Matt Galsor

Contact Matt

Q:  I will be directing a small feature financed by private investors.  It’s based on my script.  I want to ask for final cut, but I know only big time directors get final cut.  Anyway, I wonder if it’s something I can ask for and how final cut works.

A:  In many ways, a director without final cut is like a painter who has no right to determine what his painting looks like.  Of course, in many ways, it’s not like that — a director needs a lot of other people’s money to make a film, and a painter doesn’t.  If a studio invests tens or hundreds of millions of dollars into a picture, it only makes sense that it wants to control final cut.  That’s why only well-established directors are able to negotiate final cut on studio films.

The situation is different on small films not financed with studio money.  On those films, almost everything is negotiable, including final cut.  So you should feel free to ask for it, especially since it’s based on your script.  After all, depending on the level of creative experience of the investors and producers involved with your film, you may be the person everyone actually prefers to have final cut.  Is it really better if some guy who made a small fortune in the car wash business and who decides to “invest” some of it in a small film has final cut?

So here is how final cut generally works. Continue reading the full story . . . »

Jesse Saivar

Contact Jesse

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 . . . »

Matt Galsor

Contact Matt

Q:  I am a young filmmaker in Australia.  I have been chasing the film rights to a book written by an American author.  I have gone through the various publishers and have finally been given the name of the agent who represents the author in the States.  I am interested in knowing if the film rights to the authors book are available, and if they are, I want to know the correct pathway to go down to purchase them.

A:  To find out if the film rights are available, all you need to do is ask the agent (but you also need to do a lot of other things described at the end of this blog).  Assuming the rights are available and owned by the author, the next step is to negotiate the deal with the agent on behalf of the author to option the film rights.  (If the agent is a tough negotiator, you can try to cut him out of the equation and deal directly with the author; that’s a risky strategy that can backfire.  But don’t worry, there are other books available.)  And if you make the deal, the final step is to document the deal in an option agreement.  You could actually purchase the rights, as you suggest in your question, but it’s unusual to do so — the typical way to go about this is to option the rights.

Continue reading the full story . . . »

Ken Basin

Contact Ken

This time of year, the legal press is pretty well flooded with articles summarizing the most important cases and decisions of the last year, or looking ahead to the most important cases of the coming year.  This is all well and good — indeed, just this Tuesday, I offered my own list of five important cases to watch in 2012.  But what’s the fun of spending all of one’s time following important cases, when there are so many amusingly absurd cases to watch out there instead?  In that spirit, here are five cases that may not break any legal ground in the coming year, but that you’ll still want to keep an eye on (if only to have something funny to talk about at cocktail parties). Continue reading the full story . . . »

Ken Basin

Contact Ken

‘Tis the season.

‘Tis the season to be jolly.  ‘Tis the season to go shopping.  ‘Tis the season for political gaffes.  ‘Tis for hilarious gifting of intentionally awful presents.  Yes, ‘tis the season for lots of things, but most of all, ‘tis the season for top-ten lists.

Ten best movies.  Ten best dressed.  Ten best pet gifts.  Ten best of everything.  Ten best top-ten lists.

It seems only fitting, then, to embrace the spirit of the season, and look ahead to 2012 in obligatory list form.  But let’s mix it up a little by breaking up our list into two parts.  Today, we bring you five important cases you should watch in 2012.  On Friday, we’ll follow up with five totally unimportant trainwrecks of cases you might not be able to pry your eyes away from. Continue reading the full story . . . »

Jesse Saivar

Contact Jesse

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 . . . »