Q: Hello, I just read the article on what “defined net profits” is/means. I’ve just signed a deal memo and am concerned with the wording…actual proceeds, no mention of gross or net (which may be a good thing). Please let me know what might be next steps…
A: The basic difference between gross and net is the off the top deduction of expenses and fees in calculating net. Speaking of off the tops, I just came from a bris. It was a particularly good one. Have you ever been? If not, find one on Facebook or Craigslist, grab a few friends, and attend. You’ll enjoy it. Mohels tend to have a great sense of humor.
Anyway, your deal is probably with a production company that will not distribute the film itself. And the term “actual proceeds” probably refers to the revenues received by the production company. The blog about “defined net proceeds” focused on a distributor or studio definition of back-end, which is basically distribution revenues less distribution costs. In your case, if in fact your deal is with a production company that will not distribute the film itself, you will be participating in the production company’s revenues.
“We can rebuild him. We have the technology.” – Richard Anderson, as Oscar Goldman, The Six Million Dollar Man
“You know, let’s put it this way: if all the people in Hollywood who have had plastic surgery, if they went on vacation, there wouldn’t be a person left in town.” – Michael Jackson
Dear readers, our first holiday gift to you of the season has arrived: it’s the new us. Do you like it? We hope you do.
Like any self-respecting residents of Hollywood, we decided it was time to get a little work done. We’ll admit it: as we started approaching our second birthday — positively geriatric by Hollywood standards! — all those little wrinkles and pockets of flab started getting to us. (And did you see the drop shadow on those border lines? So 2009.) Of course, we like to keep it tasteful here at Law Law Land, and we’re firm believers that, when you go under the knife, you want to look refreshed, not redone. Just a little nip and tuck. That’s why our new site retains all the classic Law Law Land charm (not to mention the “awesomely bad” humor you know and love), just in a cleaner, more contemporary format.
But as your mom always told you (probably while obsessing over her appearance), it’s what’s inside that counts, and that’s where the new site truly shines. A more powerful and effective search engine. Easier shareability in any social media platform you could ask for. Smart recommendations on related content you might be interested in. A better subscription and notification system. A built-in barista.* It’s like going in for a face lift, and coming out with a new and improved brain. You know, since they were in there already.
So thanks to all of you for sticking with us long enough to make it to Law Law Land Version 2.0. We can’t make any promises for what Version 3.0 will someday bring, but we think it’s safe to say it will involve providing each and every one of our readers with the secret to inner peace.**
* Built-in barista not available on all any computer systems.
** Law Law Land Version 3.0 will not provide any of our readers with the secret to inner peace.
The first time I saw Dakota Fanning’s now-infamous ad for Marc Jacobs’ new Oh Lola! fragrance was on the back of a Cosmopolitan resting in the hands of my 19-year old baby sister. My immediate reaction was “OMG…is that Dakota Fanning?! No way she’s grown up that fast!” Then my gaze shifted to the circus-caliber trait that Dakota and I happen to have in common (no, it’s not our shocking good looks) — double-jointed elbows. (God, I love it when celebrities are weird like me.)
At no point in my perusal of the ad did it even cross my mind that it was too provocative, or, as the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (or ASA) deemed it — right before they decided to ban it altogether — “likely to cause serious offense.” Clearly, like most Americans, my virgin eyes were long ago deflowered by the ubiquitous sextravagent media, and my tolerance for the “sexually provocative” has been fully developed since adolescence. Even taking a closer gander, I’m still unsure what all the fuss is about: pretty in pink lies the acclaimed child star who grew up right before my very eyes, seductively poised with a perfume bottle sculpted in the shape of a flower perched precariously (and euphemistically) between her upper thighs. (No rhyme intended. It’s not my fault Dakota’s soothing quasi-innocence makes me wax poetic. Blame Marc Jacobs.)
Whether the Brits’ better-developed campaign for a cleaner consciousness is a product of American overexposure to a steady stream of underage girls prancing around in mini-skirts and flaunting what their mommas (very recently) gave them, or a function of their more tightly-regulated media environment, I couldn’t help but think: what would the law say if Americans decided to summon the same outrage over Dakota’s Oh Lola! pose as the British censors apparently had? Continue reading the full story . . . »
For the second year in a row, the editors of the ABA Journal have nominated Law Law Land to their Blawg 100, the nation’s most prestigious annual list of legal blogs, which beats out such other, only slightly less prestigious annual lists of legal blogs as…okay, we are not aware of any other annual lists of legal blogs. This year, the ABA Journal says it received 1,300 nominations for the Blawg 100, so we would like to thank the 1,201 of you who nominated Law Law Land for this year’s list. As for the remaining 99 Blawg 100 nominators…really, what are you doing with your time on the Internet?
The way this normally works, we invite you to head over to the ABA Journal website, register, and vote for us. And those of you who followed last year’s race closely may recall how we unceremoniously crushed the competition, ringing up more votes than any other blog on the list, in any category. You may expect that we’re gearing up for a repeat run, or that we’d be out for vengeance against the ABA Journal editors, who have deemed our unique brand of humor “awesomely bad” (we prefer to think of ourselves as “badly awesome”; anyhow, the ABA editors can’t even imagine the jokes that don’t make it onto the blog).
But we’re strong believers in term limits, and besides, mailing out all those 20% off Bed Bath & Beyond coupons as bribes is exhausting. (Plus, last year, we couldn’t get a lousy ShoeDini for Hanukkah, while this year, we’re rolling in ill-begotten bounty from companies who don’t bother to check on the content of blogs before sending free samples to their editors — thanks, Clinique, my skin has never looked more rejuvenated!). So we heartily encourage you to find your favorite underdog and hack into the ABA Journal’s website so that you can spend all 12 of your votes on them. That way, some happy newcomer can experience the joy of victory, while we lean back and bask in our past glories. Don’t worry about us. We just discovered this video on YouTube…
Our Law Law Land readers have been well-educated on the law of defamation as it relates to Twitter, and on the opinion of one of our bloggers that “Twitter sucks.” (I used to agree, and even though I’m coming around to Twitter slowly, I must say I still prefer Facebook as my time-vacuum, overshare medium of choice.) So when you all read about Kansas high schooler Emma Sullivan tweeting about Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, “Just made mean comments at gov brownback and told him he sucked, in person #heblowsalot,” you knew she wouldn’t be liable for defamation because she was expressing an opinion, not making a statement of fact.
Maybe Governor Brownback’s staff should read our site a little more often too. The fact that Sullivan’s tweet didn’t meet the test for defamation didn’t stop them from notifying Emma Sullivan’s school principal about her tweet (sent to her legion of 60 followers!). In turn, the principal notified Sullivan that she needed to write an apology to the governor by Monday, November 28. On Monday, the Shawnee Mission School District issued a statement that Emma Sullivan did not need to write an apology to the governor but saying this issue presented “many teachable moments” about the use of social media. Sullivan, for her part, came forward — with, what else, a tweet — to state for the record that she would not apologize to the governor (“I’ve decided not to write the letter but I hope this opens the door for average citizens to voice their opinion & to be heard! #goingstrong”). Then an apology on Facebook ended up coming from the governor himself, who evidently decided not to run for reelection on his staff’s “silence the teenagers” platform when he declared, “My staff overreacted to this tweet, and for that I apologize. Freedom of speech is among our most treasured freedoms.”
Meanwhile, in the court of public opinion, people’s reactions have ranged from celebration of Emma Sullivan’s exercise of her free speech rights, to criticism of the Big Brother-esque nature of Brownback’s staff’s vigilance of his name in social media, to the sentiment that Sullivan was being rude, to agreement that Brownback “does suck.” (Oh, to go back to those innocent days where you believed your online postings were “private!”) So, given that she is a student, what limits are there on Sullivan’s speech? Continue reading the full story . . . »
I tried, Law Law Land readers, I really, really tried. I struggled, but alas, I was not strong enough to stop myself from writing about the Kardashian divorce.
The 72-day marriage (if it can even be called that) of Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries (herein referred to as “KK,” or maybe “666” would be more appropriate), is chock full of legal issues. What about the prenuptial agreement? (“Ironclad,” I’m sure, but speculation is already swirling about whether Kim’s “shady behavior” has rendered it “worthless.”) What to do with the gifts? (Apparently Kim is donating $200,000 to charity in lieu of returning the gifts. I’m sure the people who bought her the $375 candy jar, or $6,500 vase, or $1,250 serving spoon, or $1,600 teapot, or $840 ashtray are thrilled about that decision and the tax write off she gets. And no, I did not make up those items or prices). Why isn’t gay marriage legal and this is? (Beats me, but it really makes you think about that whole “sanctity of marriage” argument.)
No, you aren’t having a stroke, it really is that big and shiny.
But the burning issue I want to write on? What happens to THE RING? (I think the 20.5-carat sparkler deserves all-caps treatment.) Continue reading the full story . . . »
