 |
| Entertainment Law |
When it comes to the music industry and entertainment world,
one must be extremely careful when entering contracts and agreements. Taking
the time to read the fine print and seek legal advice can protect you from
making costly mistakes. Misunderstandings and ignorance are not valid excuses
when it comes to the contractual obligations you agree to with your signature. It
helps to be versed in at least the basics of entertainment law, so you know
what to look out for in an industry that has a tarnished reputation.
In a recent article, The
Hollywood Reporter states that the singer Dev is suing her record label Indie-Pop
over her recording contract. She signed the contract in 2008, which gives the
company 75% of her income. In today’s industry, labels are looking for other
revenue streams due to the popularity of digital music and the shift away from consumers
purchasing physical albums. The record labels are making money by taking a
percentage of merchandise and ticket sales in addition to music sales. I wrote
about 360 deals in an earlier post, “Developing
New Revenue Streams.” Many artists are upset with their contracts when they
realize how much this really amounts to. Now Dev says that she was pressured
into signing the deal and that she didn’t adequately review the document or
seek legal counsel. The article states that Dev is accusing Indie-Pop of
manipulating her and saying that the company didn’t look out for her best
interest.
As much as I can understand her argument of being pressured
and manipulated into such an agreement, she should have resisted
the promise of fame and fortune. Artists should always know what they’re
signing before they actually enter an agreement. There have been countless lawsuits
between artists and labels regarding issues of royalties, misrepresentation,
and other related topics. A lot of these arguments can be avoided if both
parties know exactly what they are getting into. Many labels get a bad
reputation of being unethical because artists are so blinded by the promise of
making it big, that they don’t realize what they’re signing. Once they do come
to the realization that they’re royalty checks are minimal, they don’t want to
believe that they could have overlooked something.
In another article by The
Hollywood Reporter, a record label is suing Lionsgate Entertainment for
copyright infringement. Eastland Music Group says that Lionsgate infringed on
their trademark “50/50” by releasing a movie by the same title. They argued
that the consumers wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between Eastland and
the movie so they wanted to prevent the movie from being released altogether.
When it came down to the ruling, the judge decided that there was absolutely no
way that a consumer would confuse the two because of the plot of the movie.
Whenever a company has a trademark, it should be registered
at a federal level to receive the most protection. In this particular case, I
don’t think Eastland Music Group’s argument was valid since the movie had
nothing to do with their services. If the movie pertained to music recording
and producing, then maybe the ruling would have turned out differently. A brand
name or logo is one of the most important assets a company can have. As a music
artist, the band’s name is the most important asset because it distinguishes
one musical act from another. If two acts have a similar name or the same name,
it creates consumer confusion and damages one party. For example, the One
Direction legal dispute between two boy bands (one from the UK one from the
US) using the same name.
In a video on Artisthouse
Music, Neil Netanel discussed the basis of copyright infringement and how
an artist can create an original work and still infringe on the copyrights of
another song, without being aware of it. The case he mentioned briefly was George Harrison vs.
The Chiffons, in which Harrison’s song “My Sweet Lord,” infringed on The
Chiffons’ song “He’s So Fine” because they were so similar. The court ruled
that even though Harrison didn’t mean to, he infringed on the song. Neil
Netanel also details how the songs don’t have to be exactly the same for the court
to find infringement, the songs just have to be “substantially similar.”
After hearing the two songs, I think that they do sound very
similar and would agree with the court’s decision. However, it is hard to
create original works without knowing for sure if your work is truly an
original or if it already exists somewhere out there in the world.
In conclusion, for the entertainment industry, protect
yourself by becoming familiar with the basics of entertainment law so you don’t
become liable for mistakes.
No comments:
Post a Comment