Industry Expert Blog

I recently read three very interesting cases in the entertainment industry regarding some legalities going on with music and film.  These topics were discussed on a podcast called Entertainment Law Update and the host’s name was Gordon Firemark, Esq.   The first topic that I really found interesting, was about the recent ruling on a case involving Star Wars creator George Lucas, and the prop designer of the Storm Trooper character that he hired for the movie.

            This was mind blowing to say the least, because George Lucas commissioned the designer Andrew Ainsworth to use Lucas’s drawings to create the mold for the actual character that was used in the movie.  After the success of the movie’s release in 1977,  Ainsworth setup a website to sell the costumes of the Storm Trooper from the original film and Lucas did not appreciate that. 

George Lucas filed a lawsuit against Andrew Ainsworth and the case went all the way to the British Supreme Court.  To make a long story short, the court ruled in Ainsworth’s favor, saying that he could sell the costumes on his website and there wasn’t anything that George Lucas could do about it.  The judge ruled that the costumes are functional works and not artistic works, which allowed Ainsworth to dodge the copyright infringement bullet (BBC, 2011).

The Court of Appeals and the High Court had previously ruled in Ainsworth’s favor, but Lucas felt that infringement did occur in the United States.  Andrew Ainsworth does not own any assets in the Unites States, but resides in the United Kingdom and Lucas could not win in the United Kingdom (BBC, 2011).   If this issue had began in the United States, then Lucas might have had won this case.  It really blew me away that George Lucas lost this case, because he is the creator of the Star Wars brand. 

I was shocked about this case, because I thought that George Lucas had more protection over his franchise than this.  I am not sure why he did not have the sculpture trademarked somehow, so the prop designer would still have to get his permission for use.

 The second case that I found that was interesting to me was about the Hangover 2 film and the lawsuit against Warner Brothers by a tattoo artist seeking damages.  One of the characters in the movie had a tattoo on his face that was exactly like the one that former boxer Mike Tyson made famous. 

The tattoo artist by the name of Victor Witmill had designed a tattoo for Tyson and the tattoo was featured in the film.  The article mentions that Warner Brothers copied the tattoo without asking Witmill’s permission, and ended up placing the tattoo on another actor’s face (Belloni, 2011).

I remember hearing about this case and I wondered what was going to happen at the end of it.  Victor Witmill wanted to stop the film from being released, but the film still came out anyway in spite of the lawsuit.  Warner Brothers ended up changing the cover of the DVD release of the movie, probably as part of the settlement.

The last podcast that I found was about Justin Beiber and a fan that invaded his privacy recently.  The case involved a fan that somehow found Justin Beiber’s personal cell phone number and began texting the pop star repeatedly.  Beiber ended up posting the fan’s phone number on his personal Twitter account, and the fan received 26,000 messages  (Firemark, 2010). 

It turned out that Bieber had four and a half million followers on Twitter, and the fan had to change his phone number (Firemark, 2010).   It just goes to show that you should not invade another person’s privacy.  This kind of thing could be a real headache to fight in the end.  The podcast also mentioned that this case could possibly become a small claims issue, but did not say definitely that it will for sure. 

I believe that some fans can really take things too far at times and this is one of those situations.  Just because someone loves their fans, it does not necessarily mean that they want their privacy compromised.  I am sure that I would feel the same way about having a fan that did something like this.

Some Recent Lawsuits In Music

I have read three articles recently that were of a very interesting nature regarding legal issues in the entertainment industry.  The first article I came across, dealt with a Russian social network site that has been providing unlicensed music to consumers online.  The company is called VKontakte and is in big trouble with the Recording Industry Association of America, because of the unlicensed music that this service is providing. 

The RIAA recently filed with the U.S. Trade Representative’s office on October 26, 2011, and mentions about how the social website is “undermining the growth of the international music marketplace” (Recording Industry Association of America, 2011).  This type of thing upsets me, because I am sure that the industry is well aware of sites like this one that sells unlicensed music.  It makes me think back to the Napster area and how much of a big deal it was at the time.  It is a very interesting article that music biz insiders should check out.

The second article that I found spoke about a lawsuit between pop group The Black Eyed Peas and an unknown artist named Phoenix Phenom.  The lawsuit was over the popular BEP song “Boom, Boom, Pow”, and Phoenix Phenom claimed that the idea came from her.  The court determined that the songs were similar, but not similar enough to warrant infringement to Phoenix Phenom (Wolfe, 2011).

This article is a typical situation of unknown artists trying to get their 15 minutes of fame, and by suing a famous group supposedly would bring that fame.  It is sad that some people have to resort to these kinds of tactics in order to make it big in music.  There is always going to be some similarities between songs, but to sue somebody over it would take some serious proof on the plaintiff’s part.

The last article I came across dealt with Prince being sued by a New York perfume company.  The lawsuit is because of the “Purple Rain” perfume that was named after Prince’s famous album, and Prince was accused of not holding up his end of the deal (Associated Press, 2011).

 Prince was supposed to help promote the perfume, but never did which is what brought the lawsuit into play.  As busy of a musician that I am sure that Prince still is, there is not reason that he could not have received some screen time for the promotion.  He has not been in the public eye much lately, and I think that the promotion could have helped both parties a great deal.

Steve Jobs: iSad (1955-2011)

I read an article on the LA Times’s website about the recent passing of Apple, Inc. CEO Steve Jobs, and how much he revolutionized the world itself.  According to Randy Lewis, Steve Jobs rescued the music industry from the near death state that it was in, and had given music lovers new freedom in finding music  (Lewis, 2011).  Since the record industry was already on life support, because of online music piracy and file sharing of free music, Steve Jobs was in many ways the savior that the industry desperately needed.

            According to Robert Santelli, Executive Director of the Grammy Museum in Los Angeles, said that Steve Jobs’ inventions of the iPod, iPad etc., have been just as important as the significance of the Sony Walkman and the Cassette (Lewis, 2011).  I could not agree more, because Steve Jobs really made it fun to listen to and buy music again.  There was a time when specific artists released an album, and I would really get excited when I could get it in different formats.

            To be able to have music in multiple formats makes things so much easier to transfer from one form to another.  Steve Jobs literally changed the way that we buy music and store it.  Another interesting piece about the article that stood out, was about the impact of iTunes on the sales of single songs.  In the first year of iTunes’s existence in 2003, digital downloads added up to 30 million.  In the span of two years sales had skyrocketed to 1.2 billion song downloads, which is just insane to say the least in numbers alone.

            I agree with many others that believe Steve Jobs was a true visionary who has single handedly transformed our world, and has created a fun music buying world again for all to enjoy (Lewis, 2011).  I am sure that his passing with affect the world for many years to come, and I truly hope that his successor is just as passionate about humanity as his predecessor was.

Source: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/music/la-et-jobs-music-20111007,0,653159.story

New Major Artist Management Deal

I read an article on Rolling Stone Magazine’s website about the new artistic venture between Universal Music Group and Live Nation Entertainment.  This new venture will house Universal’s four management firms under a new company called Front Line Management Group through Live Nation Entertainment.  

This deal sounds like a major thing for both of these companies, because the industry in itself is desperately trying to stay afloat in such changing times.  The same way that the major record labels all joined under the same umbrella, it seems like the major live entertainment giant and Universal Music is trying to stay alive in the same vein.

According to the author Matthew Perpetua, this join venture is likely to give clients an incredible degree of leverage in the market between Live Nation and Universal (Perpetua, 2011).  The goal of this venture is to provide more options to the music buying consumer, which is the person who’s the most important factor in this type of deal.  Live Nation will have control of this company, as well as being co-owner of Front Line Management Group.

Also according to a statement by Lucian Grainge, who is the CEO of Universal Music, "We are creating a series of new platforms and global direct-to-consumer initiatives that will further expand the presence of our artists in the evolving marketplace while providing music fans with even more flexibility in how they consume music" (Perpetua, 2011).  This deal will hopefully put things back on track with the artist and the consumer, otherwise the industry will just continue to spiral downward.

The figures for this deal would probably be one for the ages, but I’m sure that both companies will become the industry leaders in a new management journey.  I just hope that the artist and music buyer doesn’t ultimately suffer from this merger, since both companies were already powerhouses separately before this new deal was presented.

 Source: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/universal-forms-artist-management-company-with-live-nation-20110920

Time 2 Move On

My mind races in ridiculous speeds and I have a hard time slowing my thoughts down.  After actively pursuing my dream of being in the entertainment business, I feel that I have hit a crossroad in my life where I’m questioning my purpose.  I have been a dj professionally for 20 years, and in that time there had been many ups and down for me.  I’m at the point in my life now that I feel that this dream has run its course, and as painful as this is to say I think it’s time to move on from music.

All of my life there hasn’t been anything more important to me than entertainment.  When I first started out, I entertained strictly for the love of the artform itself and never was motivated just for money.  The passion that I once had came from within and that really felt good, but the good feelings are no longer alive anymore.  This has been the scariest thing that I have ever faced in my life, and I don’t honestly know what to do anymore.  

I thought even by going back to school to pursue a bachelor’s degree and master’s degree in Music / Entertainment would have sufficed.  Unfortunately, getting the bachelor’s degree just turned out to be a personal accomplishment, but no progression had come from obtaining it career wise.  I still may be involved in the entertainment industry at some capacity, but honestly I really don’t see many options coming my way at this point.  Just about everything that a person could do to advance themselves I had tried over and over again.

Once I receive my master’s degree I might just chalk that up as another personal goal, but probably won’t do anything with it either.  I think that the time for retirement from this music entertainment maze has come full circle, and I appreciate all of the time I’ve given to djing.  Maybe I didn’t push myself hard enough to go further with my gift, but it was definitely fun while it lasted. 

Musical Life Support

I recently had watched a disturbing video on Fox News's website about the current state of the entertainment industry.  The video mentioned about how some financial institutions are  looking to purchase some music publishing companies as an investment.  This video set off an alarm within me, because I felt like there is no way that banks should ever be tampering with artistic creativity.  These banks are not concerned about the artist's music at all, and it's only being looked at as a way to make even more money than they already are making.

An artist should never give up their publishing rights to anyone, especially a bank that more than likely does not care anything about you or your work.  I watched this video as a part of a class assignment and some other students thought the bank's involvement would be a good thing.  I do not see how anybody would think this is good for the music industry at all; because the artist would lose everything he or she has built.  If this is the future of the recording industry, then those of us that have given our lives to it are in serious trouble.

The only time it would make sense to sell your publishing rights, would be if the artist is deceased and that artist's family could survive off the value of that music.  Otherwise, it should not ever be messed with, and I feel sorry for the artists that are living that have had to sell themselves.  At the end of the day, the music is all that the artist has.  It is about the music and not throwing a dream around like a worn out shirt.  This is what these banks and other greedy vultures in the industry are doing and I am not impressed at all about it.

According to The Music Business Handbook And Career Guide, a publisher's main source of income comes from record royalties and performance royalties from publishing rights organizations such as BMI and ASCAP.  Performance royalties are generated from performing on television, radio and other media outlets  (Baskerville, 2001).  If an artist owns their publishing rights, then they will generate the majority of the money that's owed to them anyway.  This is exactly why an artist should not sell their rights, because it's their music and they should get the money that they deserve to have.  The banks won't provide this money to the artist, and there have been hundreds of doo-wop groups from the 1950s and 1960s that still haven't been properly paid to this day.

Another example of why artists should never give up their rights happened to Elvis Presley among others.  According to a book called They Fought The Law, which was written by one of my professors at CU-Denver named Stan Soocher, he wrote about an incident with Elvis and his manager about this very important issue.  Elvis's manager Colonel Parker sold Elvis's royalty rights to RCA Records for $5.4 million.  Colonel Parker received the majority of the money and Elvis received hardly anything  (Soocher, 1999).  Elvis had trusted his manager so much at the time, that as long as he was performing and making movies he wasn't really worried.  His manager really ripped him off like most managers ended up doing the same thing to their artists.  Alot of artists to this day still aren't business minded, and countless stories about this type of situation is still happening.

The majority of the money that Elvis made from his movies and music went to his manager.  His manager really had no concern for his client's well being and just wanted to get over.  This to me is the same situation that the banks will do with the publishing rights of some of these same artists.  Artists should know everything that goes on in their careers, but most don't care about the legal part of the business.  Elvis barely had sought out legal representation during his career and it most definitely had shown in later years.  He trusted the wrong people with his career, and in the long run he wasn't as powerful as people had thought.  I sincerely hope that more artists in the future will become more business minded, and to stop outsiders from recouping the money that the artist should have instead.

Sources Citied:

Phd, Baskerville. D (2001).  Music Business Handbook And Career Guide.  7th Edition.  Sage Publications, Inc: Thousand Oaks, California

Soocher, S.  (1999).  They Fought The Law.  Schirmer Books:  New York, NY

RIAA Loves iCloud

The online music service craze has recently hit its peak with a major deal signed between the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), and the remaining four major record labels.  iCloud, which is Apple, Inc's newest online music storage service on the market, will launch its service this fall.  The music industry has been trying to figure out for a long time how to remain relevant in the digital age, and very well may have found their answer with iCloud.  The RIAA is a trade organization that supports and promote intellectual property of major record companies.

The RIAA believes that this deal will allow music fans to enjoy buying music legally, and will also make sure that the RIAA keeps the reigns tight on artistic creation.  The "big four"  labels will get 70% of iCloud revenues, which may help the industry get out of the sales slump that they've been drowned in.  This move influences my industry, because of how music content will be distributed online to battle the illegal download problem that's plagued entertainment for years.  The basic point of this deal was to make sure that intellectual property is being respected, which had taken a serious hit through file-sharing services like Limewire and Bearshare.

This very well may be the new method of how online music will be distributed, and will allow music to be shared on multiple devices for each consumer.  This will be an interesting thing to see how the industry itself will survive with this new "big brother" deal.  I'm not sure how I feel about the RIAA's plans with this, but I do know that at the end of the day it's a business.  I understand the industry's trying to make money back from previous losses, but I'm skeptical about how much the RIAA really cares about the fan or the artists involved.  As long as control is the name of the game, it's pretty obvious that money is the only truly important factor in this new deal.  iCloud really sounds like a cool service from what it can do, but illegal music sharing will always exist.

Unfortunately, there’s nothing that the RIAA can do to silence file sharing totally, because if they could then it would have happened many years ago.  The fans will always share music with each other and the industry has always known this fact.  Disc Jockeys at one time were the darlings of the music industry, because it was through us that music was really being heard anyway. With the digital age in full bloom, nearly anybody can be a dj these days.  The technology has been a blessing and a curse for my portion of the industry, but talent will always prevail over button pushing every time. The real djs will always stand out from the folks who just push buttons on laptops.