alphabet be treated the same way, as non-service mark non-trademark public commodities exempt from any monopolistic endeavors, upon instruction to all trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers who might try to argue otherwise? There may well already be case law holding unitary alphabet letters to be disqualified from trademark and service mark protection under certain circumstances. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office likely has trademark application and registration procedures, possibly reading to similar effect. If so, why not simply codify that common-sense principle in all applicable trademark statutes and other laws, as a de facto and de jure standing instruction to all trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers and their clients? Among other things, a decisive action like this one could eliminate, or at least mandate a shorter life-span for, court-clogging trademark and service mark lawsuits like the “O” story.

And what’s next? Will the adjudicated winner of the O litigation also be awarded a legally-sanctioned monopoly as trademark or service mark over the corresponding three dashes in “- - -”; that is, in the International Morse Code symbol for the letter “O”? Will that be some other trademark lawyer’s or entertainment lawyer’s next argument? Or should that control instead now be awarded to the heirs of Morse, wherever they may be? And what about our National Anthem? Am I at risk of being enjoined by another trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer from singing “O(h) say can you see...” at the start of baseball games at Shea Stadium – I mean, CitiField? And what about Tic-Tac-Toe? Must there now be a Congressional mandate that “X” must always win, and must always occupy all 9 cells on the grid, so as not to “infringe” the trademark or service mark rights of the clients of any other trademark lawyers or entertainment lawyers? And if so, what about the fate of Whoopi Goldberg and Hollywood Squares in syndication?

A number of entertainers use single-word names, and we as a society tolerate that – as do, apparently, the trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers that represent and enable the talent. We tolerate the Gilbert Gottfried “One-Named Boy” routine moreso if the entertainer has the talent to back it up: “Elvis”. “Sting”. Now, “Prince” is, of course, a variation on the theme, an entertainer who at one point dispensed with his chosen one-word name in favor of an arcane symbol not found in the American alphabet – with or without his trademark lawyer’s or entertainment lawyer’s imprimatur. The general point here is that, Prince aside, the trademark lawyer and entertainment lawyer will advise the entertainer that he or she may be able to build up some trademark or service mark protection in his or her continuous and uninterrupted use of the [a]rtist’s one-word name, particularly if that entertainer is extremely well-known.

But some of us trademark and entertainment lawyers and others may feel that claiming one of the 26 letters of the alphabet as your own, takes its own special brand of... uh... chutzpah. Basketball’s Oscar Robertson was known as “The Big O”, probably because fans and the press tagged him with that moniker – probably not because his trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer told him to use it - and probably not because Oscar adopted it for himself. Oscar Robertson may not have been as well-liked a guy, if instead he himself had arrogated “The Big O” nickname for his own use! And speaking of Oscar, asks the trademark and entertainment lawyer, how ‘come he hasn’t appeared yet in this lawsuit?

In similar vein, some trademark lawyers, entertainment lawyers, and others may feel that Oprah should have been satisfied to call her magazine “Oprah” rather than, simply, “O”. It is unlikely that Oprah’s decision as to how to name the magazine was forced upon her by her colleagues – entertainment lawyers or otherwise. In other words, a different P.R. decision may have had incidental legal benefit, too.

Sure, there is precedent in the entertainment field, as trademark and entertainment lawyers are aware, for trademark or service mark use predicated upon a single letter of the alphabet. The musical group “M” had a number-one hit with “Pop Muzik” in 1979, and that was kind of cute - but the group seemed to disappear from the music scene before anyone even began to consider the trademark or service mark implications of their continued use of their band name. Perhaps the group’s trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer will read this article and write to this website to weigh-in.

The television company “E!” of Chelsea Handler and Talk Soup renown has apparently been successful in establishing a brand name for itself, presumably with trademark lawyer and entertainment lawyer counsel and assistance, accepting the inherent challenge in generating trademark and service mark rights in a one-letter name. But the E! Network’s use of the exclamation point, and their occasional use of the linked phrase “entertainment network”, arguably properly distinguishes them from the alphabet-usurping pack. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), along with the help of its trademark lawyer counsel, lays claim to its single-letter-ratings as trademarks or service marks in some fashion - that is, currently, “G”, and “R”. But then again, I suspect that the MPAA would carefully refrain from threatening another company’s use of the letter “G” or “R”, unless that use was made in the context of ratings or otherwise in connection with motion pictures or filmed entertainment.

The point is, there is something disturbing about this O lawsuit filed in the district court in Manhattan, from the perspective of an entertainment lawyer and trademark lawyer, and perhaps to others as well. What if a schoolteacher reads about this lawsuit, and now tries to find a trademark lawyer lay personal service mark claim to the letter grades “A” through “F” as used on student-graded papers? What if that same teacher starts invoicing all other teachers who grade papers in the U.S., demanding trademark royalty payments? And speaking of damage to the world of education, what will Grover, Elmo, and the gang at Sesame Street do, when they can no longer boast that a particular program is “brought to you by the letter ‘W’”, at least not without their entertainment lawyer or trademark lawyer counsel present on set? Worse yet, will that entertainment lawyer or trademark lawyer be required to wear an over-the-head costume or be a muppeteer to blend-in on the set when doing so? The consternation is enough to press the ghost of O. Henry and his trademark lawyer back into active service - the only question being, if O. Henry rejoins the non-ethereal world and joins the lawsuit, will he join as party-plaintiff or party-defendant on the advice of counsel? And, will O. Henry’s apparently-prescient use of the period after his “O” render him impervious to trademark or service mark liability?

But seriously folks, in defense of Oprah and the trademark and entertainment lawyers that love and enable her, it is apparently not her or her entertainment or trademark counsel or entities that initiated the aggressive attempts to exclude others from use of the letter “O”. Rather, according to the news reports, it was the German “kinky fashion” magazine promoting leather and garters that decided to attack Oprah’s company in the context of the New York court, and the magazine then sought out a trademark lawyer for that purpose. And in response, Oprah and her affiliates, presumably on trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer advice, apparently decided to expand her magazine title, to make the bright-line distinction between the two magazines more apparent to all, including the consumers. Maybe as a matter of reciprocal international courtesy, and in an effort to keep this dispute from wasting further judicial resources or using up more trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer time, the leather and garter crew should agree to change their magazine’s name from “O” to “Ouch!” But query if they thereby would risk receiving an adverse trademark or service mark claim from the ‘E!’ network based upon the use of ‘E!’s exclamation point.

Click the “Articles” button at:

http://www.tormey.org/art.htm

to return to the main Articles page.

My trademark law practice as a publishing and entertainment attorney includes all fields of entertainment and media including music, film, publishing, television, Internet, and all other media and art forms – and trademark, service mark, and copyright work. If you have questions about legal issues which affect your career, and require representation, please contact me:

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq.

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY 10128 USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

brightline@att.net

http://www.tormey.org/

Page:

This Article Is Brought To You By The Letter Blank

Title Metatag:

trademark lawyer, publishing, entertainment lawyer, service marks

Meta Description:

trademark lawyer,publishing,entertainment attorney,service marks,entertainment lawyer,PTO,New York,intellectual property

Keywords:

entertainment attorney,entertainment lawyer,intellectual property,IP law,law firm,litigation,media lawyer,New York lawyer,Oprah,PTO,publishing law,trademark,trademark law,trademark litigation,USPTO

entertainment attorney, entertainment lawyer, article, brought to you by, letter blank, trademark lawyer, publishing, entertainment lawyer, service marks, trademark lawyer, publishing, entertainment attorney, service marks, entertainment lawyer, PTO, New York, intellectual property, intellectual property, IP law, law firm, litigation, media lawyer, New York lawyer, Oprah, PTO, publishing law, trademark, trademark law, trademark litigation, USPTO

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT

http://www.tormey.org/letter.htm