Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Drafting Film Production Compensation Clauses In Light of State Tax Credit Requirements
Entertainment industry contracts often cover a variety of issues: services to be performed, rights granted, representations and warranties, travel and expense arrangements and compensation (both fixed and contingent), among other matters. In many cases, the compensation provisions are in one or two subparagraphs. To simplify drafting and to use “plain English,” the compensation provisions often contain introductory, governing language along the lines of: “In full and complete consideration for entering into and performing all of the terms hereof.” However, is such a “plain English” approach always a “best practice”?
Not necessarily. Drafters of contracts for a film project must consider the agreements in the larger context of other considerations relevant to the project. If state production tax incentives are part of the financing plan, an attorney for the producers needs to review the current requirements of the applicable tax incentive program before drafting agreements with creative contributors: What types of production expenditures qualify for the credit? Are there caps on particular expenses? Does the company applying for the credit need to be organized in the jurisdiction offering the credit or is authority to do business sufficient? What are the requirements of the state with respect to the selection of an auditor who will submit a cost report to obtain the credit, and does the state supply a list of pre-approved auditors for cost report submissions? Will using a pre-approved auditor expedite receiving the credit? (This consideration is important if the finance plan involves banking the expected credit with a due date for repayment of the loan.)
The Memphis Example
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.