Jesse Saivar

Contact Jesse

Q: My friends and I recently formed a production company that we plan to use to produce straight-to-DVD movies. We really like the name we picked and think it’s really distinctive. When we formed the company, we had to do a name search with the California Secretary of State. Luckily no identical name came up so I think we’re free to use the name without having to worry about some other company who’s using the same name, correct?

A: Incorrect. To ease the blow of this blunt, negative answer, let me first congratulate you on trying to stump the lawyers, whether you meant to or not. While your question sounds entertainment-y, it’s actually more a question about intellectual property law, and, more specifically, trademark law. Our moms read this blog (and probably make up 50% of our readership); are you trying to make us look bad in front of our moms?! Continue reading the full story . . . »

Jesse Saivar

Contact Jesse

Q: I just got back from Comic-Con a few weeks ago and met a writer there who had written a comic book that I think would be perfect for a film. I’m interested in optioning the book but I’m not really sure how to go about it since I’ve never dealt with comics before. Anything special I should be worried about?

A: Faithful Readers! Your Law Law Land Q&A team wishes we knew that you were at Comic-Con! We were there as well, championing the cause of legal geeks everywhere. You may have seen us: the unlikely duo of Captain Caveman and Slave Leia roaming the floors. But, alas, we recognize that with negligible power, comes negligible responsibility…so we are back behind our desks, glasses on, no one the wiser and are here to answer your questions.

Acquiring rights in comic books is much like acquiring rights to other properties. The first and most basic thing you need to know is who holds the rights you want to acquire. In the comic book world, there are a few different business models that are based on the size of the publisher involved; who owns the rights you need may depend on what type of publisher issued the comic book you like. If you’re dealing with one of the big two, namely Marvel or DC, chances are the publisher owns the rights in the comic book. There’s a reason Marvel created its own motion picture production company: it was tired of hiring and paying third parties to make movies based on its own properties. Continue reading the full story . . . »

Dan Nabel

Contact Dan

Last week, KROQ’s Kevin & Bean interviewed Castle actress Stana Katic, who is starring in a new movie called For Lovers Only. The film is a “sexy love story set in Paris” and was “shot in the spirit of the French New Wave” (which sounds to me like a blend of smooth jazz, a Monet painting, and a nude beach).
The fascinating thing about the film is that it was produced by just five people. The small crew drove around France in one car using a handheld camera, and would haphazardly discover new filming locations (ironically, quite similar to the formula for a Jackass movie, though those are more “shot in the spirit of the American love of men being struck in the groin”). So although the script may have been rehearsed the night before, the location was often “TBD.”

Evidently unaware of the contingent of fascinated entertainment lawyers in the audience, Katic never discussed whether the film’s five-person crew obtained clearances or releases for anything or anyone they may have incidentally filmed. But from her description of the production, it seems possible — maybe even likely — that they didn’t. The film is currently available only through iTunes or at European film festival screenings. But although that whimsical approach to filmmaking may make for great promotional interviews on the radio, it could present a problem when filmmakers start looking for major worldwide distribution. Continue reading the full story . . . »

Rachel Wilkes Barchie

Contact Rachel

Spoiler alert: not all movies succeed.

In any given year, the bombs will outnumber the blockbusters, much to the dismay of the companies fronting the cash (and that doesn’t even count all the movies that “lose money” on paper). American treasury bonds may no longer be AAA gold-plated, but you better believe they’re a safer bet than financing a movie — just ask every pro athlete who went bankrupt investing their multi-million dollar advance into a pet motion picture project. But not everybody who watches their investment wither and die at the hands of unforgiving reviewers and uninterested audiences is willing to just walk away. For these investors, there is recoupment by litigation (and entertainment lawyers everywhere rejoiced!).

Consider the financiers of the movie Free Style, who filed a lawsuit last week in hopes of salvaging their investment in the box office bomb. Unsurprisingly, the suit names the producers as defendants, alleging that they made misrepresentations about the marketing budget and the scope of the movie’s release. More interestingly, though, the financiers are going directly after star Corbin Bleu (of High School Musical fame, for those of you without tweenage daughters), alleging that he failed to honor an agreement to provide interviews to promote the film. As a result, say the money men, after they loaned $8.57 million, the movie only earned $1.3 million from all sources including foreign distribution and DVD sales. (If you’re thinking that’s not so bad, chew on this: the movie earned only $463 on opening weekend in the United States. Yes, 463 dollars, no zeros added. The investors might have been better off selling their collectible Barbies on eBay that weekend.)

Since you’ve likely never heard of the movie (case in point?), here’s a synopsis: “High School Musical’s Corbin Bleu trades in his dancing shoes for a helmet in this family film. InFree Style, young Cale (Bleu) gives his all in his effort to be on the Grand National Motocross racing team, while his mother (Penelope Ann Miller), sister (The Game Plan’s Madison Pettis), and girlfriend (Sandra Echeverria) cheer him on.”

I’ll give you a moment while you toggle over to Netflix to add the DVD to your queue. You’re welcome.

So, having taken the unusual step of suing the star of their film, what hurdles do the investors face in proving their case against Bleu? Continue reading the full story . . . »

Matt Galsor

Contact Matt

Q: I have the opportunity to option the rights to a screenplay based on a published book written about actual events (real crime genre) that deals with forgery and murder. The book author owns the underlying rights, the screenwriter has worked on spec without legal documentation. Having read both the book and the screenplay, it seems that the screenwriter has relied heavily on materials other than the original underlying material (the book). There have been a number of other books and many articles written on this story. From a legal perspective how uphill will this battle be? As an independent producer attempting to package and sell the project, should I be concerned with clearing all the rights now — or would you advise finding a party interested enough to pursue the story who has the muscle to get it done? To give you an idea, a good example of this kind of movie would be Shattered Glass, which was the true story about a journalist who fabricated stories in the New Republic Magazine.

A: This is a story about forgery, murder, and … possibly copyright infringement. You can get away with forgery and, often, murder. But I’d shy away from copyright infringement — it’s uncool and generally looked at negatively in Hollywood.

Actual events, or any facts for that matter, are not copyrightable. In 1924, Leopold, a law school student, and Loeb, who was about to start law school, murdered a teenager just to see if they could commit a perfect murder. Aside from the fact that this is the kind of people who go to law school, the fact is the facts of the Leopold and Loeb case are not protected by copyright. And so Leopold and Loeb inspired a play, a number of movies, a book, and even a graphic novel. Leopold and Loeb is also a law firm in Century City. Continue reading the full story . . . »

Julia Haye

Contact Julia

Curt Sachs once said that “dance is the mother of the arts.” Sounds very eloquent, doesn’t it? You can’t help but think of a beautiful ballerina gracefully cascading along the stage, performing in front of an adorning audience. Now, take this quote and those serene images, place them on train tracks, wait for speeding train to hit, and…boom! You now have Dance Moms, Lifetime’s latest so-called reality show and voyeuristic indulgence featuring infamous dance studio owner Abby Lee Miller, several of her young dancers, and their overbearing moms. The show appears to be loosely scripted, at best, to contrive needless drama and controversy. Does anyone seriously believe that these moms were genuinely outraged by the “wildly inappropriate” costumes their daughters were wearing? Pah-lease!

Not surprising that the best they could do was Wednesday nights at 10 p.m. on Lifetime. (Although we can all be grateful to the show for helping to bring the phrase “prosti-tots” into the vernacular. So, you know, thanks for that.)

Before I write any further, I should probably confess that I am both a former dance competition kid and, by definition, a dance mom. Like the Abby Lee dancers, my 11-year old daughter dances nearly 20 hours a week, performs in nine group routines and two solos, and attends many of the dance competitions and conventions featured by Lifetime. So, are the rest of us dance moms angry that the show entirely ignores the positives of youth dance in favor of gross sensationalization? That it fails to point out that, instead of coming home from school and sitting on the couch playing video games, these dance kids are getting incredible exercise, learning an art form, gaining performance skills, building self-confidence and creating life-long friendships? That it ignores how the drive and ambition these kids build as young dancers will launch them into a variety of successful, non-dance careers? Absolutely. Am I writing this blog to express my disdain for Lifetime’s unfair and irresponsible depiction of the dance world? Maybe. But behind all the pirouettes, the show raises some interesting and novel legal issues. Really. Continue reading the full story . . . »