The ART of the Law

In the last several weeks, there has been a flurry of activity in the area of artists or their designees creatively protecting their works.  In one case, the lawsuit settles outstanding debt and creative ownership debates posthumously, in another, an artist battles with a former manager regarding commission payments and finally, true artistic expression lands a band in jail because of political content.

These incidences should serve as reminders to us as artists that we must become educated on how to legally protect the art we create and ourselves.  Also,  we should not assume that we can manage everything ourselves and know when to hire appropriate management and legal counsel. 

First let’s look at the case between the estate of Michael Jackson and ‘Thriller’ director John Landis, which was finally settled this past week and covered in The Hollywood Reporter.  This case is interesting because first, an outstanding debt for an alleged $2.3 million required settlement and then there was the issue of ownership of a portion of the dramatic rights to the “Thriller” video.  In 2009 John Landis had brought suit against Jackson for monies he claimed were still outstanding for work he completed on the video made in 1983.  Unfortunately, Jackson died that same year and therefore the case would have to be settled by the executors of the estate.  While paying the outstanding debt was made easier by the influx of income into the estate, what I found more compelling about this case was the fight for artistic rights that would allow Landis and others to benefit from the production of “Thriller” in another form, for example like a Broadway production.

Source: www.awakeninglight.org

First, the fact that there was an outstanding debt spanning more than twenty years, it makes me wonder what type of contract was in place that would allow that much time to expire before a legal course was taken.  Additionally, if there was room to argue ownership of artistic or dramatic rights, then I also wonder if that was not covered contractually.  It is not unlikely or uncharacteristic for artistic types to brainstorm an amazing idea and while caught up in the moment, not consider the legal implications of their creative union, but this case really drives home the point for us all that even in the romance of the creative moment, we should really take the time to consider all the legalities of joint production and really know who we are doing business with. 

Second, we look at the case between Lisa Kudrow and her former manager, who is arguing that commission payments should have continued even after being fired.  In this case, The Hollywood Reporter, indicates that the court sided with her former manager, Scott Howard, who entered into an agreement with Kudrow in 1991 and claims he is owed 5 percent of her earnings from the show Friends, even though their professional relationship ended in 2007.  According to an expert witness, stated that it was customary practice for all managers to continue to receive commission on all jobs their clients obtain during their representation, even once the agreement sunsets.  While in this case, the court found in the favor of the manager, it demonstrates again the importance of artists understanding the law.  While the original agreement was an oral one, it is clear that Kudrow did not understand what she was agreeing to and perhaps did not have her management contract reviewed by legal counsel.  Often, we think that because it is not on paper, we have not agreed to anything, but in this case, we can see how costly it is when we do not familiarize ourselves with the law and make sure to protect ourselves.

Last, the case of the Pussy Riot punk band has garnered a great deal of attention both because of its political statement but also the punishment issued against these women for their use of free speech.  According to Billboard, members of the group issued what was called a “punk prayer” with content speaking against actions of Russian leader Vladimir Putin that resulted in them being put on trial and punished by jail sentence.  Three of the members have appealed the decision that would jail them for two years and other members are said to have fled Russia to avoid being jailed.  This case is particularly interesting because it does not deal with creative rights or property, but the actual rights of the artist to express themselves freely.  Many artists use their platform as a way to spread a message or support a cause of a political nature, but this case is a reminder that we are not infallible and there can be legal ramifications involved.  Again, while there are no contracts being broken here, artists must understand the implications of all of their actions.

In some ways, these cases can make it seem like artists are a bit of a target for legal activity.  Perhaps because it is believed that we don’t know the law or fully understand how it impacts our work.  These cases and others like it should serve as cautionary tales of how important it is that we continue to creatively mind our business.