Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
COVID-19 and Force Majeure Clauses
The COVID-19 outbreak has wreaked havoc on the entertainment industry. Productions have been halted and distribution channels disrupted, causing a massive shift for both industry insiders and consumers alike. Live events now are being experienced via various streaming platforms as the doors to movie theaters, Broadway houses and concert venues remain shuttered. Unsurprisingly, numerous entertainment contracts have been thrown off course, due to governmental orders prohibiting production activities, to the expiration of unmet payment and to delivery deadlines, cast and crew fears of becoming ill, and the costs inherent in resuming activities in this new environment.
In the midst of this pandemic, one big question for contracting parties is whether force majeure will excuse or postpone a party's obligations without liability. A force majeure, or a so-called "Act of God" clause, generally allows a party to suspend and also terminate a contract without liability if an unforeseen event beyond the party's control makes performance of the party's obligations impossible or impractical. Before the entertainment industry was turned upside down by COVID-19, force majeure clauses were not a primary focus and were likely buried in the boilerplate language, often ignored and rarely negotiated. Now — as actors, writers, producers, directors and production companies alike have found their income streams disrupted and their services deferred by letters invoking force majeure clauses — the entertainment industry is paying much closer attention.
Here are five things to bear in mind about a force majeure provision and its implications:
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.