If you read the paper, watch TV, listen to the radio or use the Internet, it’s been tough to avoid SOPA recently.  (If you don’t, well, you’re probably hand-writing angry missives in a cabin and not reading this.)  What we’ve seen thus far are two widely-popular, well-funded industries passionately going toe-to-toe with one another, with one widely-unpopular but well funded group of politicians playing referee.  After some low blows, eye gouging and hair pulling, the anti-SOPA team has prevailed, at least temporarily.

Unfortunately, after listening to both sides of the debate, I’m convinced the vast majority of the debaters and their audience lacked a strong understanding of exactly what SOPA says and what its true implications would be.  Because we’re dealing with powerful industries with enormous soap boxes, the majority of the “discussions” presented to the public have been severely slanted by the presenter’s personal stake in the contest.  As with most heated political topics, this is great for sound-bites and overbroad, black-and-white ways of looking at things, but not so great if you actually want to understand the proposed legislation.  So as any good humanitarian should do, I’m going to attempt to sum it up from a relatively-neutral legal perspective.  Even if SOPA itself is no longer on the table (for now), the fight it started can give us insight into the sides’ respective concerns and the future skirmishes we’re likely to see. Continue reading the full story . . . »

Q:  I’ve been negotiating an option on a book for a few weeks and we’re about to the point where we’re going to sign the paperwork.  The book is a pretty standard detective novel.  The other day the author happened to mention that he had already sold one of his books to a studio.  It turns out that the book he already sold shares the main character (the detective) with the book I’m interested in.  If the plots are completely different between the two books, does this even matter?

A:  Unfortunately, it likely does matter.  Generally, when a studio or producer acquires “movie” rights to a book, it acquires “character” rights.  In other words, in your case, the author likely granted to the studio, among other things, the exclusive right to make movies containing the characters in that book.  Therefore, you may infringe upon the studio’s rights if you make a movie based on the book you’re optioning, because it will contain the character the studio already exclusively “owns.” Continue reading the full story . . . »

Q:  What are the legalities of using actors to portray real people in a film — a fictionalized bio-pic in which the main character is purely fiction but some of the other characters are real, both living and deceased?  For example, if Forrest Gump did not use actual footage but instead chose to represent those scenes using actors to represent the famous people?

A:  I really liked Forrest Gump when I saw it.  I’m pretty sure I even cried in it.  Now I hate it for some reason.  Maybe it’s just a general backlash against Tom Hanks’ haircut in The Da Vinci Code.  But let’s not get into that.

As to your question…we Americans generally think we all have a 1^st Amendment right that gives us the ability to say what we please when we please, which has lead to such enlightening phenomena as Ashton Kutcher’s constant Tweeting (thanks a lot, Founding Fathers).  What is important to understand, however, is that this right of free speech is not absolute.  We are not always free to say what we please, especially when it comes to saying things about other people. Continue reading the full story . . . »

Q: I wrote, directed and produced a sci-fi action short that I think would make a great big budget feature. In the meantime, I have a friend who works for a small video game developer who absolutely loves the concept of my short and thinks it would make for a great game. I think it would be very cool and am thinking about putting together some sort of deal with my friend, but I don’t want to do anything that could jeopardize my ability to someday make a studio film based on my short. Should I just pass or do you think there’s a way I could make this work?

A: For you and your friend’s sake, I hope your short doesn’t involve a chubby, mustachioed Italian plumber with a love of coins who’s intent on saving a princess from mushroom and turtle creatures… in space. If that’s the case, we may have a problem. If not, there’s a chance you can make this work, but you’re right to be concerned about the possibility that your granting of rights to this video game developer could later affect your ability to produce a big screen adaptation of your short film.

First a quick note to those readers who think this may not apply to them because it involves video games: the majority of these issues would arise with respect to a production of any type of derivative work based on something you own, whether it be a video game, a book, a stage play, etc. so don’t be afraid to keep reading! Continue reading the full story . . . »

Q: I’m in the process of wrapping up a movie. I just discovered that the title we’ve been using, and the title I love, was the title of a little known [major studio] film from back in the 70s. Can I still use the title?

A: Faithful readers, it’s so nice to be with you again. You may have noticed that the last few blogs from our Q&A team may have contained a few stale references. You may have asked yourself “why are these guys trying so hard to be pop culture relevant by bringing up A Prophettwo years after it was released?” Or “what’s up with the German broccoli references?” Or (for our more avid readers) “I’ve memorized every brilliant word written by these brilliant minds and I know I’ve seen this brilliant blog before!” Well, faithful readers, we were tired of watching all you independent documentarians and shoestring filmmakers line your fat pockets with millions based on our legal advice without seeing anything but pathetic adoration in return. We took a cue from our football and basketball brethren and decided a little work stoppage was in order. We’re transactional attorneys, dammit! If we can’t kill a good thing with overzealous unrealistic negotiating, we’re not doing our jobs! So we’ve been holding out… I’m happy to report we’re now banking 13 peanut M&M’s per blog (peanuts removed). (In reality, we were kinda just busy hanging out on the couch.)

In honor of an historic event like this (I love saying “an” before “historic”), I wanted to entitle this blog The Comeback – The Day the Screaming Stopped. But wouldn’t you know it, some jerk already took that title. Which so nicely brings us back to your question. Continue reading the full story . . . »

Q: I have a question regarding the rights needed to make a film “based on” a book, and/or “inspired by” a book. First of all, is there a legal difference between these two terms? It seems that one implies a more direct adaptation (“based on”) and the other a looser connection to a book, but is there some legal basis for determining this? Also, does one need to purchase the rights to a book that “inspires” their film? How about a book that it is “based on”?

A: In answer to your first question, while technically there is no legal significance to the specific words “based on” or “inspired by,” there is legal significance to what each term may imply. Continue reading the full story . . . »