Cameo Clips

Management Contracts/
Talent Agencies Act

The Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division One, reversed a grant of summary judgment for actress Rosi Blasi that had voided her agreement with her personal manager for violating the California Talent Agencies Act, Labor Code Sec. 1700, et seq. Marathon Entertainment Inc. v. Blasi, B179819. Blasi had sought to avoid paying management commissions to Marathon Entertainment from the TV series 'Strong Medicine.' She claimed that other employment that Marathon procured for her without a talent license voided her entire Marathon-management agreement. But Blasi had obtained the TV-series role through her licensed talent agent, rather than Marathon. The court of appeal noted: '[U]nder the doctrine of severability of contracts, Marathon might be permitted to recover the Strong Medicine commission because not only did the complaint allege that Marathon provided lawful personal manager services neither prohibited nor regulated by the Act, but Blasi produced no evidence in the trial court linking the procurement of her Strong Medicine employment contract to any illegal activity by Marathon.'

The court of appeal distinguished Marathon Entertainment from Waisbren v. Peppercorn Productions Inc., 41 Cal. App. 4th 246 (1996), which held that a manager's incidental procurement of employment for a client required the manager to meet the requirements of the California Talent Agencies Act. In Marathon Entertainment, the court of appeal explained: 'The parties believe that our decision in Waisbren completely precludes severance if the personal manager commits even a single violation of the Act and contend that the [California Labor] Commissioner has also adopted that view. ' Although Waisbren held that the personal manager's contract was unenforceable as a matter of law because of the manager's illegal acts of procurement, Waisbren did not expressly discuss the doctrine of severability of contracts.'

The Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Division Five, affirmed a jury verdict that the use of the name of the professional hockey player Tony Twist as a character in the 'Spawn' comic books violated the hockey player's right of publicity. Doe v. McFarlane, ED85283.

In an earlier stage, the Missouri Supreme Court had adopted a predominant-use test for determining whether speech that is both expressive and commercial is protected by the First Amendment. The jury then awarded Twist $15 million in damages. On appeal of the verdict, the appellate court decided: 'To the extent defendant/comic creator Todd McFarlane's and [his company's] literary experts' testimony is at all relevant, on balance, it does not outweigh the evidence that McFarlane named the character after the hockey player and that use of the name was part of his and [his company's] marketing efforts to hockey fans. To the extent McFarlane's own claims about his artistic reasons for using the name 'Tony Twist' are significant, it was well within the trial court's discretion to find that his testimony lacked credibility. For instance, the timing of McFarlane's claims of artistic motivation is suspicious. Before the lawsuit was filed, McFarlane stated only that the character 'Tony Twist' was named after the hockey player with the same name; after the lawsuit was filed, he claimed that he chose the name for additional literary reasons. Moreover, although McFarlane said alliteration was a factor in naming Twist … none of the other hundreds of characters in the comic book had first and last names that started with the same letter'.'

'The predominant purpose of the use of the name 'Tony Twist' was to sell comic books and related products and not to make an expressive comment about Twist the hockey player. Therefore, use of the name is not entitled to First Amendment protection.'

Management Contracts/
Talent Agencies Act

The Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division One, reversed a grant of summary judgment for actress Rosi Blasi that had voided her agreement with her personal manager for violating the California Talent Agencies Act, Labor Code Sec. 1700, et seq. Marathon Entertainment Inc. v. Blasi, B179819. Blasi had sought to avoid paying management commissions to Marathon Entertainment from the TV series 'Strong Medicine.' She claimed that other employment that Marathon procured for her without a talent license voided her entire Marathon-management agreement. But Blasi had obtained the TV-series role through her licensed talent agent, rather than Marathon. The court of appeal noted: '[U]nder the doctrine of severability of contracts, Marathon might be permitted to recover the Strong Medicine commission because not only did the complaint allege that Marathon provided lawful personal manager services neither prohibited nor regulated by the Act, but Blasi produced no evidence in the trial court linking the procurement of her Strong Medicine employment contract to any illegal activity by Marathon.'

The court of appeal distinguished Marathon Entertainment from Waisbren v. Peppercorn Productions Inc. , 41 Cal. App. 4th 246 (1996), which held that a manager's incidental procurement of employment for a client required the manager to meet the requirements of the California Talent Agencies Act. In Marathon Entertainment, the court of appeal explained: 'The parties believe that our decision in Waisbren completely precludes severance if the personal manager commits even a single violation of the Act and contend that the [California Labor] Commissioner has also adopted that view. ' Although Waisbren held that the personal manager's contract was unenforceable as a matter of law because of the manager's illegal acts of procurement, Waisbren did not expressly discuss the doctrine of severability of contracts.'

The Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Division Five, affirmed a jury verdict that the use of the name of the professional hockey player Tony Twist as a character in the 'Spawn' comic books violated the hockey player's right of publicity. Doe v. McFarlane, ED85283.

In an earlier stage, the Missouri Supreme Court had adopted a predominant-use test for determining whether speech that is both expressive and commercial is protected by the First Amendment. The jury then awarded Twist $15 million in damages. On appeal of the verdict, the appellate court decided: 'To the extent defendant/comic creator Todd McFarlane's and [his company's] literary experts' testimony is at all relevant, on balance, it does not outweigh the evidence that McFarlane named the character after the hockey player and that use of the name was part of his and [his company's] marketing efforts to hockey fans. To the extent McFarlane's own claims about his artistic reasons for using the name 'Tony Twist' are significant, it was well within the trial court's discretion to find that his testimony lacked credibility. For instance, the timing of McFarlane's claims of artistic motivation is suspicious. Before the lawsuit was filed, McFarlane stated only that the character 'Tony Twist' was named after the hockey player with the same name; after the lawsuit was filed, he claimed that he chose the name for additional literary reasons. Moreover, although McFarlane said alliteration was a factor in naming Twist … none of the other hundreds of characters in the comic book had first and last names that started with the same letter'.'

'The predominant purpose of the use of the name 'Tony Twist' was to sell comic books and related products and not to make an expressive comment about Twist the hockey player. Therefore, use of the name is not entitled to First Amendment protection.'