Entertainment Law

Uh oh! Here we go again. Another group of people suing the movies for falsely depicting them in a movie. This has happened before, many times and to no avail. (See Another Borat Lawsuit). According to the Associated Press, a group of retired federal drug enforcement agents sued NBC Universal on Wednesday, saying the movie “American Gangster” falsely portrayed them as villains in the story of a Harlem heroin trafficker.But, is this case different than the others?

The suit, filed in federal court in Manhattan, claims that the movie defamed hundreds of DEA agents and New York City police officers by claiming at the end that Frank Lucas’ collaboration with prosecutors “led to the convictions of three-quarters of New York City’s Drug Enforcement Agency.” (Source)

Is this just another case of Hollywood distorting reality? New York City Police Department spokesman Paul Browne thinks it is. However, according to NBC Universal Senior Vice President David Burg, the film is a “fictionalized work.”

According to the Complaint

The defamation involved the defendant NBC Universal, through its Universal Studios, falsely communicating, in writing, to millions of people in a motion picture called American Gangster that three quarters of New York City’s DEA, from approximately 1973 through approximately 1985, were convicted criminals. With this utterly false and defamatory statement the defendant has ruined and impugned the reputations of these honest and courageous public servants in the eyes of millions of people who have already been exposed to this defamation and damaged them in their current trades and professions, and, if not stopped by an injunction, will further ruin and impugn their reputations in the eyes of millions more who are about to be exposed to the defamation, and will further damage them in their current trades and professions.

The Complaint seeks relief for the following:

a. Ordering a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining and estraining defendant, and all its officers and agents, servants, and employees, and all those persons in active concert or articipation with them form directly or indirectly using, distributing or showing American Gangster to anyone else with the false legend;

b. Ordering the defendant to recall each copy of American Gangster that contains the false legend;

c. Ordering that defendant immediately deliver up all signs, prints, packages, and advertisements in its possession or under its control bearing the false legend;

d. Ordering restitution of all moneys obtained directly or indirectly by defendant by means of this improper conduct;

e. Ordering defendant to disgorge all its profits from American Gangster;

f. Ordering defendant to publish in the same media outlets in which it defamed Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class the truth about the New York City DEA’s role in the investigation, arrest
and prosecution of Frank Lucas;

g. With respect to each cause of action awarding compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but at least in an amount of $5,000,000 exclusive of interests and costs;

h. With respect to the first and second cause of action awarding punitive damages of $50,000.000;

i. Awarding prejudgment interest pursuant to Title 28, USC Section 1961(a);

j. Awarding costs and attorneys’ fees in an amount to be determined at trial;

If you’re interested, here’s the American Gangster Complaint.

Hey everyone! Check out and bookmark my colleague’s criminal defense blog The Defense Zzone with attorney Lia Fazzone. There you will find interesting takes on various criminal law related topics around the world. Enjoy!

I’m not going to spend a whole lot of time commenting on actor Wesley Snipes tax evasion trial going on in central Florida this week. But I will do my best to keep people apprised as to what is going on. I think it’s a good lesson in courtroom and trial procedure and it makes it that much more educational when it’s a celebrity at the center of the bulls eye. I like to look at it from an entertainment law standpoint that there are some very talented people in this world who just make idiotic decision. That doesn’t make them criminals. I wouldn’t say anything differently about any one of my own personal clients either. But, if Snipes was trying to thwart his nose at the US government and avoid paying taxes, he deserves a little taste of IRS Justice. (Read the update)

I’ll try to have my colleague over at the Defense Zzone to expand on the trials and tribulations that are bound to encompass this case.

Variety is reporting that last Friday, ABC Studios notified nearly two dozen writers and nonwriting producers it is terminating their overall deals as a result of the WGA strike. (Source) Although the article headline describes ABC’ actions as “Force majeure ax falls at ABC Studios” it doesn’t get into a whole lot of detail what that means.

A “Force Majeur” clause in a contract is a provision that allows a party not to perform under a contract as a result of circumstances beyond a party’s control. This is a little more expansive than “Acts of God” terminology which typically refers to natural forces being the catalyst behind non-performance under a contract. In either instance, a party to the contract is claiming it is impossible for them to perform under the deal because of circumstances beyond their control.

According to Variety,

“The ongoing strike has had a significant detrimental impact on development and production. so we are forced to make the difficult decision to release a number of talented, respected individuals from their development deals,” ABC Studios said in a statement late Friday.

Well, it looks like ABC is going to argue that the WGA strike was an event beyond its control and hence, it is impossible for ABC to perform under the various wirters’ contracts. If that is true, termination of the agreement might be appropriate. However, I guess that begs the question, does ABC have any control over the WGA contracts with the WGA writers and the overall collective bargaining agreement? If it does, ABC could be SOL.

(Read the full story here)

An Associated Press January 15, 2008 follow up:

Report: 4 studios cancel TV writers’ contracts
Move is possible concession that current season cannot be saved

The Associated Press is reporting that Wesley Snipes attempts to continue his tax evasion trial in Federal District Court have been denied. His trial will continue as originally scheduled on January 14, 2008.

According to the article,

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied a motion from Snipes’ legal team to delay the trial, which is set to begin Jan. 14. The court also granted federal prosecutors’ motion to dismiss a defense request seeking to move the trial out of Ocala, about 80 miles north of Orlando.

Snipes was indicted

with fraudulently claiming refunds totaling almost $12 million in 1996 and 1997 for income taxes already paid. Snipes was also charged with failure to file returns from 1999 through 2004.

Read the story here.

I love legal battles. Especially silly ones. That was the sentiment from New York Supreme Court Justice Marcy Friedman in a case recently brought against former James Bond Actor Sean Connery. In a recent AP Story, Justice Friedman “barred both sides from filing any more lawsuits without her permission, saying they “have engaged in a ’slash and burn’ litigation strategy.” Wait! Isn’t that what litigation is about?

According to AP, the law suit was filed by Connery’s downstairs neighbor, Burton Sultan, who “calls his neighbor Connery, 77, the antithesis of the suave secret agent he played in numerous James Bond films, branding him “a bully who ignores norms of neighborliness and decency” in the town house they share.”

Apparently, “the sides have clashed repeatedly over the Connerys’ years-long renovations to their part of the six-story, landmarked 1869 town house. The Sultans claim the renovations have subjected them to noise, fumes, leaks and rats, ruining their collection of antique wicker furniture.”

(Read the full story)

I have to thank my good friends and colleagues of the First Amendment Lawyers Association for chatting about this trend setting story. In the recent wake of the Viacom lawsuit against YouTube, one of the larges adult entertainment content producers, Vivid Video, is suing the adult content YouTube equivalent, PornoTube, the Los Angeles Times reported yesterday. (Read the article here).

At the core of the controversy, according to the article, is “just how hard a website must work to ensure that users don’t post videos belonging to someone else.” This was the same issue as presented in the Viacom lawsuit.

I firmly agree with the LA Times story that

The law on that matter is unsettled, attorneys said. YouTube and other sites have compromised with some mainstream producers, agreeing to split ad revenue generated while their clips are played.

In an era where internet distribution is becoming much more prevalent, it is important to protect the originators of the work. This notion goes for mainstream Hollywood or the adult entertainment industry.

*I have the LA Times to thank for that headline.

It really troubles me as an attorney when you do great work for a client and then all of a sudden the client feels that he / she doesn’t have to pay you for your time. I’ve been an advocate for putting contracts in writing for so long. (See Contracts 101: Pitfalls to Avoid in your Entertainment Deals - Part 1 (Introduction); and Part 2) In an industry where people want to make hand shake deals, it is so very important to let business be business and friendship be friendship. When it comes to a business deal, get it in writing. Period!High School Musical actress Vanessa Hudgens is getting a dose of business from her former attorney, Brian Schall for over $150,000.00 in fees he earned while building the young actresses career. E!Online is reporting that

A Los Angeles judge has ruled in favor of Vanessa Hudgens’ former attorney Brian Schall, allowing the lawyer to proceed with his breach-of-contract suit filed against the actress in September, in which he claims he’s owed $150,000 in back commission from the High School Musical star. (Source)

However, Hudgen isn’t going down without a fight. She and her new lawyer (I hope he got a big retainer) are challenging the legal contract because she was only 16 when she signed it. According to the article,

Hudgens’ lawyer, Evan N. Spiegel, cited California’s Family Code in the bid to dismiss the lawsuit, which “provides that the contract of a minor is voidable and may be disaffirmed before [age 18] or within a reasonable time afterward.” (Source)

This is generally a true statement of the law. But in most instances of the law, there are exceptions to every rule. The case with minors contracting, they are typically voidable unless the contract is for necessities in life or are later ratified when the minor turns 18. This is the theory the Judge is hammering at Hudgen and her lawyer. As the article states,

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Tricia Ann Bigelow said in court Wednesday that the debate over the disaffirmation had turned into a “factual issue.” That fact was that the Disney star waited until she was 18 years and nine months old before attempting to void the contract, which cleared the way for the case to proceed to either a motion for summary judgment or a jury decision. (Source)

Aside from the breach of contract claim, Schall is suing Hudgen on an unjust enrichment theory claiming that if the contract is void, he is entitled to recovery based on the reasonable value of his services. This is a tort theory rather than a breach of contract theory that people shouldn’t be allowed to receive free benefits when there is an expectation to pay for the services.

Well, as I mentioned, Hudgen is fighting back and she counter sued Schall for essentially being a bad lawyer. I’ve seen this happen on occasion, which it is why it is so difficult to sue a client over fees. According to E!Online,

Hudgens countered in her own documents that she fired Schall earlier this year after growing weary of his representation, dubbing his services “below professional standards, resulting in a breakdown of their relationship.”

Well, I find that hard to believe, especially when this article reports that “Hudgens earn[d] more than $5 million stemming from her songwriting and recording career and that [Schall] advanced her expenses and costs during the time they worked together.”

Things that make you go hmmmmm….. She made $5 million by the time she was 19 as a result of this lawyer. You tell me if that was below professional standards.

(Read the E!Online Article)

The Associated Press is reporting that Teri Hatcher is being sued by the cosmetic company Hydroderm. According to the article,

Teri Hatcher is being told to pucker up and pay $2.4 million to a skin-care products company that says she promoted the wrong lip gloss.

Hydroderm’s lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on Tuesday, claims that a 2005 agreement with ISBE Productions, Hatcher’s production company, stipulated the star of ABC’s “Desperate Housewives” wouldn’t endorse other competing products as part of a $2.4 million endorsement deal. (Source)

According to AP (I’m still trying to get my own copy of the Complaint), the lawsuit alleges that

Hatcher was also promoting CityLips, a lip plumper made by City Cosmetics that competes with Hydroderm’s lip plumper, called Volumizing Lip Serum.

…

The lawsuit also alleges that Hatcher promoted other products, but doesn’t name them.

Now, exclusive promotion deals are commonplace in many industries; especially in the entertainment industry. If Hatcher did in fact breach the exclusive promotional deal, she could be in big trouble. However, according to her attorney, Alan Wertheimer, the lawsuit is an

“unjustified and public assault on Teri Hatcher’s good name, reputation and celebrity in a transparent and pathetic effort to distract from its own failure to live up to its end of the agreement.”

Wertheimer said Hatcher complied with all of her contractual obligations despite “a frustrating series of changes in the ownership and management of Hydroderm over the last several years.”

Obviously, two sides to every story. Read the full AP story here.

I remember when this story about Evel Knievel broke when I was 7 years old. It was back in 1977 (ok, you do the math) and my childhood hero had taken a baseball bat to his PR manager, Shelly Saltman. At that time, Saltman won a $12.75 million in damages against Knievel. Well, according to the Associated Press, he was never able to recover his judgment and he now estimates it to be more than $100 million. (source). Since Knivel’s death a few days ago, it looks like Saltman is out to collect his judgment.

According to Saltman,

“We are going hot and heavy after his estate,” Saltman told The Associated Press after Knievel died Friday at 69. “What he tried to do to me and how it hurt my family, I’m owed that.”

You can read the rest of the story here.