Cinema Law: What Are Your Options When You’re Fired From A Job Before It Even Begins?

Cinema Law: What Are Your Options When You’re Fired From A Job Before It Even Begins?

In contract law, there’s something known as “promissory estoppel” which is a confusing and lawyerly name for a very simple concept: when you make a contract with someone, they cannot withdraw from the contract if they can reasonably assume you will rely on them fulfilling the contract and you’re harmed in some way if they do withdraw. In your case, because you signed an employment contract with the production company, had discussions about the job several months in advance and blocked out the time at the expense of other jobs, (meaning they should have realized by taking this job, you were foreclosing other employment opportunities) it sounds like you might have a good argument for promissory estoppel.

Read More

I Will Not Tell You Where To Get Free Forms Online

“Greg,” a prospective client might ask me, “Where can I find a free online form to create my contract/document/will?”

“I don’t recommend doing that,” I would likely respond.

“But isn’t the democratization of the law something to celebrate?” they might retort. “Why are you against progress?”

Just to be clear, I’m not against the public having access to affordable and useful legal information (what do you think this blog is, after all?) and I’m very much in favor of people with genuine financial limitations having SOMETHING rather than nothing. So in a pinch, if you can’t afford a lawyer, a template document can be a useful tool.

But it’s true that I don’t like free online forms and don’t trust them. And if you’re not in dire financial straits, I don’t recommend using them. Why?

  1. You don’t know what’s in them. The legalese in these forms can be confusing and because of that, the form might contain language that isn’t applicable to your situation, or worse, is actively harmful to your interests. I’ve seen first hand how badly this can go… several years ago I had a client who used an online form to license his work to another party. But because he selected the wrong form, he accidentally ended up selling the rights to his work outright and wasn’t able to get them back. There’s a reason lawyers spend so much time and money on schooling and then years working for other attorneys… to build up the knowledge base and skills needed to understand how to read and write these documents.

  2. They’re not written for your needs. While forms can sometimes be a useful jumping off point, they can fail to address issues that are unique to your situation. Not all documents are made equal and you may require specific language in yours that a form can’t anticipate. And if you intend to use a contract template over and over again, there may be differences between your own clients that necessitate changes between contracts. For example, you may require different payment terms for different clients because one has proven to pay timely and reliably and another has proven to be delinquent. A form is designed to be a one-size fits all approach that may not be appropriate for you.

  3. They can’t anticipate what you don’t know to look for. Let’s be honest. You don’t know what you don’t know. That’s why you hire a professional anytime something bad happens with your car, your house, your lower back, etc. Using a form that can’t anticipate your knowledge level means you could be leaving money on the table you didn’t know you had a right to; it could leave out important clauses that protect your interests and include clauses that harm you; it could result in ambiguous terms that neither party can understand; it could force you into arbitration when you’d rather use the court system. You may end up worse than you started because you didn’t know what to look for.

  4. They may not be legally valid in your state. While many contract provisions are valid no matter where you live, some states have very specific rules regarding contract construction or formalities that a form may not pick up on. For example, if you are drafting a will, some states may require you to have it notarized and attested while others don’t. Some states may permit a contract to be modified while other states may forbid it. Failing to check your state's specific language requirements for documents may render them legally invalid.

I understand that attorneys are expensive and I also know there’s a subset of people who just want to DIY everything, but the benefit to having an attorney draft your document is that you’ll be able side-step these pitfalls while also having your needs met in real time. So no, I won’t tell you where to find free form templates online. Partly because I want you to pay me to do it for you, but largely because I want you to get it done right.

Why Wayne Is The Bad Guy In His Own Movie: Wayne's World And Morality Clauses

Wayne’s World premiered 25 years ago this month and remains a high water mark in modern comedy filmmaking, which is why I guess everyone’s been talking about it lately. I love the movie for a lot of reasons: it’s a fully realized concept, unlike a lot of SNL spinoff films, the comedy holds up on repeat viewings, and it clocks in at a lean hour and a half (I don’t know about you but I HATE the modern trend of bloated two and a half hour comedies… if you can’t say it in 90 minutes or less, you can’t say it).

To celebrate its silver anniversary, HBO has been playing it a bunch, so I’ve had the chance to rewatch it. And while the movie is good as ever, something stuck in my craw this time. Wayne (Mike Myers) is kind of the bad guy in his own film. And the skeezy TV producer Benjamin (Rob Lowe) who the film tells us is the villain is actually on the right side of things. And it’s all because of a contract dispute.

Great. Another movie ruined by being a lawyer.

So anyway, a big plot point in the film is Wayne’s reluctance to giving his show’s sponsor, Noah Vanderhoff (Brian Doyle Murray), a weekly guest spot/interview, a concession Wayne agreed to in his contract. Late in the second act, Benjamin and Wayne butt heads over this issue in what is probably one of the best modern comedy bits in recent history:

Eventually, Wayne agrees to conduct the interview with Vanderhoff, but not before writing offensive remarks on his interview cards, humiliating the sponsor on live TV.  Needless to say, Benjamin isn't happy.

Benjamin: You've publicly humiliated the sponsor.

Wayne: Yeah!

Benjamin: You're fired.

Wayne: Fired? For that? Sh'yeah! Right! I'm out of here, and I'm taking my show with me.

Benjamin: We own the show.

Wayne: Aw, bite me.

Dammit Wayne! This is why you always read your contracts! And not just play-read like you did in that scene where Garth talks about sentient baby tongues.

So there’s two things going on here. First, despite Wayne’s incredulity at losing the show, it’s fairly common for a television network to buy the rights to a show they’re producing. If the creator has a lot of clout, the network will sometimes agree to license the rights instead, allowing the creator to retain ownership. But that’s exceedingly rare these days. They’d rather own it outright so they can control the property and all its ancillary revenue streams like VOD, streaming, distribution, merchandising, and spinoffs. The way the film plays it, it feels unfair (and maybe it is - how would Wayne know that giving up the rights to Wayne’s World is typical? It certainly seems that Benjamin took advantage of his inexperience), but it’s the way the business works. Wayne and Garth would’ve been smart to get a lawyer to look over the contract before signing it.

The second is whether Wayne actually breached his contract, warranting his dismissal. This is a hard call since we haven’t read his contract, but we can make some educated guesses based on the average talent agreement. While Wayne fought Benjamin on the Vanderhoff thing, he did eventually relent and conduct the interview. No one can deny that. So what gave Benjamin cause to fire him? My guess is a morality clause.

A morality clause is a provision found in certain types of employment contracts that forbids the employee from engaging in activities that may reflect badly on the employer. A violation of the clause could result in the contract being terminated. In essence, if you act like a dick and embarrass your employer, you could get fired. Word on the street was that Brian Williams was nearly let go from NBC for lying about past news reports (before being shuffled over to MSNBC) due to a morality clause in his agreement. Allegedly, that clause stated:

“If artist commits any act or becomes involved in any situation, or occurrence, which brings artist into public disrepute, contempt, scandal or ridicule, or which justifiably shocks, insults or offends a significant portion of the community, or if publicity is given to any such conduct . . . company shall have the right to terminate.”

In the movie industry, clauses like these go way back to the 1920's and 30's when the studio system wanted to exert control over movie stars’ ability to socialize, marry, and have babies, any of which - in the wrong light - could bring shame to the studio and cause box office losses. How can that be legal, you might ask? Well, it is because most stuff you contract to do is legal (outside of sex and crime), although hard to enforce and very rarely litigated on. I ran a case law search and turned up almost nothing useful for this blog post.

Knowing what kind of person Wayne was, it was likely that Benjamin would’ve inserted a morality clause into his contract. Now I know I said Wayne was wrong up top, but I’m also not saying that Benjamin is secretly the protagonist of the film. He’s definitely a sleaze ball. He manipulated Vanderhoff into sponsoring a show he wasn’t interested in, he took advantage of Wayne’s naiveté about the TV industry and allowed him to sign a contract he didn’t fully understand, and even if he wasn’t explicitly making moves on Cassandra (Tia Carrere), he did know she was dating Wayne and was spending an awful lot of time cozying up to her. 

But when it comes to contracts, the law is pretty clear that Benjamin was in the right. Wayne bore the responsibility to read and understand his contract before he signed it. He then humiliated his bosses openly and brazenly. In other words, he made his choice. And it’s the choice of a new generation.

*Sips Pepsi*

Mmm! Delicious!

Cinema Law: What are the Rights of a Documentary Subject?

This article originally appeared on Moviemaker.com on November 28, 2015. Republished here with permission.

Q: What rights does the subject of a documentary film have if the film falls apart?

As with all things in the law, the answer is: It depends. A documentary subject’s rights are dictated by two interrelated factors: the rights granted by contract with the filmmakers, and the rights granted by law.

Rights Granted by Contract

I feel like I say this so often I should trademark it: You need to put your agreement into writing prior to filming. Written contracts are crucial to any business relationship and are designed to ensure that participants know what they’re supposed to do and are held accountable if they don’t do it. When prospective clients approach me with legal problems, it’s a good bet they’re dealing with an issue that could’ve been avoided if they had put everything on paper first.

A good contract will explain what a documentary subject’s rights and duties, including what he or she can do if the film inexplicably halts production or falls apart in some other fashion. Will he or she have producing and creative input, or simply act as a conduit for storytelling? If it’s the former, will the subject have an ownership stake in the film? Can he or she take control of the production by buying up all the footage and/or hiring a new producing team to finish the film? If it’s the latter, can the subject withdraw the use of his or her likeness and story? What kind of oversight will the subject have to control how he or she is portrayed on camera?

Without a written contract, a lot of these questions are left up for grabs, and a subject’s ability to influence the outcome and direction of the film is limited.

Rights Granted by Law

Even without a written contract, a documentary subject still has options. The law provides a certain amount of built-in defenses to people who don’t want their identities misused in commercial settings. In particular, the law requires filmmakers to get their subjects’ permission to screen the finished product for an audience. Failure to do this means they could be in violation of their subjects’ publicity rights, and that could open them up to defamation and invasion of privacy claims.

Broadly speaking, publicity rights are a subject’s ability to control the commercial use of his or her name, image, likeness, story, or any other specific aspect of identity. The rights and remedies vary state by state, but they’re considered part of an overarching “right of privacy” that’s recognized in all 50 states. Seventeen states (most notably New York and California) have statutes preventing the unauthorized use of a person’s identity. The remaining states protect it through common law.

Smart filmmakers won’t leave this kind of thing to chance. They’ll acquire someone’s life rights in writing, not only to ensure the subject’s cooperation with the production, but also to appease insurance companies, financiers and studios. Insurance companies won’t provide the necessary Errors & Omission (E&O) coverage if there’s a strong likelihood the production was left open to liability by failing to secure these rights. Financiers won’t want to bankroll a film where the main subject’s story isn’t secured, and studios won’t buy a film if there’s a chance the film’s main subject could sue them for defamation and invasion of privacy.

If you’re the subject of a documentary film, this is your leverage over the filmmakers to ensure they don’t go forward with the film without your consent and participation. If the film is simply stalled, leveraging your publicity rights probably won’t get it back up and moving again, but you can at least make sure your story is safe and secure, ready to be granted to a filmmaker who is willing to put it all in writing. As it should be.

In Brief: Daniel Craig Will Return As James Bond Because He Is Contractually Obligated To [UPDATED!]

Daniel Craig doesn't want to be James Bond anymore. Some have argued that his comments about slashing his wrists before playing the part again are really about using the press to negotiate a better deal for himself, but I take his words at face value. In fact, I'm not convinced he ever really wanted the role to begin with... that he was more interested in the potential exposure and interesting work opportunities that being James Bond would afford him. Even at its best, his relationship with the character has been cool.

Read More