Liability: Ambiguous ownership
of rights.
A recent article in the Hollywood reporter titled "Lawsuit Explores Who
Owns Rights to a Stax Records Musical" points out the
intricacies of publishing rights ownership and its importance.
The parties involved include plaintiff Evergreen Media, and
defendant Concord Music Group. Both companies are planning to produce a
Broadway musical about the artists whose careers were launched by Stax Records,
a prolific record company that existed during the civil rights era. The
question is who has the right to do so.
Evergreen Media has signed an agreement with Rondor Music,
which holds the publishing rights to the music of Stax Records, however Concord
Music Group holds the rights to the original sound recordings. Therefore, the
likely outcome of the lawsuit appears to be that Evergreen will be able to
produce their Broadway show (and related film), but will have to do so without
using the original recordings of Stax Records’ artists. Instead, the actors in
the play will actually have to be able to sing the songs rather than lip-sync
to original recordings.
Based on lessons learned in our Negotiations and Deal-Making
class, it would be my suggestion for Evergreen and Concord to enter into
negotiations and brain storm ideas for a collaborative effort between the two
companies that would likely result in a better overall musical and film so that
both companies would reap greater rewards.
Liability:
Insufficient knowledge of whom you are dealing with.
The article "Iggy Azalea Sues
Ex-Boyfriend for Releasing Early Music, Foregoing Contract"
reiterates the importance of federal registration of copyrights and trademarks.
At the age of seventeen, while working on her music, the
young artist Iggy Azalea met a man who represented himself as an oil executive.
Knowing very little about him (including the fact that he was married with
children), she accepted his offer to be put up in an apartment in Houston,
Texas. The following year, she moved to Atlanta, and the supposed successful
oil tycoon decided to move with her.
Azalea’s lawsuit alleges that while the two lived together
in Atlanta, the boyfriend copied the entire content of her computer’s hard
drive, including music that she had not yet released. Years later, he formed a
joint venture and began distributing her music via digital distribution
claiming that he had “secured the rights” to her material. However, the contract
that he submitted as evidence to those rights appears to be a fraudulently
modified copy of an artist management agreement that Azalea had previously
signed.
She is suing for copyright, trademark, and name and likeness
infringement (among other things) against her former boyfriend and the other
members of his joint venture.
The article does not indicate whether Azalea’s copyrights
and trademark are registered, but in my opinion, her first mistake was having
no real knowledge of the man with whom she was dealing. When she met him in
2008, and he offered to rent an apartment for her, all kinds of red flags
should have gone up! A simple half-day of Internet research on this person
could have saved her a lot of time, money, and aggravation.
Liability: Incomplete
contracts (not paying attention to what is NOT in the contract).
"Glenn Danzig Loses
Misfits Lawsuit Over Merchandise." This article touches on a subject
discussed in this week’s video lesson – looking for what is NOT in a contract.
Danzig was attempting to sue a former band mate, Jerry Only, for selling band
merchandise with the Misfits logo on it without sharing profits with the other
members of the band. In 1994, the members of the band had signed a contract
that Danzig believed fully covered the equal distribution of profits on
merchandise sold. He was wrong.
The judge through the suit out, indicating that the language
in the contract did not prevent Jerry Only from entering into his own
negotiations with retailers to sell Misfit merchandise.
My only suggestion regarding this case would be this: “If
you have the means, have every
contract reviewed by an attorney before you sign it, and make sure that the
intent of all parties to the contract is understood.”
My business plan.
My business plan will include language that clearly
describes how a legal budget reserve will be included and funded
proportionately as the company grows. A few years ago, I worked for a very
large mortgage lender, and one of my primary responsibilities was to calculate
a monthly liability reserve, or reserve for loan loss. I see no reason that my company should not do
the same. While I appreciate the fact that “common law” trademark and copyright
laws exist, they appear relatively useless, particularly in a situation where a
great deal of money is involved. It will be my intent to protect all of my
content to the extent possible without spending so much money on it that it
makes the company financially incapable of operating.
No comments:
Post a Comment