Lei de entretenimento

Visão geral

A lei de entretenimento abrange uma área de direito que envolve mídia de todos os tipos diferentes (por exemplo, TV, cinema, música, publicação, publicidade, internet e mídia, etc.) e se estende por vários campos legais, que incluem corporativo, finanças, propriedade intelectual, propriedade intelectual, publicidade e privacidade e a Primeira Emenda à Constituição dos Estados Unidos nos Estados Unidos.

Para o cinema, os advogados de entretenimento trabalham com o agente do ator para finalizar os contratos do ator para os próximos projetos. Depois que um agente alinha o trabalho para uma estrela, o advogado de entretenimento negocia com o agente e comprador do talento do ator para compensação e participação nos lucros. Os advogados de entretenimento estão sob rigorosos acordos de confidencialidade; portanto, as especificidades de seu trabalho são mantidas em segredo. Porém, algumas descrições de trabalho de um advogado de entretenimento se tornaram comparáveis ​​às do agente, gerente ou publicitário de uma estrela. A maioria dos advogados de entretenimento tem muitas outras funções, como ajudar na construção da carreira de um cliente.

História

À medida que a popularidade da mídia se espalhou, o campo do direito da mídia se tornou mais popular e precisava deixar certos profissionais corporativos que desejam participar mais da mídia. Como resultado, muitos jovens advogados fugiram para a lei da mídia para a oportunidade de construir mais conexões na mídia, se tornar um apresentador de mídia ou até conseguir um papel de ator. À medida que a tecnologia continua a fazer grandes avanços, muitos processos começaram a surgir, o que torna a demanda por advogados extremamente necessários.

Categorias

A lei de entretenimento geralmente é subdividida nas seguintes áreas relacionadas aos tipos de atividades que possuem seus próprios sindicatos, técnicas de produção, regras, costumes, jurisprudência e estratégias de negociação:

FILM: option agreements, chain of title issues, talent agreements (screenwriters, film directors, actors, composers, production designers), production and post production and trade union issues, distribution issues, motion picture industry negotiations, distribution, and general intellectual property issues especially relating to copyright and, to a lesser extent, trademarks;INTERNET: Censorship, Copyright, Freedom of information, Information Technology, Privacy, and Telecommunications issues;MULTIMEDIA: software licensing issues, video game development and production, Information technology law, and general intellectual property issues;MUSIC: talent agreements (musicians, composers), producer agreements, and synchronization rights, music industry negotiation and general intellectual property issues, especially relating to copyright (see music law);PUBLISHING and PRINT MEDIA: advertising, models, author agreements and general intellectual property issues, especially relating to copyright;TELEVISION and RADIO: broadcast licensing and regulatory issues, mechanical licenses, and general intellectual property issues, especially relating to copyright;THEATRE: rental agreements and co-production agreements, and other performance oriented legal issues;VISUAL ARTS AND DESIGN: fine arts, issues of consignment of artworks to art dealers, moral rights of sculptors regarding works in public places; and industrial design, issues related to the protection of graphic design elements in products.

Difamação (difamação e calúnia), direitos de personalidade e questões de direitos de privacidade também surgem na lei de entretenimento.

O direito da mídia é um campo legal que se refere ao seguinte:

Casos

Copyright: In Golan v. Holder, the Supreme Court ruled, in a 6–2 vote, the judges dismissed contentions in light of the First Amendment and the Constitution's copyright provision, stating that the general population was not "a class of sacred centrality" and that copyright insurances may be extended regardless of whether they did not strive for new attempts to be made.Internet: In 2007, Viacom, a media aggregate that possesses MTV and Comedy Central TV, sued YouTube for $1 billion in light of copyright infringement claims for the unapproved posting of Viacom copyrighted material. In May 2008, YouTube began utilizing its advanced fingerprinting innovation to secure copyright-ensured content.Television: In an 8-0 choice, the Supreme Court held that in light of the fact that the FCC rules at the time did not cover "short lived exclamations," the fines issued against Fox were unethical and subsequently discredited as "illegally unclear".Music: Kesha v. Dr. Luke – In 2014, singer Kesha filed a civil suit against music producer Lukasz Sebastian Gottwald, also referred to some as Dr. Luke for gender-based hate crimes and emotional distress. This civil suit caused Gottwald to in return sue Kesha for defamation and breach of contract. This case ended with a judge declining to release Kesha from her binding contract that prohibited her from continuing her career effectively. The judge took note that Kesha had entered an agreement after she had sworn under oath that no harassment was taking place. Many celebrities such as Miley Cyrus, Lady Gaga, and Demi Lovato have shown support for Kesha in an attempt to broadcast the injustice contract laws have played in the outcome of this case. Singer-songwriter Taylor Swift donated $250,000 to relieve Kesha of any financial obligations.Katie Armiger – In 2016, singer/songwriter Katie Armiger claimed that a handful of DJs’ at radio stations across the United States harassed her during her radio tour while her record label, Cold River Records, justified it by telling her that radio programmers are her ticket to fame. Cold River Records caused defamation and false light against Armigers’ character when they challenged her in a court case that played out in the public eye. Cold River Records held Armiger hostage in a lengthy prosecution that forbade her to release new music or perform live by strictly enforcing the terms and legality of her record contract. Because of this, Armiger lost countless fans with her lack of presence on social media and most likely lost credibility as well by not giving her fans an explanation. There is no law created for instances like this where an artist is unable to breach their contract immediately when harassment is involved. Libel per quod can be applied to this case by showing that Armiger’s statements show plenty of proof and negligence on not only Cold Rivers’ behalf but the DJs’ behalf as well. In the end, Armigers’ character was defamed and a false light was shone upon her when Cold River Records’ head Pete O’Heeron claimed that Armigers’ suit was baseless. Defamation, false light and contract laws have played a significant role in Katie Armigers’ reality through her pursuit to breach her contract with Cold River Records.

Veja também

Communications lawMorals clauseIntellectual propertyMedia reformMedia regulationMusic lawEngineering lawSports lawSunshine in the Courtroom ActSafe listeningPerforming arts educationPerforming arts