Entertainment Interview Q & A's

Question:

1) Why is having legal counsel important for entertainment companies?

Answer: Legal counsel is important to have to protect you and your company from legal obligations and liabilities. If you are going to be signing contracts of any kind, you should have an attorney on-call to analyze them to protect you and your company’s interest.

Question:

2) What are some of the most typical situations that you have dealt with involving songwriters, artist and producers who find themselves under legal scrutiny?

Answer: The most typical situations that I see happen all the time is where an artist or producer enters into agreement without counsel. Artists in particular tend to sign an agreement based on trust or a poor lack of judgment of what the contract entails.

Question:

3) What is the most important thing to consider when analyzing a contract?

Answer: Every aspect of the contract is important, however identifying what is NOT listed in the contract is the best way to analyze it. It is important to have legal counsel to analyzer the contract.

Question:

4) What role does an entertainment lawyer play between a manager and an artist?

Answer: An entertainment attorney makes the procedural decisions such as; analyzing contracts, explaining legal implications that concern the artist’s manager and artist. Furthermore, an entertainment attorney makes the executive decisions, represents a company, and helps artist/mangers to further their careers.
For more reference you can request any questions and I will blog the answers. Please email me any request and I will be happy to follow up with you.  Email: nicolev.mcfadden@gmail.com

Industry Liabilities

In the world of music entertainment, industry liabilities have become more common in the music industry. Copyright infringement and intellectual property cases are among the most common in the music industry of today.  There have been recent multimillion-dollar copyright infringement cases among the most accomplished artists and companies of today’s music era.

Vincent Peters v. Kanye West

The 2010 copyright infringement case between hip-hop rapper Kanye West and Vincent Peters was the talk of the music industry. Kanye West was being sued by Vincent Peters, better know as “Vince P,” who states that Kanye West stole parts of the song “Stronger” that debuted as a hit single on West’s 2007 “Graduation” album. Vincent stated that he gave the copy to one of Kanye West’s associates by the name, John Monopoly and the copy was later given to West. The facts of the case include that the song “Stronger” was believed by Peters to be significantly identical to his previously written lyrics. In my opinion, I don’t think that Vince Peters should’ve released the music to Kanye West associate unless he had Kanye sign a pre-existing contract that gives him the permission to use the lyrics upon contacting Peters for permission.

In my opinion, Peter would’ve had a better cause upon having legal contracts to prove that the song was placed in Kanye West possession. I also think that Peters should have took legal action in 2007 when he heard the song on the radio or when album “Graduation” was released. Peters waited three years after the song was released, and later filed a suit in 2010. I believe it would've defiantly helped Peters case if he ‘d taken legal action against West in 2007. Peters should've copyrighted his lyrics and he would have proof that parts of Kanye's song lyrics belonged to him. However, Kanye West won the case because the judge didn’t believe that the songs were substantially similar enough to hold Kanye responsible for illegal copyright infringement of Peters lyrical content. The Illinois judge dismissed the copyright infringement case in favor of Kanye West. For further reference of the case please follow the link posted below.

http://www.hiphopissues.com/2011/03/07/kanye-west-wins-in-copyright-infringement-case/

Glen E. Friedman v. Thierry Guetta

 In June of 2011 copyright case between Glen E. Friedman vs. Thierry Guetta, Guetta was accused of reproducing, displaying and creating Friedman’s previous photograph of the hip-hop music group Run-DMC. Guetta sold the original photograph to other people as his own product. The previous photograph was supposedly modified and reproduced by Guetta. Guetta stated that he obtained a copy of the photo from the Internet, and it did not have copyright notice on it that would identify the photo as Friedman’s. Guetta furthermore stated that he did not copy the copyrightable elements of the photo and it was fair use of the photo in his case (Glen E. Friedman vs. Thierry Guetta, 2011). However, Friedman did have his work copyrighted which means it was protected from someone who tries to duplicate his work. Pictures on the lower left is the duplicated version that Guetta produced, which is identical to the original photo above.

The court ruled in favor of Friedman because the duplicated photo was substantially identical to the published photo protected by Friedman. In my opinion, I agree with the courts for holding Guetta responsible for duplicating, recreating and selling Friedmans work. Guetta will have to pay the damages he caused himself for duplicating someone else’s photography as his own work. The amount that he will have to pay is undetermined, due to the case just reaching the damaging phase. For more information about this case, please follow the link below.

http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=2536

Google YouTube v. Viacom

In the copyright infringement case between YouTube vs. Viacom, the company Viacom uploaded online content to YouTube in an attempt to make money. Viacom used YouTube as a promotional tool with out the permission of YouTube. YouTube alleged that Viacom uploaded the online content that consisted of ads next to videos including copyrighted material to their website secretly. Google who owns YouTube, knew about the YouTube infringement scheme and knowingly made money off of it, as well as took a part in it. Due to the fact that YouTube is a website based on pirated content, Google and YouTube are liable under the legal precedent set by MGM Studios v. Grokster for copyright infringement (YouTube v. Viacom, 2011).

The infringement allegations against Google and YouTube are alleging that they pay back the money they made secretly. In my opinion, I think that YouTube should be held responsible for committing copyright infringement by using Viacom's website for ad sales and illegal promotion. Furthermore, they should be held criminally responsible for the illegal acts that they committed, and for not getting permission for the terms of their own use. If Viacom was aware of the content being on there website, and the appropriate monetary revenue was paid to them before the act was committed, there wouldn’t be any allegations against YouTube. In the final court proceedings Google and YouTube wins because they had no intentions to bail out a struggling business. For more information you can follow the link below.

http://thenextweb.com/us/2010/06/23/youtube-beats-viacom-in-massive-copyright-infringement-case/