Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Tensions Between Authors' Contracts for Book Publishing and Film Production Rights

By Michael I. Rudell and Neil J. Rosini
January 31, 2014

The agreements authors make with companies that publish their books ' and with the production companies that make films based on those books ' have changed significantly over the past several years. Due in part to the kind of films currently being produced and to available new technologies (particularly for books), these changes have introduced conflicting overlaps between the two types of contracts.

Before these developments, literary publishing agreements focused on the publication of books in print form and motion picture agreements focused on the exploitation of audiovisual works. Film agreements would tread lightly in the domain of print publication rights, such as by providing that the producer could use up to 7,500 words of text from the underlying work for advertising, promotion and publicity purposes. (This is not to say that producers did not request rights to publish screenplays and certain types of “making of” books, but the intensity of these demands was not particularly great.) Publishing agreements generally stayed out of the audiovisual domain.

Now, motion picture companies trying to derive new sources of revenue from the films they make want to complement film rights with wider literary publishing rights. This is especially the case with “franchise” or “tent-pole” films that not only tend toward higher budgets ' which raise the bar on recoupment of production and marketing costs ' but also lend themselves to ancillary exploitation by a film studio in print and electronic book media that include images from the films.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

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 Image

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 Image

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? Image

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 Image

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.