Blog« back to blog homeSubscribe to RSS feed
Indie filmmakers navigate wild west of foreign film distribution
Category: News, Press | Friday, November 9th, 2012 | Comments Off on Indie filmmakers navigate wild west of foreign film distribution
Overseas distribution transactions can involve shady players
More independent filmmakers with just a script and an actor or two attached are striking deals with foreign buyers eager to pick up distribution rights to the finished product. But while such deals provide them with a way to raise cash to make their movies a reality, entertainment lawyers caution that the market for foreign distribution rights is still a wild west filled with shady players.
“Many of them are fly-by-night operators with a loosey goosey way of doing business,” said entertainment litigator Alex Weingarten of Weingarten Brown LLP, who has sued foreign film distributors for breach of contract. “But ultimately, the problem is that you have international transactions that are frequently small, and that makes it difficult to justify pursuing the people involved.”
Last week’s American Film Market in Santa Monica saw an uptick in buyers who have come from around the world to trade rights in 442 films. There were more Asian and Latin American buyers than in years past, and companies from Korea and Japan increased the most among countries in attendance. And for the first time in years, major studios like Sony Pictures and Paramount Pictures, which have access to global operations, were hawking the foreign rights to their movies, the Los Angeles Times reported.
That mutual interest reflects the difficulty of financing films in the economic downturn, as well as the growing clout of overseas markets. Foreign box office receipts are rising while U.S. ticket sales decline, and Brazil, India, Korea and Japan in particular have a growing appetite for American movies.
“These foreign markets have become not just an important revenue stream, but they functionally enable movies to get made,” said Ken Basin, an entertainment lawyer at Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger LLP who advises independent filmmakers. “Sometimes you can finance nearly all of the picture that way.”
Foreign presale contracts are a key consideration in how banks determine how much in loans to dole out to independent film projects. The more revenues promised from a reputable distributor or sales agent, the more the bank will be willing to lend, using the presale agreement as collateral.
However, collecting on the royalties once the movie’s made and sent abroad often poses problems for filmmakers, lawyers said. Foreign distributors who perform accounting sleights of hand, resell rights they don’t own or who vanish altogether are only too commonplace.
Lawyers said doing due diligence on the other party is important.
Weingarten said he’s heard of distributors who have bought theatrical rights, only to illegally resell them to a TV station – once the movie hits TV screens, few viewers will go to the box office, and there’s nothing the filmmaker can do about it. He recalled another instance in which all of the assets of the distributor were encumbered by other liens.
“It’s very, very difficult to nail people down and find their assets, and most of the foreign film markets are small titles,” he said.
Bryan Sullivan, an entertainment litigator at Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP, said he advises his clients to get as much money upfront as possible, rather than wait to collect a share of the profits if the movie becomes a hit.
“You just don’t know how much the distributor’s really collecting, and they often don’t have the best bookkeeping – maybe on purpose,” he said.
Another helpful consideration is designating the International Film and Television Alliance as the arbitrator in the contract. According to IFTA rules, the losing party is barred from the U.S. film market if it doesn’t satisfy the judgments that come out of arbitration.
“To the extent the other party wants to participate in the U.S. market, that gives you more of a practical incentive because it impedes their ability to do business in a significant marketplace,” Basin said.
But even if the American film company wins a default judgment through arbitration, there’s no guarantee that it will get any money back, lawyers said.
Still, the process may be worthwhile, if only to clear the title pre-emptively.
“What’s important,” Sullivan said, “is to get a declaration that they don’t have any right or title in the film throughout the world.”
Source: Jean Yung, Los Angeles Daily Journal
Crowdfunding: Potential Legal Disaster Waiting To Happen
Category: News, Publications | Monday, October 29th, 2012 | Comments Off on Crowdfunding: Potential Legal Disaster Waiting To Happen
Bryan Sullivan and Stephen Ma’s article titled “Crowdfunding: Potential Legal Disaster Waiting To Happen” appeared in Forbes on October 22, 2012. The article can be found here.
Early Sullivan Lands Veteran Business Litigator Stephen Ma
Category: News, Press | Tuesday, October 23rd, 2012 | Comments Off on Early Sullivan Lands Veteran Business Litigator Stephen Ma
Los Angeles, CA – October 23, 2012 – Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP (“Early Sullivan”), thriving in its second year after splitting from Glaser, Weil, Fink, Jacobs, Howard, Avchen & Shapiro LLP (“Glaser Weil”), has landed another high profile business litigator in Stephen Ma.
Among his recent successes, Ma obtained summary judgment on behalf of Bob Barker, host of “The Price is Right,” against plaintiff’s employment discrimination claims; advised and represented Warner/Chappell Music, the award-winning publishing arm of Warner Music Group, against a Los Angeles-based publishing company; and defended a national financial institution in connection with a U.S. Securities Exchange Commission investigation of alleged misrepresentations and kickbacks regarding investment advisor services.
“Steve Ma is a smart and tough litigator who has served as a trusted advisor for our company,” says Bill Lundregan, Senior Vice President and General Counsel of Esselte Corporation, the world’s leading global office supplies manufacturer. “We look forward to working with Steve and his new partners at Early Sullivan.” Ma’s business litigation and trial practice includes securities litigation, entertainment matters, business torts, professional malpractice, healthcare and employment discrimination claims. Prior to joining Early Sullivan, Ma was a partner at Glaser Weil. He received his Bachelor of Arts from Georgetown University in 1992 and his Juris Doctorate from Northwestern University School of Law in 1995.
“This is another step in us building a firm with attorneys from large law firms who, after experiencing big firm life, have a desire to practice in a boutique atmosphere,” says Eric Early, Managing Partner. “Steve shares our vision to create and sustain a model of providing stellar legal representation while efficiently staffing matters to control spiraling legal costs,” Early adds.
Early Sullivan, a business and entertainment law firm, represents a wide variety of clients in litigation, trial and transactions, including Fidelity National Financial, First American Title Insurance Company, American Broadcasting Company (ABC), EHR Aviation and Endemol USA, Inc. The firm’s success comes from its passion for the practice of law and relentless pursuit of client interests.
###
‘Walking Dead’ Writer, Artist Settle Lawsuits
Category: Press | Tuesday, September 25th, 2012 | Comments Off on ‘Walking Dead’ Writer, Artist Settle Lawsuits
Robert Kirkman, author of “The Walking Dead” comics that inspired the hit AMC zombie series, has reached a settlement over payments for the work of their original artist, Tony Moore.
The two childhood friends said they had resolved to “move on in their lives.”
Moore sued Kirkman in February, accusing Moore, a frequent comic collaborator, of tricking him into surrendering his rights to the early issues of “Walking Dead” in 2005 in exchange for payments that never came. Kirkman called the allegations “ridiculous,” and in turn sued Moore.
The gritty, realistic series — well, realistic except for the walkers — became a huge success and inspired the massive cable drama. Its third season will premiere next month.
Kirkman had made a joke months before the lawsuit was filed that Moore’s lawyer suggested could come back to haunt him if the case went to trial. In an interview for the Nerdist podcast, Kirkman was asked by an aspiring comic writer how to find an illustrator, and recommended, with tongue-in-cheek, “trickery and deceit.”
When TheWrap brought the remark to the attention of Moore’s lawyer, Devin McRae, McRae responded: “As the saying goes, in all humor there’s truth. And also, I think from my client’s perspective, Mr. Kirkman is clearly speaking from experience.”
But the conflict is buried now.
“Robert Kirkman and Tony Moore are pleased to jointly announce that they have reached an amicable agreement in their respective lawsuits and all parties have settled the entire matter to everyone’s mutual satisfaction,” the said in a joint statement. “Neither side will be discussing any details but will instead happily and productively spend their time focused on their own work and move on in their lives.”
Source: Tim Molloy, The Wrap
How an ‘Innocence of Muslims’ Lawsuit Could Impact Hollywood (Analysis)
Category: Press, Uncategorized | Friday, September 21st, 2012 | Comments Off on How an ‘Innocence of Muslims’ Lawsuit Could Impact Hollywood (Analysis)
If an actress is able to get past any written agreement she signed and convince a judge that she worked on a film under fraudulent pretenses, more controversy could be around the bend.On Wednesday, Cindy Lee Garcia, an actress featured in the controversial film Innocence of Muslims, sued [3] for allegedly being deceived into working in a “hateful anti-Islamic production.”
The lawsuit against producer Sam Bacile (aka Nakoula Basseley Nakoula) has garnered headlines because the film sparked rioting throughout the Middle East and North Africa. And if there wasn’t a big political/religious dimension to the litigation, it would still command interest because of the inclusion of Google/YouTube as a defendant. Garcia demands that the web giant remove the film from the video site because it allegedly violates her publicity and privacy rights and is damaging her. Takedowns already are controversial. This lawsuit raises the stakes by questioning whether there are circumstances beyond copyright infringement that necessitate a video’s removal.
But there’s another aspect to this case that’s also important and could cause much trouble in Hollywood: the relationship between actors and producers.
When most people agree to do a job, and that job turns out to be different than what is first represented, there’s easy recourse: The person quits.
For actors, it’s not that simple. The work might happen on set, but the performance happens onscreen, after producers, directors and editors tinker with the results of the footage shot. Catch an actor in a candid moment, and many will admit to having had a bad performance saved in postproduction — or complain of a good job ruined by all the tinkering.
Garcia is upset because the film didn’t turn out the way she expected. This is certainly a highly unusual situation. She says she was led to believe via a casting notice that she was working on an “historical Arabian Desert adventure film” and it turned into Innocence of Muslims, which she says caused her to lose her job, contact with her grandchildren and her sense of security. (The film has only been published [4] as a 14-minute “trailer,” so it’s hard to say what it is at this point.)
But it’s also not hard to re-imagine her lawsuit under different guises.
She says in the complaint [6]:
“Defendant Bacile’s representations that he intended to make an ‘adventure’ film, and that Plaintiff would be depicted as a concerned mother, were false. Instead, Defendant Bacile made an anti-Islam propaganda film, in which Plaintiff is falsely made to appear to accuse the founder of the Islamic religion of being a sexual deviant and child molester.”
Now imagine if the complaint said this:
“Defendant Paul Thomas Anderson’s representations that he intended to make a ‘buddy’ film, and that Plaintiff Joaquin Phoenix would be depicted as an up-and-comer, were false. Instead, Defendant Anderson made an anti-Scientology propaganda film (The Master), in which Plaintiff is falsely made to appear to be victim to a cult.”
Or maybe this:
“Defendant Jerry Bruckheimer’s representations that he intended to make an ‘adventure’ film, and that Plaintiff Jake Gyllenhaal would be depicted as a strong male lead, were false. Instead, Defendant made a film (Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time) that caused audiences to laugh at him.”
One of the big questions here is the latitude producers and directors have in straying from the script. How legally protected is something like editing? Perhaps the sacrosanctity of postproduction is not a given, and representations made during the casting process are paramount.
Of course, Hollywood lawyers have imagined such legal nightmares, albeit not the kind that cause anti-U.S. uprisings. That’s why actors typically are made to sign written agreements, which raises the single most glaring thing missing from Garcia’s lawsuit: There’s no mention of the contract she signed. What exactly did she waive rights to?
“Typically, a producer has the right to edit footage and leave an actor’s performance on the cutting-room floor,” says David Stern, an attorney at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell. “Nearly all acting agreements grant such rights to the producer and, further, bar the actor from seeking injunctive relief to stop the distribution and exhibition of a film. Even SAG acting agreements confer these rights to the producer. There is no duty to explain to an actor the political or societal implications of a project. In many films directed by Woody Allen, the actor does not get to see any portion of the script other than the actor’s lines.”
Other attorneys in Hollywood agree.
“Her best claim is false light because she agreed to perform a certain role and then her image was used for something else that damaged her,” says Bryan Sullivan at Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae. “But it depends on what the contract says because the rights granted in them are typically broad and don’t give the actors much input.”
So the first thing that a judge probably would look at is Garcia’s contract. One of the things she’s suing for is violation of her publicity rights. If Garcia didn’t consent to the use of her image, the producer could be liable — not for an inflammatory film (free speech, naturally) but rather for professional negligence.
Assuming there is a contract with standard boilerplate language, Garcia probably will have a tough time winning this case — but maybe not an impossible one. As Sullivan suggests, there might be some wiggle room because of the unusual circumstances. The attorney adds that the key factors will be what was said about the script, what she knew and when she knew it.
If Garcia is able to convince a court that allegedly fraudulent pretenses should nullify whatever contract she signed, it could begin a slippery slope toward more claims like these in Hollywood. Nowadays, final cut goes to the person with the most bargaining power; in the future, it might really end up being with the person with the best lawyers.
Source: Eriq Gardner, Hollywood Reporter Esq.
Liberty Hill Foundation Honors Bryan Sullivan At ChangeLA Event
Category: News | Friday, September 21st, 2012 | Comments Off on Liberty Hill Foundation Honors Bryan Sullivan At ChangeLA Event
On September 15, 2012, Bryan Sullivan received the NextGen Leadership Award from the Liberty Hill Foundation at its annual ChangeLA Event at the W Hotel in Hollywood recognizing Bryan’s philanthropic commitments, progressive activism, and pro bono legal work. The Liberty Hill Foundation noted that “Bryan has maintained a high level of community service by raising funds for progressive nonprofits like Bet Tzedek.
He co-founded BASTA, a Los Angeles non-profit tenants’ rights group that has grown from two to thirty employees. He is a founding board member of the Lion Fund For Children, a pending non-profit organization dedicated to helping sex abuse victims. Bryan is also pro-bono counsel and corporate secretary to I VOTE Nation. Over 200 people attended the event and it raised over $36,000 for The Liberty Hill Foundation.
Gov ordered to submit bill to pay Laufou fire judgement
Category: News, Press | Saturday, September 1st, 2012 | Comments Off on Gov ordered to submit bill to pay Laufou fire judgement
Sources say amount could exceed $8 MIL and counting
The High Court has issued an “alternative writ” directing Gov. Togiola Tulafono to submit for legislative approval, legislation to pay the court judgement of more than $6 million against the American Samoa Government over the fire about a decade ago that destroyed the old Laufou Shopping Center.
The writ was based on a petition filed last week by attorneys for Progressive Insurance Company (Pago Pago) Limited, the insurance company for Laufou.
The writ to respondent Togiola Tulafono, in his capacity as governor, states that it “appears from the verified petition on file in this action that you have failed to perform your legal duty under A.S.C.A 43.1212(c) and that petitioner, the party beneficially interested, has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law,” according to the writ dated Aug. 27, signed by Associate Justice Lyle L. Richmond.
(According to the statute, ASCA 43.1212 titled “Payment of judgment or settled claim” and subsection (c), which states that, if any claim is allowed, settlement made or judgment rendered in excess of $25,000, the governor shall forward legislation appropriating funds for the payment of such amount to the Legislature, at its next regular session, for action. Additionally, the Treasurer is authorized to pay such amount as may be appropriated there-for by the Legislature.)
“Therefore, you are commended on or before Sept. 7, 2012, to forward legislation to the Legislature appropriating funds for the payment of petitioner’s judgement” in the amount of $6 million plus post-judgement interest at 6% from July 24, 2007 to the date of payment.
In the alternative, to show cause before the court on Sept. 14, 2012 “why you have not done so,” the order states.
How much the government will have to pay in total including the post judgement remains unclear but some in the legal community told Samoa News that it is probably over $8 million and counting.
The FY 2013 budget under Special Program budget category appropriates only $1 million for this case, which government calls in the budget document a post judgement case involving tort claims for the fire that destroyed the old Laufou, and following an appeal that vacated a judgement of $6.6 million, the Trial Division of the High Court entered a new judgement for the same amount.
ASG is presently appealing this second judgement but believes it will be prudent to set aside funds to pay the judgement if the Appellate court rules against ASG and therefore $1 million is sought in the budget document.
Progressive’s petition came after the Trial Court earlier this month which denied the government’s motion to alter or amend the judgement in this case. (See details in Aug. 9th edition of Samoa News)
Source: samoanews.com
Early Sullivan obtained the judgment and writ.
ABC urges judge not to block ‘House’
Category: News, Press | Thursday, June 14th, 2012 | Comments Off on ABC urges judge not to block ‘House’
Network says $16 mil could be lost if CBS restraining order permitted
ABC said it stands to waste $16 million in promotion costs if a federal judge grants CBS a temporary restraining order halting production on the Alphabet’s new reality series “Glass House” on the grounds that it is a ripoff of “Big Brother.”
In a 31-page filing in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on Monday, ABC also accused CBS of being “anticompetitive” in trying to put a stop to “Glass House,” set to debut on June 18, suggesting that it would “prevent American viewers from watching both shows to choose which shows they prefer (or to choose both).” ABC said that it has spent $27 million developing the show, which would be a “total loss” if Judge Gary Allen Feess were to halt the show altogether.
Although both shows contain similar elements, ABC contends that the shows are not “substantially similar” and the elements cited by CBS are not protected by copyright.
In its brief, ABC’s legal team said that “they are generic stapels of the reality show genre: people living in a house, competing with each other to avoid elimination, and winning a prize.” They also rejected CBS’ claim that even if the elements can’t be protected by copyright, the “sequence and arrangement” can. Citing the similarities across reality TV, including dance shows “Dancing with the Stars” and “So You Think You Can Dance?” and fashion design shows “Design Star” and “Project Runway,” ABC’s attorneys wrote that “if inspiring the improvement and development of other television shows with a clever idea is copyright infringement, the reality television itself — indeed all of television (with its hospital shows, police shows, friends-in-an-apartment shows) would infringe.”
Much of CBS’s suit focuses on the fact that a producer of “Big Brother,” Kenny Rosen, is now executive producer of “Glass House,” and that he took trade secrets with him and poached “Big Brother” staff. In deposition, Rosen said that an assistant typed up the “Big Brother” House Guest Manual, but ABC pointed out that the manual was returned to CBS. It also challenged that the manual was a “trade secret” but rather “common sense instructions” to contestants, and that versions of “Big Brother” in other countries post the manual on the Internet. ABC calls the claim “impermissibly broad” and said that “should the Court find that some confidential information was taken, the remedy would be to prohibit the use of that specific information.”
ABC also rejected CBS’s claims of poaching of “Big Brother; staff, contending that a group of employees followed Rosen from “Big Brother” to “Hell”s Kitchen” at Fox, and then to “Glass House.” They said that Rosen “did delete some emails tangentially related to ‘Glass House’ after the litigation began, but those were emails he received and non-substantive.” A forensic firm, FTI was retained to image all of Rosen’s emails and his laptop and cell phone.
ABC is represented by a team led by Glenn Pomerantz at Munger, Tolles & Olson. Devin McRae of Early Sullivan Wright is leading the team for the other defendants, Rosen, Corie Henson and Michael O’Sullivan.
CBS said in a statement, “We believe that our filing last week, the testimony from copyright expert Jeff Rovin and “The Glass House” producer’s (Kenny Rosen) own deposition speak for themselves and speak loudly on our behalf. Nothing in the defendants’ submission can change the basic facts.”
Amid Aereo Legal Battle, Upstart Rivals Emerge
Category: News | Tuesday, June 12th, 2012 | Comments Off on Amid Aereo Legal Battle, Upstart Rivals Emerge
As broadcasters attempt to shut down TV streaming service Aereo in court, several other start-ups are launching comparable services that risk undermining the lucrative retransmission fees charged by networks.
The new technology suggests that broadcasters face a long fight to preserve the fees they charge distributors to air their content, which can be between 5% and 10% of their total revenue, even if they succeed in barring Aereo.
Broadcasters are unlikely to battle every new streaming venture like Aereo, as such ventures may lack the financial backing to gain traction, broadcast executives and copyright lawyers said.
But they are likely to take action when new technology spurs big distributors to reconsider how much they will pay for retransmission consent, as was the case with Aereo, backed by Barry Diller’s firm IAC/InterActiveCorp. (IACI).
“We don’t rush to sue people because we don’t like their ideas,” said Sherry Brennan, a senior vice president at News Corp.’s (NWS, NWSA) Fox, testifying last week at a court hearing for Aereo. But “there’s little reason to think other distributors who are paying us those fees would continue to do so.” Ms. Brennan is responsible for overseeing distribution deals at Fox.
News Corp. also owns Dow Jones & Co., publisher of Dow Jones Newswires.
The broadcasters–including Fox, Comcast Corp.’s (CMCSA, CMCSK) NBC, Walt Disney Co.’s (DIS) ABC, CBS Corp. (CBS) and a unit of Univision Communications Inc.–are suing Aereo on grounds of copyright infringement and seek an injunction to bar Aereo’s service. A ruling isn’t expected until later this month at the earliest.
Meanwhile, other rival services also threaten the networks’ retransmission fees and advertising revenue. Nielsen’s benchmark ratings for the TV industry still don’t calculate viewing on tablets and mobile devices targeted by new services like Really Simple Software Inc.’s Simple.TV.
“The story right now is Aereo, but Aereo is just the tip of the iceberg,” said Mark Lieberman, chief executive of TRA Inc., a consulting firm for the advertising industry.
Simple.TV doesn’t plan to pay broadcasters to stream shows in near-live show times to iPads and other mobile devices, by way of a device that sits in viewers’ homes.
The service, which launches in August and begins testing in San Francisco this week, captures broadcast signals and transmits shows to viewers’ tablets and mobile devices using an Internet signal. The service faces fewer legal hurdles than Aereo because its home-installed device only picks up the broadcast or basic cable signals a viewer could already access at home, according to its creators.
“We feel like we are in a pretty safe, well-trodden legal area,” said CEO Mark Ely at SimpleTV.
None of the broadcasters would comment on the potential legality of the Simple.TV service or say if they would fight the company in court.
Bryan Sullivan, a Los Angeles copyright attorney, agreed that Simple.TV raised fewer legal questions because it is only a device sold to viewers, as opposed to a broadcast service. “That’s an important distinction from Aereo.”
In Aereo’s case, lawyers are debating whether the use of tiny antennas and data buffering qualifies it as a recording service for individual subscribers or rather, as the networks argue, as a public broadcasting service that requires a special license.
Another startup, Skitter Inc., has already caught broadcasters’ attention in its Portland, Ore., launch market. Local network affiliates have balked at its plans to broadcast content over the Internet, using an application developed for Roku Inc. and Western Digital Corp. (WDC) set-top boxes.
Skitter President Bob Saunders says he plans to expand the service to around 100 markets nationwide by the end of the year. He argues the service is legal because Skitter pays some fees to carry content it broadcasts separately through a local telephone operator and is willing to pay other retransmission fees.
“We have to do what is required by law and get retransmission consent,” said Mr. Saunders. Skitter also has the capability to broadcast live shows to tablets and mobile phones, but only transmits through TV set-top box devices for legal reasons, he said.
Patrick McCreery, the general manager at Meredith Corp.’s (MDP) KPTV Fox 12 and KPDX in the Portland area, said his networks wouldn’t pursue any retransmission agreements with Skitter. The other affiliates didn’t return calls or offer comment.
Other TV streaming companies have already gone to court over attempts to capitalize on legal loopholes governing retransmission fees. Ivi Inc. awaits a ruling from the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals to continue operating, following a court injunction two years ago.
“I don’t know if any of them will pass legal muster,” said Bernstein Research analyst Todd Juenger. But “distribution companies are thinking very strongly about an option where they no longer carry broadcast TV.”
Source: William Launder, Wall Street Journal
Fox sues over ad-skipping service
Category: News | Saturday, June 2nd, 2012 | Comments Off on Fox sues over ad-skipping service
FOX Broadcasting Co. filed suit Thursday against Dish Network LLC over its new video-on-demand service that allows subscribers to watch shows without commercials, saying the service infringes on Fox’s copyrights and breaches the companies’ distribution contract.
Late Thursday, CBS and NBCUniversal filed their own suits against Dish.
The suit marks the first major legal challenge to ad· skipping technology since three major networks sued digital video recorder maker ReplayTV in 2001. That case was dropped after ReplayTV filed for bankruptcy two years after being sued.
In a complaint filed in Los Angeles federal court, Fox said Dish’s “bootleg” Prime Time Anytime service makes unauthorized copies of the prime-time shows of the four major television networks and violates a licensing agreement between the two companies. In March, Dish introduced a “Hopper” set·top box that makes and stores Prime Time Anytime copies and offers an Auto Hop feature that lets viewers skip commercials.
Fox said in the complaint that the service would cause the free broadcast television business model to collapse because advertisers would no longer help pay for shows.
“We were given no choice but to file suit against one of our largest distributors, Dish Network, because of their surprising move to market a product with the clear goal of violating copyrights and destroying the fundamental underpinnings of the broadcast television ecosystem,” Fox said in an emailed statement.
“Fox’s lawsuit makes sense to me,” said Lindsay Conner, an entertainment. attorney and partner at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP in Los Angeles. “The underlying economic issue is who pays for the creation of content? Studios and networks spend millions of dollars creating content That’s not a viable business model unless someone pays for it.”
Bryan Sullivan of Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP, said, “One of the biggest problems studios and networks are having is DVRs that cut ad revenues.”
He added that whether Fox will prevail may turn on the exact wording of its distribution agreement with Dish. “If the agreement is vague or permits modifications, then it’s going to be harder to win.”
Source: Jean Yung, Los Angeles Daily Journal