Does the film producer really desire a film lawyer or entertainment attorney as a matter of professional practice? An activity lawyer's own bias and my stacking of the question notwithstanding, which could naturally indicate a "yes" answer 100% of times - the forthright answer is, "it depends" ;.A number of producers these days are themselves film lawyers, entertainment attorneys, or other kinds of lawyers, and so, often can look after themselves legal. But the film producers to worry about, are the people who act as if they're entertainment lawyers - but with no license or entertainment attorney legal experience to back it up. Filmmaking and movie practice comprise an industry wherein these days, unfortunately, "bluff" and "bluster" sometimes serve as substitutes for actual knowledge and experience. But "bluffed" documents and inadequate production procedures won't ever escape the trained eye of entertainment attorneys doing work for the studios, the distributors, the banks, or the errors-and-omissions (E&O) insurance carriers. Because of this alone, Perhaps, the work function of film production counsel and entertainment lawyer is still secure.
I also guess that there will be a few lucky filmmakers who, through the entire entire production process, fly beneath the proverbial radar without entertainment attorney accompaniment. They will seemingly avoid pitfalls and liabilities like flying bats are reputed to avoid people's hair. By means of analogy, one of my close friends hasn't had any medical insurance for decades, and he is still who is fit and economically afloat - this week, anyway. Taken in the aggregate, many people will be luckier than others, and many people will be more inclined than others to roll the dice.
But it is all too simplistic and pedestrian to inform oneself that "I'll steer clear of the dependence on film lawyers if I just stay out of trouble and be careful" ;.An activity lawyer, especially in the realm of film (or other) production, could be a real constructive asset to a motion picture producer, in addition to the film producer's personally-selected inoculation against potential liabilities. If the producer's entertainment attorney has undergone the process of film production previously, then that entertainment lawyer has learned most of the harsh lessons regularly dished out by the commercial world and the film business.
The film and entertainment lawyer can therefore spare the producer many of those pitfalls. How? By clear thinking, careful planning, and - here is the absolute key - skilled, thoughtful and complete documentation of all film production and related activity. The film lawyer should not be thought of as simply anyone seeking to determine compliance. Sure, the entertainment lawyer may sometimes be usually the one who says "no" ;.But the entertainment attorney could be a positive force in the production as well.
The film lawyer can, in the course of legal representation, assist the producer as an effective business consultant, too. If that entertainment lawyer has been involved with scores of film productions, then the movie producer who hires that film lawyer entertainment attorney benefits from that very cache of experience. Yes, it often might be difficult to stretch the film budget allowing for counsel, but professional filmmakers tend to see the legal cost expenditure to become a fixed, predictable, and necessary one - akin to the fixed obligation of rent for the production office, or the expense of film for the cameras. Although some film and entertainment lawyers may price themselves from the cost range of the typical independent film producer, other entertainment attorneys do not.
Enough generalities. For what specific tasks must a manufacturer typically retain a video lawyer and entertainment attorney?:
1. INCORPORATION, OR FORMATION OF AN "LLC": To paraphrase Michael Douglas's Gordon Gekko character in the movie "Wall Street" when talking to Bud Fox while on the morning beach on the oversized cell phone, this entity-formation issue usually constitutes the entertainment attorney's "wake-up call" to the film producer, telling the film producer that it is time. If the producer doesn't properly create, file, and maintain a corporate or other appropriate entity through which to conduct business, and if the film producer doesn't thereafter make every effort to keep that entity shielded, says the entertainment lawyer, then the film producer is potentially hurting himself or herself. Without the shield against liability that an entity provides, the entertainment attorney opines, the movie producer's personal assets (like house, car, bank account) are at risk and, in a worst-case scenario, could ultimately be seized to satisfy the debts and liabilities of the film producer's business. Put simply:
Patient: "Doctor, it hurts my head when I actually do that" ;.
Doctor: "So? Don't do that" ;.
Like it or not, the film lawyer entertainment attorney continues, "Film is a speculative business, and the statistical most of movies can fail economically - even at the San Fernando Valley film studio level. It's irrational to perform a video business or some other kind of business out of one's own personal bank account" ;.Besides, it seems unprofessional, a real concern if the producer desires to attract talent, bankers, and distributors at any point in the future.
The options of where and how exactly to file an entity are often prompted by entertainment lawyers however driven by situation-specific variables, including tax concerns relating to the film or movie company sometimes. The film producer should let an activity attorney take action and take action correctly. Entity-creation is affordable. Good lawyers don't look at incorporating a customer as a profit-center anyway, due to the obvious possibility of new business that an entity-creation brings. While the film producer should be aware that under U.S. law a customer can fire his/her lawyer at any time at all, many entertainment lawyers who do the entity-creation work get asked to complete further benefit that same client - especially when the entertainment attorney bills the initial job reasonably.
I wouldn't recommend self-incorporation with a non-lawyer - anymore than I'd tell a video producer-client what actors to hire in a motion picture - or anymore than I'd tell a D.P.-client what lens to use on a particular film shot. As will soon be true on a video production set, everybody has their very own job to do. And I think that when the producer lets a qualified entertainment lawyer do his / her job, things will start to gel for the film production in techniques couldn't even be originally foreseen by the movie producer.
2. SOLICITING INVESTMENT: This matter also often constitutes a wake-up call of sorts. Let's claim that the film producer wants to make a motion picture with other people's money. (No, not a unique scenario). The film producer will likely start soliciting funds for the movie from so-called "passive" investors in numerous possible ways, and might actually start collecting some monies as a result. Sometimes this occurs prior to the entertainment lawyer hearing about any of it post facto from his / her client.
If the film producer is not really a lawyer, then the producer should not even think of "trying this at home" ;.Like it or not, the entertainment lawyer opines, the film producer will thereby be selling securities to people. If the producer promises investors some pie-in-the-sky results in the context of the inherently speculative business called film, and then collects money on the cornerstone of the representation, trust in me, the film producer can have a lot more grave problems than conscience to deal with. Securities compliance work is among the absolute most difficult of matters faced by an activity attorney.
As both entertainment lawyers and securities lawyers will opine, botching a solicitation for film (or any other) investment can have severe and federally-mandated consequences. Irrespective of how great the film script is, it's never worth monetary fines and jail time - and of course the veritable unspooling of the unfinished movie if and once the producer gets nailed. Whilst, it is shocking to see exactly how many ersatz film producers in the real world attempt to float their very own "investment prospectus", detailed with boastful anticipated multipliers of the box office figures of the famed movies "E.T." and "Jurassic Park" combined. They draft these monstrosities with their very own sheer creativity and imagination, but usually without entertainment or film lawyer or other legal counsel. I'm sure that a few of these producers think of themselves as "visionaries" while writing the prospectus. Entertainment attorneys and the remaining bar, and bench, may tend to think about them, instead, as prospective 'Defendants' ;.
Enough said.
3. DEALING WITH THE GUILDS: Let's assume that the film producer has decided, even without entertainment attorney guidance yet, that the production entity will have to be described as a signatory to collective bargaining agreements of unions such as for example Screen Actors Guild (SAG), the Directors Guild (DGA), and/or the Writers Guild (WGA). This is a subject material area that some film producers are designed for themselves, particularly producers with experience. However if the film producer are able to afford it, the producer should consult with a video lawyer or entertainment lawyer before making even any initial experience of the guilds. The producer should certainly consult with an activity attorney or film lawyer prior to issuing any writings to the guilds, or signing any of their documents. Failure to plan out these guild difficulties with film or entertainment attorney counsel ahead of time, could cause problems and expenses that sometimes ensure it is cost-prohibitive to thereafter continue with the picture's further production.
4. CONTRACTUAL AFFAIRS GENERALLY: A video production's agreements should all be in writing, and not saved until the eleventh hour, as any entertainment attorney will observe. It could be more expensive to create film counsel in, late in your day - type of like booking an airline flight a few days before the planned travel. A video producer should remember that the plaintiff suing for breach of a bungled contract might not only seek money for damages, but may also seek the equitable relief of an injunction (translation: "Judge, stop this production... stop this motion picture... stop this film... Cut!").
A video producer doesn't want to suffer a right back claim for talent compensation, or a disgruntled location-landlord, or state child labor authorities - threatening to enjoin or shut the movie production down for reasons that might have been easily avoided by careful planning, drafting, research, and communication with one's film lawyer or entertainment lawyer. The movie production's agreements should be drafted with care by the entertainment attorney, and should be customized to encompass the special characteristics of the production.
As an activity lawyer, I have seen non-lawyer film producers try to complete their very own legal drafting for their very own pictures. As stated above, some few are lucky, and remain beneath the proverbial radar. But think about this: if the film producer sells or options the project, one of the first issues that the film distributor or film buyer (or its film and entertainment attorney counsel) may wish to see, could be the "chain of title" and development and production file, detailed with all signed agreements. The production's insurance carrier could also want to see these same documents. So might the guilds, too. And their entertainment lawyers. The documents must be written so as to survive the audience.
