Tag: Movies

DOJ Seeking to End Movie Studio and Theater Antitrust Decrees amidst Streaming Competition – A New Opportunity in Theatrical Distribution?

For the film and media distribution industries, this year has been action-packed.  Production budgets are skyrocketing and new digital services have been announced or are launching with each passing month. The streaming wars are upon us. Moreover, the FCC recently voted to treat streaming services as “effective competition” to traditional cable providers (or MVPDs), thereby triggering basic cable rate de-regulation in parts of Hawaii and Massachusetts.

The distribution landscape took yet another unexpected legal twist this week. On November 18, Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim announced that the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice would ask a federal court to terminate the “Paramount Consent Decrees” (the “Decrees”), which have prohibited movie studios from engaging in certain distribution practices with movie theaters since the 1940s. The DOJ filed a motion to terminate the Decrees in federal court in the Southern District of New York on November 22, 2019.  Notably, the DOJ cites streaming services and new technology as a few of the many reasons that the Decrees may no longer be necessary in what the DOJ official sees as today’s highly competitive, consumer-driven content market. Given the volatility of the content licensing space, film licensors and licensees will have to carefully consider how the DOJ’s actions will affect their content rights and options going forward.

By way of background, the Decrees emerged out of the landmark 1948 Supreme Court antitrust case, United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. Prior to the case, top Hollywood studios frequently owned movie theaters (thus, owning both the means of production and distribution). This vertical integration led to lower distribution costs for the studios and gave them pricing power and the ability to discriminate about which theaters distributed their films. Not surprisingly, smaller, independent theaters struggled to survive.  The problem was exacerbated by studios engaging in practices such as “block-booking” (requiring theaters to distribute all or none of the studio’s slate of films) and overbroad “clearances” (restrictions on the time which must elapse between particular runs of a film), as well as alleged horizontal conspiracies between the studios and theaters on matters like minimum ticket pricing. As part of the Decrees, the defendant studios were restricted or prohibited from engaging in these practices and were required to divest certain interests in their theaters.

The DOJ’s November 22nd motion may not come as a surprise, as the DOJ first announced that the Decrees were under review in August 2018, after which several industry players, including the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO), submitted comments. In particular, NATO argued, despite how streaming and technology might increase competition, that block-billing would still adversely impact independent or local chains that exhibit fewer films and may not be able to afford larger blocks of films.

Delrahim summed up the DOJ’s position, stating, “the [D]ecrees, as they are, no longer serve the public interest, because the horizontal conspiracy – the original violation animating the decrees – has been stopped. […] Changes over the course of more than half a century also have made it unlikely that the remaining defendants can reinstate their cartel.” In particular, the DOJ argued that the competitive concerns of the 1940s no longer exist because the movie marketplace has changed so drastically, citing how film distributors have become less reliant on theatrical distribution with the advent of streaming. According to the DOJ, colluding to limit theatrical film distribution in today’s market “would make no economic sense.”  In addition to streaming services, Delrahim also cited new theatrical release business models (such as flat-fee multi-ticket pricing) as increasing competition and innovation in film distribution.

The DOJ acknowledged NATO’s concerns in part and asked the court to implement a two-year sunset on block-booking and circuit dealing (licensing to all theaters under common ownership, as opposed to on a theater-by-theater basis). Whether terminating the Decrees would decrease innovation, neither the motion papers nor Delrahim venture to guess. Delrahim noted that antitrust enforcers need not predict the future but need only recognize that changes are occurring. He added that practices covered by the Decrees would not become per se lawful, but would rather be subject to review under the rule of reason standard.

Commentators are split on whether termination of the Decrees that have shaped Hollywood for decades will lead to any significant change for the movie business. One thing that is important to note is that the Decrees did not outright prohibit vertical integration of studios and theaters – the defendant studios could (and did) acquire theaters after proving that such acquisitions would not unreasonably restrain trade. Further, only those studios party to the Decrees remain subject to their restrictions, meaning many of today’s top studios (that now typically own a vast portfolio of traditional and digital entertainment properties) were non-existent or much smaller in the 1940s and have not been subject to the Decrees.

While it remains to be seen how this development will play out, it is noteworthy for digital providers because it may breathe extra life back into the theatrical release window. With mammoth streaming deals inked every week, the value of the theatrical release window was seemingly diminishing for some films. But now that many studios are forgoing third-party licensing fees and instead retaining their content for their own streaming platforms, studios may begin to ask whether added revenues from ownership of a theater chain could be a potential new source of revenue and a way to gain additional control of the theatrical window. Meanwhile, the effect of lifting the Decrees may not necessarily lead to a flurry of acquisitions, as other studios involved in direct-to-consumer streaming campaigns may not have the capital or desire to exploit the termination of the Decrees. Major theater chains will likely seek to strengthen relationships with studios, while independent theaters will look for ways to succeed despite potentially rising costs.

With all of these developments, studios and media platforms will also need to carefully consider how to protect their interests when handling their licensing arrangements, given the volatility in this space and keeping in mind the two-year sunset (assuming the DOJ succeeds) on block-booking and circuit dealing. While some distributors may be looking for long-term, exclusive content deals as they roll-out their streaming services, studios and content providers may seek flexibility as their distribution options are changing day-to-day.

© 2019 Proskauer Rose LLP.

More on entertainment distribution on the National Law Review Entertainment, Art & Sports law page.

The Definition of Film Fest Success– For Financiers and Filmmakers

The familiar annual rhythm of the major film festivals – Sundance in January, Berlin in February, Cannes in May and so on through Toronto in September – is well underway. And with Sundance and the Berlinale already in the rear-view, and SXSW right around the corner, it’s fair to say the 2019 sales environment looks to be very buoyant.

Although the single-film Sundance sale record was not eclipsed in 2019, the number of films that sold for eight figures was the highest ever, with numerous films racking up paydays in the $10-15 million range. Understandably, press reports out of Sundance tend to focus on these lofty (and once dreamlike) selling prices. It makes sense: the big numbers make great headlines, and the selling price is often the only deal information made publicly available.

But filmmakers – and in some situations, even film financiers – are not always best served by selling to the highest bidder. From a filmmaker perspective, the largest upfront payment, as great a thrill as it may be, does not necessarily translate into the best support for the film or most effectively accomplish the short- and long-term goals of the filmmakers. And even from a financier perspective, the biggest initial return does not always equate with maximizing the profitability of the film and the long-term interests of the financiers.

There are many other deal points that must be considered and carefully weighed. First, what type of distribution is being offered, and equally importantly, what level of support are the distributors promising in the chosen distribution channel or channels.

Is the distributor proposing a “conventional” initial theatrical release, such as might be expected from specialty theatrical distributors such as Fox Searchlight, Focus Features, Sony Pictures Classics, A24 and Roadside Attractions? Or is the buyer a streaming service such as Netflix, which may be offering no (or only a very limited) theatrical release and exclusive availability via their streaming service? Or is the proposed release a hybrid, offering both a substantial theatrical release and distribution via an early streaming release, as is common with Amazon Studios? For each distribution model, there’s a different mix of upfront payment and potential backend, with lots of variations available to a sophisticated negotiator, so the best selling price doesn’t always maximize ultimate revenue.

The level of distributor support for a film is also extremely important. If a theatrical release is involved, is the distributor committing to a minimum number of screens and markets and a minimum marketing spend? Even for exclusive streaming releases, the level of promotional support both in media and on platform can vary substantially. Whatever the distribution model, both the financiers and the filmmakers would like to know that their film is a high priority for the distributor and won’t get lost in the shuffle or suffer from lackluster promotion and advertising. (For example, is the title just another movie in the streaming service library, discoverable only via search, or is it heavily promoted on the home page and even supported by a media campaign, like Netflix’s Birdbox.) Indeed, this may be especially important to the filmmakers – and the director in particular – who may measure success at least as much based on how the film raises his or her profile as opposed to purely financial considerations.

This raises the obvious truth that the interests of filmmakers and financiers can diverge to a certain extent. Financiers may have a greater desire to recoup investment and protect the downside – after all, it’s their money on the line – whereas filmmakers may want to play for the upside as profit participants. As noted, the filmmakers may also be more focused on how the film release will affect their long-term career prospects than the shorter-term financial rewards.

Beyond the major deal points and strategic considerations covered in this alert – and just as importantly, everything not covered – it takes business savvy, industry knowledge and technical legal expertise to get these film sales deals optimally negotiated and properly documented. At MSK, we have the business, management, and executive-level operational experience in the industry which not only enables us to handle film distribution deals but also a wide variety of financing transactions such as production lending agreements, negative pick-up agreements, completion bond arrangements and interparty agreements. We also innovatively manage financial arrangements among producers, equity investors, distributors and other stakeholders. Most importantly, our broad experience and legal expertise enable us to represent both filmmakers and financiers, through every challenge and opportunity presented through the lifecycle of a film. Moreover, because we represent both financiers and filmmakers, we can often help balance their interests and make it easier for them to communicate and work together effectively. It’s our mission to be trusted strategic advisors to our clients, moving far beyond simply negotiating and drafting or reviewing documents.

In this environment, it’s more important than ever to think big picture and make sure you have expert advice.

 

© 2019 Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP
This post was written by Steven G. Krone of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP.
Read more entertainment legal news on our Entertainment Type of Law Page.

“Inclusion Riders” On The Storm

Oscar-winner Frances McDormand ended her acceptance speech with a reference to two words – “Inclusion Rider” – that sent many Oscar viewers scrambling to Google her cryptic message. But the term, and its legal implications, are somewhat more complicated than several news and entertainment outlets are reporting today. The term “inclusion rider” was coined a few years ago by Dr. Stacy Smith, the founder and director of the Annenberg Inclusion Initiative  at USC. Dr. Smith delivered a Ted Talk in 2016 describing an inclusion rider as a potential solution to ongoing diversity issues and concerns in Hollywood. Specifically, she described the idea of having A-list actors demand provisions in their contracts that call for all the roles in whatever project they are working on to reflect broader demographics.

There is likely nothing wrong with a narrowly-tailored and creative provision like the one Dr. Smith described in her Ted Talk. Creative types already have in some instances exercised considerable leeway in setting their own casting criteria, and one need look no further than the hit Broadway musical “Hamilton” with its famously diverse casting to understand that under the rubric of creative choice, such standards can pass muster (although they may still face opposition).

Notwithstanding what may happen in the creative/artistic space, explicit demands or requirements based on race, religion, gender, or any other protected characteristic could run into challenges. In an interview backstage last night, McDormand told reporters “I just found out about this last week. It means you can ask for and/or demand at least 50 percent diversity in, not only casting, but also the crew.”  When it comes to a film or television crew, although an actor may request that good faith effort be undertaken to hire a diverse crew, demanding that certain race or gender quotas be met could run afoul of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and comparable state law, which generally bans employment discrimination and quotas by private employers.

An inclusion rider like the one described by Dr. Smith might work in the entertainment industry based on First Amendment and creative license protections. But employers, both in the entertainment industry and outside of it, should be wary of agreeing to riders demanding that specific quotas be met. Those demands, no matter how well-intentioned, could be challenged as being discriminatory.

 

© 2018 Proskauer Rose LLP.
For more entertainment legal news go to the National Law Reviews Entertainment Law Page.

When Quirk of Copyright Law Creates Christmas Classic: It’s Wonderful Life and Public Domain

Christmas treeGeorge Bailey stands on a bridge begging for another chance at life. Upon being granted a second chance, he joyously runs home to embrace his family. As the community of Bedford Falls rallies around him and raises funds to save the endangered Building and Loan and George Bailey personally from an unjustified failure, someone proclaims a toast to George Bailey, “the richest man in town.” It’s a powerful ending to a beloved holiday classic, and it would have been forgotten over time but for accidentally allowing a copyright to expire.

The 1909 Act is the copyright act that governs copyrightable works created before 1964. The Act created two, distinct copyright terms for each individual work: a 28-year initial term and a 28-year renewal term. The initial term applied automatically, but the copyright owner had to file a renewal application with the U.S. Copyright Office to get the second term. If the owner failed to file a renewal application before the first 28-year term expired, the work automatically entered the public domain.

Into this copyright framework, a movie called It’s a Wonderful Life was released in December 1946. It was directed by Frank Capra and starred James Stewart. Upon its release, it was not the booming success that one might imagine based on its reputation now. While it was not a complete box-office failure, it struggled financially and never came close to reaching its break-even point. Capra and Stewart would never work together again. In fact, it was a major blow to Capra’s reputation, and in the aftermath of the film, Capra’s production company went bankrupt.

More holiday movies were created over the years, and the film was largely forgotten. At the end of the initial 28-year copyright term in 1974, a clerical mistake prevented the copyright owner of It’s a Wonderful Life from filing a renewal application, and the movie went into the public domain. TV studios, eager for inexpensive content to show during the holidays, began showing the movie every year because they were not required to pay any royalties while the film was in the public domain. Over the next approximately 20 years, the film was shown repeatedly every holiday and claimed its current status as a holiday classic.

Everything changed in 1993. In response to a Supreme Court ruling in Stewart v. Abend, the current copyright owners of It’s a Wonderful Life were able to enforce a copyright claim to the movie. The Court in Steward v. Abend held that a current copyright owner has the exclusive right to exploit derivative works, even in light of potentially conflicting agreements by prior copyright holders. Coincidentally, the Steward v. Abend case involved another James Stewart movie, Rear Window.

Because the current copyright owners of It’s a Wonderful Life still owned the movie rights of the original story on which the movie is based, the current copyright owners argued that their rights to the story told in It’s a Wonderful Life still existed and were enforceable to prevent unauthorized showing of the movie in its current form. The newly-returned owners were thus able to stop any unauthorized showings of the movie, but by then the movie was firmly entrenched as a holiday classic. It has been popular ever since. So the next time you sit down to watch George Bailey offer to lasso the moon for Mary or watch them dancing over an expanding swimming pool, just remember that we all might have missed this movie entirely if not for a clerical mistake causing a renewal application not to be filed.

Article By Lisa Adams & Derek E. Constantine of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
©1994-2015 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.