I will be identifying three recent
legal controversies that are currently prominent in the film industry. The
first lawsuit comes from the Bender-Spink Production Company and their claim
that they are due profit shares from The
Butterfly Effect. According to the lawsuit, the defendants: FilmEngine,
Highwire, Roulette and Rhulen are considered an “interrelated film production
companies.” In 2003, Bender-Spink and FilmEngine signed a memorandum to produce
the movie The Butterfly Effect and
promised 50% of all net profits. FilmEngine and the other defendants informed
the plaintiffs that the film was still in the red and that there would be no
payment. Purportedly in 2012, the plaintiffs received information from another
source that the defendants had received a large payment from the film’s
distributor. The film was now in the black and had yet to pay the plaintiffs.
After years of requesting finance and accounting reports, FilmEngine sent a one
page top sheet where it indicated that the film was still in the red. According to the lawsuit, Bender-Spink is
“demanding 50% of all net profits made by FilmEngine and Roulette.” TheHollywood Reporter states that, “the plaintiffs claim that the production
company suffered damages in an amount subject to proof at trial.”
Bender-Spink Production Company
should have requested the books from FilmEngine in the beginning. I think that in
the contract there should have been a deal for Bender-Spink to look at the
books and to know the financial information regarding The Butterfly Effect.
They should have their lawyers deal with getting the information from the
defendants early on. If they had spoken to their lawyers early on, they might
have gotten a look at the movie’s finances.
Another case I am paying close
attention to, is the Midnight Rider case. On February 20, 2014, the production
was filming a scene on the train tracks when a freight train injured four-crew
member and killed camera assistant Sarah Jones. The production entered therailroad tracks without the appropriate paperwork and permission from theproper authorities. This case is very important because it deals with employee
safety. The producers had claimed that they obtained emails giving them consent
but they have yet to present this information to the authorities.
I think that the production company should
have delayed the start of the film or changed their production schedule. By
changing the production schedule, they could have moved to an inside studio
scene or get a film permit to another outside location. The family did file a
civil suit on May 21 against Greg Allman, Open Road Films, and the companies
that own the railroad tracks and the surrounding land. The family’s lawyer told Variety that “he hadfiled partly because he had run out of patience with the District Attorney’soffice.” I understand why the family filed a civil suit and agree that someone
should be responsible for the negligence that occurred during the production of
this movie. For any future filming, I will be ensuring that I have the proper
paperwork on any location that is off set. I will also make sure that producers
have safety meetings with each department and ensure that we follow protocol
from Labor-Management Safety Committee.
The last case I will discuss is
Garcia vs. Google, which The Hollywood Reporter states, “that the plaintiff,Cindy Lee Garcia, could assert a copyright interest in her performance in thefilm.” She had ordered Google to take down the film Innocence of Muslims from the YouTube site because of death threats,
she was receiving. Chief Circuit Judge Kozinski has declared that, “an actor’sperformance, when fixed, is copyrightable if it evinces some minimal degree ofcreativity.”
The case is very interesting
because there is no information on the contract she had signed with the
filmmakers. I do not think that an actor or performer with a minor role should
have a choice with the distribution or outcome of a film. Garcia allegedly
stated that the movie’s title was changed and that producers had her voice
dubbed. If her statements are true, then she should dispute it if there was no
work-for-hire contract. I think the filmmakers needed to give their talent
contract that informs them that they are just performers and do not have any
right to the material where they participate. The importance in this case, is
making sure that talent is signing the deal memos or contracts that are
specific in what the rights of talent are.
