Talent release question - legal mumbo jumbo

[Angelshare1]

One of my actors asked me about a section of my release and I didn't really know how to address it. The third paragraph about libel and slander scared this person. She wondered if it gave me the right to invade her privacy and defame her and why she would sign something that would release those rights. I got this release from Michael C. Donaldson's book, Clearance & Copyright. Really interesting book that cites several examples from James Bond, Grateful Dead, Freddie Kruger to The Dark Knight and Barbara Streisand. Anyways, below is the release. What does the third paragraph mean?

This person is a really talented actress and I'd hate to give her the heave ho over something like this. There's the crowd that would say, "meh, this is a sign she'll cause problems down the line."

I've used this release many times and nobody has ever questioned it. Of course actors will sign anything, but I'd hate to be one of those, "hmph, who does she think she is reading something before signing and questioning it???, better get someone else" directors.

Anyways, what do you do?

This letter shall confirm that I, the undersigned person has granted permission to you, the producer and your successors, assignees and licensees to use my name and/or likeness as such name and/or likeness appears in photography/video shot in connection with the Picture tentatively entitled “xxxxxxx” and in connection with advertising, publicizing, exhibiting, and exploiting the Picture, in whole or in part, by any and all means, media, devices, processes and technology now or hereafter known or devised in perpetuity throughout the universe. I hereby acknowledge that you shall have no obligation to utilize my Name and or Likeness in the Picture or in any other motion picture.

Your exercise of such rights shall not violate or infringe on any rights of any third party. I understand that you have been induced to proceed with the production, distribution, and exploitation of the Picture in reliance upon this agreement.

I hereby release you, your successors, assignees, and licensees from any and all claims and demands arising out of or in connection with such use, including, without limitation, any and all claims for invasion of privacy, infringement or my right of publicity, defamation, (including libel and slander), false light, and any other personal and/or property rights.

 

[DPStewart]

You have to be careful what you ask for, and what you relinquish.
There is of course no such thing as a "standard" agreement, and it is entirely possible to blow a deal with a contract that asks for too much.

Really, there's no way around the uncomfortable fact that we all simply MUST learn at least a little bit about entertainment industry law (which covers the vast majority of what we produce in the film and video business).

I'm not saying this contract you've posted here is "wrong"...I am suggesting that the wording might be a little aggressive.

You probably would have been fine if this clause ended with the words "....in connection with such use."

 

[morgan_moore]

Im guessing - and this is a total guess - you should check with a professional - that the third par means that if (for example) you cast her as a prostitute she could not then sue you for defamation of her (personal) character by making a film where her (fictional) character could be seen in a low moral light

I agree with DPS that it would seem fair that the release was restricted to what she does for you as part of the filming.

S

 

[morgan_moore]

Im guessing - and this is a total guess - you should check with a professional - that the third par means that if (for example) you cast her as a prostitute she could not then sue you for defamation of her (personal) character by making a film where her (fictional) character could be seen in a low moral light

I agree with DPS that it would seem fair that the release was restricted to what she does for you as part of the filming.

Maybe she has a contract from previous jobs that she was happy with and you could agree to use that.

S

 

[paulears]

If she doesn't like it, and you don't mind, then cross it out. I wonder if it's the section to protect you from a libel action if she mentions in perhaps an interview something that your production could be held up for? Oddly, I had something myself today, and I actually signed the piece of paper with some similar wording, and then I was in the interview asked about people I liked working with and those I didn't. They asked me to name a couple which I did. I'm certain nothing I said was actionable, but if I had made some kind of assertion, then it would be me the legal people would come after, the TV station sidestepping nicely.

 

[Alex H.]

Where legal questions are involved, legal experts are the only ones qualified to answer.

That clause is seen in pretty much every release. You are claiming rights to use that footage for any project you could ever dream of after the initial project, and the liability from slander can stem from use of that footage in a way the actor doesn't like.

So, what can you do about it? Talk to an attorney who specializes in entertainment law.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Im guessing - and this is a total guess - you should check with a professional - that the third par means that if (for example) you cast her as a prostitute she could not then sue you for defamation of her (personal) character by making a film where her (fictional) character could be seen in a low moral light

I agree with DPS that it would seem fair that the release was restricted to what she does for you as part of the filming.

S

There is that, namely someone who perhaps is 'nude' or partially so, agrees to be filmed, then later gets religion and would like to have those images 'suppressed'...

But there is also just using the image in a film in such a way, that the person is cast in a negative light... say there's a cocktail party scene, the person is filmed 'drinking', but then other shots are cut in with sex or drugs being used.*

Now the character/actor is depicted in a 'orgy' setting, rather than perhaps just an ordinary cocktail party... They may object to that use, and claim because of that cutting of their image in an 'orgy' scene, they now can only get 'orgy scene' movies...

*Like "Caligula"(1979), where major film stars where shot with only 'mild' nudity/muchosoft core. But the producer cut in 'hard core' orgy scenes... almost everyone at the 'major star' level objected to being in a 'porn' movie...

 

[Drew Ott]

I'll repeat that if you don't understand entertainment law yourself, consult a professional.

Aside from that, a few things you might do to make things go easier:

-Admit that you're using a contract you grabbed from a book.
-Defer blame to another entity. "Sorry, my investor wanted me to make sure everyone signed a contract."
-Explain that the clause in question is a defensive measure for yourself, not offensive. It protects you but doesn't give you the right to attack.
-Rather than removing the clause in question, ask if she would like to add an additional clause protecting her. Essentially put both parties in a situation where neither can sue for libel.

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. For the record though, if anyone wants to learn law, most university law libraries are free for public access. I've been hanging out at UT Austin law school recently and my plan is to study law enough to pass the Bar and then go on to study entertainment law. All informally, not for any certification. This stuff is extremely important for our careers and lawyers will take advantage of our ignorance if we do not educate ourselves.