Independent Contractors vs. Employees - Part II: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And Employment Attorney John J. Tormey III, Esq.

http://www.tormey.org/contractors2.htm

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq. – Entertainment Lawyer, Entertainment Attorney

John J. Tormey III, PLLC
1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188
New York, NY  10128  USA
(212) 410-4142 (phone)
(212) 410-2380 (fax)
brightline@att.net
http://www.tormey.org

Independent Contractors vs. Employees - Part II: Written By New YorkEntertainment Lawyer And Employment Attorney John J. Tormey III, Esq.

© John J. Tormey III, PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

This article is not intended to, and does not constitute, legal advice with respect to your particular situation and fact pattern. Do secure counsel promptly, if you see any legal issue looming on the horizon which may affect your career or your rights. What applies in one context, may not apply to the next one. Make sure that you seek individualized legal advice as to any important matter pertaining to your career or your rights generally.

Part I of this article discussed the distinction between hiring “independent contractors” versus “employees”, and some of the consequences thereby resulting. To give the hypothetical some real-life relevance to an entertainment lawyer like myself, how could, for example, a recording studio or a film production characterize its workers as the former (independent contractors), rather than the latter (employees)? If the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) or applicable Department of Labor (DOL) challenges the characterization of the workers as independent contractors as opposed to employees, is there anything that the film production or recording studio could have done in retrospect to seek to prevent or withstand the challenge – aside from calling its entertainment lawyer at the point of hire and asking the entertainment lawyer, that is?

A signed written agreement between the music or film studio and each worker, which among other things characterized each of them as an “independent contractor”, prepared by the entertainment lawyer, might have been helpful. But do not believe for a minute that agencies like the DOL and the IRS will view that self-serving contractual “independent contractor” vs. employee characterization as fully-dispositive, even when drafted by the entertainment lawyer. These agencies decidedly will not. Rather, the actual facts and circumstances surrounding the worker’s services must give additional support to the contractual characterization of an independent contractor as opposed to an employee. Moreover, things change. The facts and circumstances of work in the latter year may differ from what the entertainment lawyer’s drafting predicted them to be in the former year’s signed contract. See, e.g.:

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99921,00.html

In other words, the hiring company in the entertainment field should, at minimum, require all its independent contractor hires to sign independent contractor agreements prepared by the company’s entertainment lawyer, that among other things expressly disclaim an employee-employer relationship. But the smart company also further monitors the factual circumstances of that work relationship post-signature, to make sure that those facts continually support the contract and the “independent contractor” vs. employee characterization. Most independent contractor relationships themselves, as well as other forms of relationships, change over time and do not remain static. The entertainment lawyer can amend the pre-existing signed contract at the client’s further request.

This article will not rehash all factors in the past IRS “checklists” here, particularly because the governmental definition of independent contractor vs. employee continues to evolve and may have changed by the time you read this article. The hiring party should update itself on the IRS and DOL “independent contractor vs. employee” definitions anyway: (1) so to be sure to consider factors applicable to its own state and jurisdiction, and (2) so as to work off of the most updated definition Obviously it is wise to consult with one’s entertainment lawyer, accountant, and payroll company – particularly the latter two - before one rolls out an entertainment company payroll plan for independent contractors, employees or otherwise. Indeed, prospective advice should be obtained before the hiring party even make the hires. But below are some of the checklist factors which as an entertainment lawyer representing the hiring party I have found to have been given some significant weight in the context of past DOL actions. Query whether or not the hiring party will be able to “flip” any of them to its own favor and advantage, if the hiring party is ever challenged on its own characterizations of workers as independent contractors as opposed to employees:

A. Nature Of Services.

The entertainment lawyer first inquires of the hiring party, “What exact services or types of services does the claimed independent contractor worker perform?” If the hiring party is held to exercise or reserve the right to exercise sufficient supervision, direction, and control over the worker’s services, an “employer-employee” relationship may be established, even if such relationship was never intended by the hiring party thinking he or she was instead hiring an independent contractor rather than an employee. To this extent, a written job description in the agreement drafted by the entertainment lawyer suggesting that the worker toils independently, may support the company’s assertion of an “independent contractor” vs. an employee-employer relationship. But the written job description must be an accurate reflection of the facts, and must stay accurate going forward in time which is even more difficult. In any event the written job description scribed by the business owner’s entertainment lawyer, is not dispositive on “independent contractor vs. employee” question. Moreover, most media and entertainment hiring parties are unwilling to relinquish supervision, direction, and control over even its independent contractor hires, as a practical matter - much less instruct their entertainment lawyer do so in writing. Therefore, this “nature of services” item is a difficult checklist factor for the hiring party to “flip” to its own advantage in favor of an independent contractor adjudication as opposed to employee determination.

B. In Business For Himself/Herself.

The entertainment lawyer next asks, if this worker that the hiring party wishes to characterize as an independent contractor as opposed to employee, in business for himself or herself. For example, does this worker run his or her own business or corporation, or work through a “loan-out” entity? Does the worker have an independent consulting business? Does the worker advertise any business, or have the trappings or indicia of any self-standing business? If the worker is in business for himself or herself – and particularly if the worker can be documented by the hiring party’s entertainment lawyer to have been such, well-prior to the making of the hire in question – then that would be a strong suggestion that the worker is an independent contractor rather than an employee. In fact, the party wanting to hire a worker can choose to limit its hires only to those contractors that are already separately incorporated or functioning through a limited liability company, which the entertainment lawyer can normally confirm on-paper through the use of public-record databases. This “business for himself/herself” item is therefore a factor that can be flipped to the hiring party’s advantage in favor of an independent contractor determination over an employee characterization, if set-up carefully in advance, and a step in which it may be critical to involve the entertainment lawyer.

C. Invoicing Or Billing For Services.

Asks the entertainment lawyer to the hiring party, “Does the claimed independent contractor worker submit a bill or invoice for services?”. Most employees don’t. Most independent contractors do – or, should. Again, this is a factor that the hiring party can flip to its advantage in favor of an independent contractor characterization as opposed to an employee determination, if assessed and set-up carefully in advance, and a step with which the entertainment lawyer can help by assisting the documentation process. The party wanting to hire a worker can choose to limit its hires only to those claimed independent contractors that furnish or are willing to furnish periodic invoices. An employee would be unlikely to do so, and unlikely to be asked to do so. This “invoicing” factor will likely not be dispositive by itself, but could be helpful to the hiring party to support an independent contractor determination over an employee ruling.

D. Where, When And How Long.

The entertainment lawyer then asks the hiring party, “Is this worker claimed to be an independent contractor rater than an employee, told where to work each day? Or, when to work each day? Or, how long or how many hours to work each day?” The entertainment lawyer observes that a worker toiling off-premises is more likely to be characterized as an “independent contractor” rather than an employee. A worker on his or her own schedule is more likely to be characterized as an “independent contractor” rather than an employee. And, a worker who chooses his or her daily hour expenditure is more likely to be characterized as an “independent contractor” rather than an employee. But again, most hiring parties are unwilling to relinquish that kind of supervision, direction, and control over their hires much less instruct their entertainment lawyer do so in writing – be they employees or even independent contractors.

E. Review Of Work.

“Regarding the worker sought to be classified as an independent contractor rather than an employee”, asks the entertainment lawyer, “is this worker’s effort subject to review by anyone – particularly annual reviews? Is the worker’s effort reviewed as ‘satisfactory’ or ‘unsatisfactory’”? The more discretion of review that the company exercises, the more likely that this worker will be characterized as an “employee” rather than an independent contractor. One presumption would be that the remedy for a bad independent contractor would be simply to terminate rather than to review, which the hiring party might do through his or her counsel, or just on his or her own. But again, most hiring parties are unwilling to relinquish that kind of supervision, direction, and control over their hires, much less instruct their entertainment lawyer do so in writing – be they employees or even independent contractors.

F. Refusal Of Work Assignments.

This worker that the hiring party calls an independent contractor rather than an employee – the entertainment lawyer muses - can this worker refuse work assignments? Does this worker in fact refuse any work assignments? If so, what happens as a result? Though not an absolute, a worker entitled to refuse assignments is at least somewhat more likely to be characterized as an “independent contractor” rather than an employee. But again, most hiring parties are unwilling to relinquish that kind of supervision, direction, and control over their hires, much less instruct their entertainment lawyer do so in writing – be they employees or even independent contractors.

G. Tools And Office Space.

As for this worker that the hiring party claims to be an independent contractor as opposed to an employee, the entertainment lawyer inquires - what equipment or other tools or objects does this worker supply or bring to the job site by himself or herself, if any? Who provides the office space, if any? The more equipment and tools that the worker brings to the work site, the more likely it is that the worker will be characterized as an “independent contractor” rather than as an employee. If, on the other hand, the company provides an office, tools and equipment, the relationship looks more like an employee-employer employment relationship. In this day and age of laptop and telecommuting, we will more frequently see hiring parties try to flip this variable to their advantage in favor of an independent contractor determination as opposed to an employee determination. And this factor will not be ignored by the governmental authorities adjudicating the issue, or entertainment lawyers drafting the prospective agreements, either.

Again, please do not rely upon the excerpted list of “independent contractor vs. employee” factors above - it is only illustrative in the context of media and entertainment company hiring patterns in the past - and different tribunals may adjudicate different results. Any determination that a hiring party in the entertainment field makes about a worker’s status should be done only upon review with one’s own entertainment lawyer, one’s tax accountant, and one’s payroll company – particularly the latter two. The most important thing to remember is that the rule of “ipse dixit” does not apply to the “independent contractor vs. employee” question. In other words, just because the hiring party calls someone an “independent contractor” as opposed to an employee, does not make them so! (“Ipse dixit” is Latin for “he himself said so”).

There are structural modifications that the hiring party can make to the hiring relationship, as well as entertainment lawyer-drafted text, that will increase its chances of successfully claiming the worker to be an independent contractor rather than an employee. But there are seldom any absolutes in this regard. Finally, keep in mind that there is a real “Catch 22” to the “independent contractor v. employee” characterization. The entertainment lawyer will advise the hiring party that the hiring party must truly be willing to part with a substantial amount of supervision, direction, and control over a worker - and must in fact do so - in exchange for the privilege of paying them like an independent contractor rather than an employee. There is only a very limited extent to which a hiring party may be able to contract around this problem.

Click the “Articles” button at:

http://www.tormey.org/art.htm
to return to the main Articles page.

My law practice as an entertainment attorney includes state and federal employment law matters relating to independent contractors and employees and other human resource matters as they arise in the fields of music, film, publishing, television, Internet, and other media and industries. If you have questions about legal issues which affect your career, and require representation, please contact me:

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq.

John J. Tormey III, PLLC
1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188
New York, NY  10128  USA
(212) 410-4142 (phone)
(212) 410-2380 (fax)
brightline@att.net
http://www.tormey.org

 

Page:
Independent Contractors vs. Employees - Part II

Title Metatag:

independent contractor,entertainment lawyer,employee

Meta Description:

entertainment attorney,employee,entertainment lawyer,independent contractor,labor,withholding,recording studio,New York

Keywords:

compensation,contracts,corporations,employees,employment,entertainment attorney,entertainment lawyer,independent contractors,labor,law firm,legal services,New York lawyer,union agreements,withholdings

entertainment attorney, entertainment lawyer, independent contractors, employees, independent contractor, entertainment lawyer, employee, entertainment attorney, employee, entertainment lawyer, independent contractor, labor, withholding, recording studio, New York, compensation, contracts, corporations, employees, employment, independent contractors, labor, law firm, legal services, New York lawyer, union agreements, withholdings

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT

http://www.tormey.org/contractors2.htm

Independent Contractors vs. Employees - Part I: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And Employment Attorney John J. Tormey III, Esq.

http://www.tormey.org/contractors1.htm

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq. – Entertainment Lawyer, Entertainment Attorney

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY  10128  USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

brightline@att.net

http://www.tormey.org/

Independent Contractors vs. Employees - Part I: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And Employment Attorney John J. Tormey III, Esq.

© John J. Tormey III, PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

This article is not intended to, and does not constitute, legal advice with respect to your particular situation and fact pattern. Do secure counsel promptly, if you see any legal issue looming on the horizon which may affect your career or your rights. What applies in one context, may not apply to the next one. Make sure that you seek individualized legal advice as to any important matter pertaining to your career or your rights generally.

As an entertainment attorney practicing in New York, I see people and companies struggling to address the definition of independent contractor vs. employee, frequently. Anyone who hires workers or is thinking of doing so, in New York or elsewhere in the United States, should be aware of the following. Before hiring anyone, it is critical that one carefully determines with one’s accountant and entertainment attorney or other counsel whether the new hire is to be an “employee”; or, alternatively, an “independent contractor”. The terms have legal and financial import; they are mutually exclusive; and one should never use them interchangeably.

The distinction between the two types of workers is important because, among other things, it is usually more expensive and more administratively inconvenient to hire and pay “employees” as opposed to “independent contractors”. On the other hand, few persons or companies that hire workers are truly willing to relinquish control over their hires, to a sufficient degree to allow those workers to accurately be characterized as “independent contractors” as opposed to employees. As an entertainment attorney, I frequently encounter business projects of short duration such as a single film shoot, a single album recording, or a single pilot shoot. The question of “independent contractor vs. employee” therefore arises most often in the context of media and entertainment projects of multi-week or multi-month duration. Though the two constructs, “independent contractor” and “employee”, are not necessarily self-defining, the word “independent” is used for a reason, and truly translates to “loss of hiring-party control”. I’ll explain below.

The U.S. Internal Revenue Service in (former) “IRS Publication 937” identified 20 “checklist” factors that it considered when determining whether or not an individual worker is an “independent contractor” as opposed to an “employee”. The litmus test has apparently since evolved somewhat. See, e.g.:

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99921,00.html

The hiring party should review the most updated version of the IRS criteria prior to any hires, and it is probably more important to do so with one’s payroll company and tax accountant, than one’s entertainment attorney. The hiring party should also be aware that the IRS is not the only institution with whom to be concerned regarding the all-important “independent contractor vs. employee” determination. Other governmental agencies have a stake in preventing mischaracterization of workers as independent contractors, too.

For example, the state Department of Labor (state “DOL”) in one’s own home state may apply its own checklist of criteria to distinguish independent contractors vs. employees. One needs to be aware that there is a federal [US] Department of Labor as well as a state Department of Labor. A hiring party needs to comply with the requirements of both. In a perfect world, there should be consistency between the respective “checklists” of the IRS and the applicable DOL, as well as consistency between each agency’s interpretation of those checklists. However, your entertainment attorney and tax accountant will opine to you that the world isn’t perfect, and those interpretations could differ as to what constitutes an independent contractor versus an employee. Therefore, one should be aware as to how a local state DOL characterizes the two different types of workers, too - if different than the IRS characterization. Additionally, from an enforcement perspective, the DOL could challenge a hiring business’ characterization of its workers as “independent contractors” vs. employees, without the IRS joining in on the contest. The IRS and the DOL are separate agencies, although there is a suggestion that they will more thoroughly share electronic data with each other on field data and this issue in the near future.

The “independent contractor” determination can be the proverbial unstable apple cart, easily tipped. An employer, as most know, should withhold taxes from an employee’s pay, and make unemployment contributions with respect to those employees, among other things. Hiring companies in the entertainment field, for example, even if they already have an entertainment attorney and a tax accountant, still often wisely use a “payroll company” to administrate payment obligations to workers, so as not to transgress. The cost of a hiring party mischaracterizing an employee as an independent contractor instead, could be high. If ever in doubt, payroll companies and accountants should skew cautious and conservative when making the distinction for their clients in favor of employees – and the entertainment attorney will usually tell the client to listen to his or her payroll company and tax accountant.

However, let’s say that a hypothetical music recording studio, or film production company, for that matter, hires 20 workers, characterizes them all (in reasonably good faith) as “independent contractors”, but uses no payroll company, tax accountant, or entertainment attorney initially. Let’s further assume that the film production or music studio pays no unemployment insurance or workers compensation contributions with respect to any of the hires, and does not withhold taxes from their paychecks. Then, one independent contractor worker is terminated, and vindictively files with the local state DOL for unemployment compensation, claiming to be a fired “employee” instead. Even after phoning the entertainment attorney and tax accountant to enlist their retroactive help, it may now be too late. The recording studio or film production could now find itself faced with a state DOL that characterizes not just the one claimant-worker - but all 20 workers - as “employees” as opposed to “independent contractors”. The apple cart tips. The camel’s nose is now in the tent.

The recording studio or film company may be required to litigate administrative hearings on the independent contractor v. employee question, and may thereupon be assessed retroactive unemployment insurance contributions, interest, and penalties with respect to the workers that “should have been paid as employees”. Other actions may also follow, such as a workers compensation audit, and perhaps even findings by the IRS and local tax authorities with respect to claimed monies that “should have been withheld” from the “employees” pay. The argument of, “But I told them they were independent contractors” may be considered a mere ipse dixit proposition and might not wash with the government. The entertainment attorney or the business owner can state the case to the authorities that short-term hires are the bread-and-butter of the local entertainment economy in the jurisdiction and so should be rewarded and not punished, but the adjudicating authorities may not accept that distinction between entertainment and non-entertainment sectors. Their only care may be to decrease the overall number of independent contractors and increase the total number of employees across all industries and sectors.

Could this nightmare have been avoided by the recording studio or film production company, through documentation, prospective use of its entertainment attorney, or otherwise? The answer is “Maybe yes, maybe no”. Please see Part II of this article for a further discussion.

Click the “Articles” button at:

http://www.tormey.org/art.htm

to return to the main Articles page.

My entertainment law practice includes state and federal employment law matters relating to independent contractors and employees and other human resource matters as they arise in the fields of film, music, television, publishing, Internet, and other media and industries. If you have questions about legal issues which affect your career, and require representation, please contact me:

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq.

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY  10128  USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

brightline@att.net

http://www.tormey.org/

Page:

Independent Contractors vs. Employees - Part I

Title Metatag:

independent contractor,entertainment attorney,employee

Meta Description:

entertainment lawyer,independent contractor,entertainment attorney,employee,labor,withholding,film crew,labor,New York

Keywords:

compensation,contracts,corporations,employees,employment,entertainment attorney,entertainment lawyer,independent contractors,labor,law firm,legal services,New York lawyer,union agreements,withholdings

entertainment attorney, entertainment lawyer, independent contractors, employees, independent contractor, entertainment attorney, employee, entertainment lawyer, independent contractor, entertainment attorney, employee, labor, withholding, film crew, labor, New York, compensation, contracts, corporations, employees, employment, independent contractors, labor, law firm, legal services, New York lawyer, union agreements, withholdings

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT

http://www.tormey.org/contractors1.htm

This Article Is Brought To You By The Letter Blank: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And Trademark Attorney John J. Tormey III, Esq.

http://www.tormey.org/letter.htm

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq. – Entertainment Lawyer, Entertainment Attorney

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY  10128  USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

brightline@att.net

http://www.tormey.org/

This Article Is Brought To You By The Letter Blank: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And Trademark Attorney John J. Tormey III, Esq.

© John J. Tormey III, PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

This article is not intended to, and does not constitute, legal advice with respect to your particular situation and fact pattern. Do secure counsel promptly, if you see any legal issue looming on the horizon which may affect your career or your rights. What applies in one context, may not apply to the next one. Make sure that you seek individualized legal advice as to any important matter pertaining to your career or your rights generally.

Most of the American public including most all entertainment lawyers, heard about one of Oprah Winfrey’s well-publicized litigations a number of years ago. My understanding was that she was sued in Texas by a commercial cattle-oriented conglomerate. The plaintiffs apparently claimed that Oprah had inaccurately and unfairly maligned the culinary safety of cow meat, during one of her television programs. The Texas case seemed vaguely surreal and comic, even from the perspective of an entertainment lawyer - sort of like an overly-imaginative law school exam question. But next we must go from the sublime to the ridiculous. This next case was an entertainment lawyer and trademark lawyer’s delight. Talk about the eradication of your sacred cows. The local press in New York reported that a German “fetish magazine” named “O” sued one of Oprah’s companies and her publisher, over the sale of Oprah’s magazine bearing the equally-expansive title of “O”. Query if it was really a service mark dispute as opposed to a trademark dispute.

Perhaps even more befuddling, from the entertainment lawyer or publishing lawyer perspective or otherwise, the German “fetish” magazine somehow derived its own title from the erotic novel “Story of O” - serving as even more of a reminder that there is truly nothing new under the sun. And if this were not bizarre enough, the local press reported that Oprah’s company and publisher were prepared to change the name of her magazine to “O, The Oprah Magazine”, in an apparent attempt to assuage the seething service mark or trademark plaintiff and make the distinction between the two magazines more apparent.

Coincidentally, this lawsuit received even more attention from trademark lawyers, entertainment lawyers, and others, than usual, since Lions Gate was slated to release a film called “O” around the same time the suit materialized. I understand the Lions Gate film was somehow loosely based upon Shakespeare’s “Othello”. The Bard himself referred to the Globe Theatre as “this wooden ‘O’“. Maybe if we find Shakespeare’s heirs - perhaps arguably incarnate in the Bacon Brothers - we can thereby locate the real plaintiff who has something to complain about?

But come on. All kidding aside, could this trademark (or service mark) lawsuit really be happening? Yes. Yes it could. But maybe it shouldn’t be allowed to happen. The minds of reasonable trademark lawyers, entertainment lawyers, and others, may differ.

Let’s back up a step. Generally speaking, as entertainment lawyers or trademark lawyers will advise, one acquires trademark rights or service mark rights under U.S. law, by consistently using a trademark or service mark in connection with goods or services, and/or by registering the trademark or service mark with one or more appropriate governmental authorities.

Most people and businesses pick lousy names from a trademark or service mark perspective, and most people pick those names without the assistance of an entertainment lawyer or a trademark lawyer. The majority of marks go unregistered, and the majority of trademarks or service marks are never properly searched and cleared by a trademark lawyer, entertainment lawyer, or anyone else before use. Again, there is very little new under the sun, and as most all trademark and entertainment lawyers will attest, most word-paths have been tread upon by someone else previously. Then again, searching and registering a trademark or service mark, with or even without a trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer, is not without cost. So, many cost-constrained start-up businesses elect to just “wing it” and dispense with the search until they can afford to “get around to it”. And surprisingly, sometimes even major-league companies who can otherwise afford to so it, dispense with the trademark or service mark search, dispense with the services of the trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer, and just go ahead and use the proposed name. Ironically, this type of decision keeps trademark and entertainment lawyer litigators who work the back-end of these fact patterns, in business.

Trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers may sometimes advise their clients to select multiple-word names rather than one-word names - as rock-band-name trademarks or service marks, for example - since the statistical chances of infringing some other band’s name and trademark or service mark are likely thereby somewhat reduced. Most artists, on the other hand, are solely concerned about the aesthetics of the band name, and if a one-word band name sounds right to them, they will use it and darn the torpedoes. This type of decision can also keep trademark and entertainment lawyer litigators who work the back-end of these fact patterns, in business.

I have admittedly not yet trademark-searched any of the following band names. But as a trademark and entertainment lawyer, a proposed one-word band name like “Blur”, at first blush, would trouble me a bit more than the two-word “Def Leppard”, from a trademark or service mark perspective - since, without knowing anything else about the underlying facts, I would assume that the statistical chances were somewhat higher that another band might be named (or might have been recently named) “Blur”. When a trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer performs a search on a trademark or service mark or proposed mark, these kinds of concerns and historical analyses come into play.

Trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers may also sometimes advise their clients to try to use more incongruous word combinations as band-name trademarks or service marks, rather than predictable word combinations. By this rationale, “Squirrel Nut Zippers” (the first time, for the candy, that is!), or “Stone Temple Pilots” start to look pretty good as far as their trademark or service mark prospects, to say nothing I suppose about “Orchestral Manoeuvres In The Dark”. After all, what are the odds, the trademark lawyer queries, that the full name “Orchestral Manoeuvres In The Dark” name was used as a trademark or service mark by any other pop or rock band prior to or contemporaneously with 1986’s “If You Leave”? Then again, apart from entertainment lawyer legal concerns, the band and its handlers may have had trouble fitting the full name onto a record jacket sleeve, and may also have had trouble convincing record label A&R executives that the choice of name should be supported.

One must understand, therefore, that the prospect of trying to protect, let alone enforce and prevent others from using - a one-letter trademark or service mark, is the trademark lawyer’s or entertainment lawyer’s equivalent to fingernails scraping on a chalkboard. If a client walks into the office of a trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer and says “Hi. I’d like to protect, for my own exclusive use, the letter ‘W’“ - well, then absent some extreme fact pattern perhaps relating to a powerful Texas family, that lawyer can expect at least a long and tough road ahead - and perhaps a few broadsides of ridicule from the bench and other trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers at the bar as well. They might think that the so-subscribing lawyer took Sesame Street’s commercial endorsement announcement “This program was brought to you by the letter ‘W’”, a little too seriously when younger.

Most Americans conceive of “monopolies” as something anti-competitive, unfair to the consumer, and ultimately evil - especially given publicity in recent years accorded to the Microsoft case. But what is interesting about copyrights and trademarks and service marks, as a trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer will tell you, is that they are in fact legal monopolies protected by federal statute. A property right is, essentially, the right to exclude others from using that same property. That is conceptually quite similar to a monopoly. If I own my house, I can keep you off my land with a fence, and the law will back me up on that. If a company owns a registered trademark in “Chock Full o’ Nuts”, for example, then, through the efforts of its trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer counsel or otherwise, that company owns the right to exclude others from using the same name in connection with the sale of coffee, and perhaps related goods and services as well.

So here is the trademark lawyer entertainment lawyer philosopher question. Haven’t we as a society gone too far, when we even entertain the prospect of a company, or a celebrity, laying claim to a single LETTER of the ALPHABET as a service mark or trademark? Indeed, should any prior claimant be able to use the services if a trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer to legally monopolize the use of a letter of the alphabet, in connection with ANY kind of goods or services, magazine or otherwise? Should they and their trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers even be allowed into court with that kind of argument?

Are all individual Arabic numerals also now in play for trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers? We might as well allow some corporate behemoth to pull the character of Santa Claus out of the public domain, into the realm of copyright-protection, and charge a royalty whenever the fat man’s name or image is evoked. As for trademark versus service mark, does Mr. Claus provide goods or a service, when you get right down to it? And what about prior sources? Do the publishers of the first edition of Webster’s dictionary, or their successors, now have a valid trademark claim to assert through their trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer litigators, against Oprah and the German magazine, for the use of “their” letter of the alphabet as a service mark or trademark?

Harkening back to the Oprah cattle litigation, some cows are sacred. Some things should simply stay in the public domain. Section 105 of the U.S. Copyright Act, for example, excludes works “of the United States Government” from copyright protection. Shouldn’t letters of the alphabet be treated the same way, as non-service mark non-trademark public commodities exempt from any monopolistic endeavors, upon instruction to all trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers who might try to argue otherwise? There may well already be case law holding unitary alphabet letters to be disqualified from trademark and service mark protection under certain circumstances. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office likely has trademark application and registration procedures, possibly reading to similar effect. If so, why not simply codify that common-sense principle in all applicable trademark statutes and other laws, as a de facto and de jure standing instruction to all trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers and their clients? Among other things, a decisive action like this one could eliminate, or at least mandate a shorter life-span for, court-clogging trademark and service mark lawsuits like the “O” story.

And what’s next? Will the adjudicated winner of the O litigation also be awarded a legally-sanctioned monopoly as trademark or service mark over the corresponding three dashes in “- - -”; that is, in the International Morse Code symbol for the letter “O”? Will that be some other trademark lawyer’s or entertainment lawyer’s next argument? Or should that control instead now be awarded to the heirs of Morse, wherever they may be? And what about our National Anthem? Am I at risk of being enjoined by another trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer from singing “O(h) say can you see...” at the start of baseball games at Shea Stadium – I mean, CitiField? And what about Tic-Tac-Toe? Must there now be a Congressional mandate that “X” must always win, and must always occupy all 9 cells on the grid, so as not to “infringe” the trademark or service mark rights of the clients of any other trademark lawyers or entertainment lawyers? And if so, what about the fate of Whoopi Goldberg and Hollywood Squares in syndication?

A number of entertainers use single-word names, and we as a society tolerate that – as do, apparently, the trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers that represent and enable the talent. We tolerate the Gilbert Gottfried “One-Named Boy” routine moreso if the entertainer has the talent to back it up: “Elvis”. “Sting”. Now, “Prince” is, of course, a variation on the theme, an entertainer who at one point dispensed with his chosen one-word name in favor of an arcane symbol not found in the American alphabet – with or without his trademark lawyer’s or entertainment lawyer’s imprimatur. The general point here is that, Prince aside, the trademark lawyer and entertainment lawyer will advise the entertainer that he or she may be able to build up some trademark or service mark protection in his or her continuous and uninterrupted use of the [a]rtist’s one-word name, particularly if that entertainer is extremely well-known.

But some of us trademark and entertainment lawyers and others may feel that claiming one of the 26 letters of the alphabet as your own, takes its own special brand of... uh... chutzpah. Basketball’s Oscar Robertson was known as “The Big O”, probably because fans and the press tagged him with that moniker – probably not because his trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer told him to use it - and probably not because Oscar adopted it for himself. Oscar Robertson may not have been as well-liked a guy, if instead he himself had arrogated “The Big O” nickname for his own use! And speaking of Oscar, asks the trademark and entertainment lawyer, how ‘come he hasn’t appeared yet in this lawsuit?

In similar vein, some trademark lawyers, entertainment lawyers, and others may feel that Oprah should have been satisfied to call her magazine “Oprah” rather than, simply, “O”. It is unlikely that Oprah’s decision as to how to name the magazine was forced upon her by her colleagues – entertainment lawyers or otherwise. In other words, a different P.R. decision may have had incidental legal benefit, too.

Sure, there is precedent in the entertainment field, as trademark and entertainment lawyers are aware, for trademark or service mark use predicated upon a single letter of the alphabet. The musical group “M” had a number-one hit with “Pop Muzik” in 1979, and that was kind of cute - but the group seemed to disappear from the music scene before anyone even began to consider the trademark or service mark implications of their continued use of their band name. Perhaps the group’s trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer will read this article and write to this website to weigh-in.

The television company “E!” of Chelsea Handler and Talk Soup renown has apparently been successful in establishing a brand name for itself, presumably with trademark lawyer and entertainment lawyer counsel and assistance, accepting the inherent challenge in generating trademark and service mark rights in a one-letter name. But the E! Network’s use of the exclamation point, and their occasional use of the linked phrase “entertainment network”, arguably properly distinguishes them from the alphabet-usurping pack. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), along with the help of its trademark lawyer counsel, lays claim to its single-letter-ratings as trademarks or service marks in some fashion - that is, currently, “G”, and “R”. But then again, I suspect that the MPAA would carefully refrain from threatening another company’s use of the letter “G” or “R”, unless that use was made in the context of ratings or otherwise in connection with motion pictures or filmed entertainment.

The point is, there is something disturbing about this O lawsuit filed in the district court in Manhattan, from the perspective of an entertainment lawyer and trademark lawyer, and perhaps to others as well. What if a schoolteacher reads about this lawsuit, and now tries to find a trademark lawyer lay personal service mark claim to the letter grades “A” through “F” as used on student-graded papers? What if that same teacher starts invoicing all other teachers who grade papers in the U.S., demanding trademark royalty payments? And speaking of damage to the world of education, what will Grover, Elmo, and the gang at Sesame Street do, when they can no longer boast that a particular program is “brought to you by the letter ‘W’”, at least not without their entertainment lawyer or trademark lawyer counsel present on set? Worse yet, will that entertainment lawyer or trademark lawyer be required to wear an over-the-head costume or be a muppeteer to blend-in on the set when doing so? The consternation is enough to press the ghost of O. Henry and his trademark lawyer back into active service - the only question being, if O. Henry rejoins the non-ethereal world and joins the lawsuit, will he join as party-plaintiff or party-defendant on the advice of counsel? And, will O. Henry’s apparently-prescient use of the period after his “O” render him impervious to trademark or service mark liability?

But seriously folks, in defense of Oprah and the trademark and entertainment lawyers that love and enable her, it is apparently not her or her entertainment or trademark counsel or entities that initiated the aggressive attempts to exclude others from use of the letter “O”. Rather, according to the news reports, it was the German “kinky fashion” magazine promoting leather and garters that decided to attack Oprah’s company in the context of the New York court, and the magazine then sought out a trademark lawyer for that purpose. And in response, Oprah and her affiliates, presumably on trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer advice, apparently decided to expand her magazine title, to make the bright-line distinction between the two magazines more apparent to all, including the consumers. Maybe as a matter of reciprocal international courtesy, and in an effort to keep this dispute from wasting further judicial resources or using up more trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer time, the leather and garter crew should agree to change their magazine’s name from “O” to “Ouch!” But query if they thereby would risk receiving an adverse trademark or service mark claim from the ‘E!’ network based upon the use of ‘E!’s exclamation point.

Click the “Articles” button at:

http://www.tormey.org/art.htm

to return to the main Articles page.

My trademark law practice as a publishing and entertainment attorney includes all fields of entertainment and media including music, film, publishing, television, Internet, and all other media and art forms – and trademark, service mark, and copyright work. If you have questions about legal issues which affect your career, and require representation, please contact me:

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq.

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY  10128  USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

brightline@att.net

http://www.tormey.org/

Page:

This Article Is Brought To You By The Letter Blank

Title Metatag:

trademark lawyer, publishing, entertainment lawyer, service marks

Meta Description:

trademark lawyer,publishing,entertainment attorney,service marks,entertainment lawyer,PTO,New York,intellectual property

Keywords:

entertainment attorney,entertainment lawyer,intellectual property,IP law,law firm,litigation,media lawyer,New York lawyer,Oprah,PTO,publishing law,trademark,trademark law,trademark litigation,USPTO

entertainment attorney, entertainment lawyer, article, brought to you by, letter blank, trademark lawyer, publishing, entertainment lawyer, service marks, trademark lawyer, publishing, entertainment attorney, service marks, entertainment lawyer, PTO, New York, intellectual property, intellectual property, IP law, law firm, litigation, media lawyer, New York lawyer, Oprah, PTO, publishing law, trademark, trademark law, trademark litigation, USPTO

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT

http://www.tormey.org/letter.htm

Clearances For Name & Likeness, Location License, And Life-Story Rights In Motion Pictures And Television: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And Film & Television Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq.

http://www.tormey.org/clear.htm

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq. – Entertainment Lawyer, Entertainment Attorney

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY  10128  USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

brightline@att.net

http://www.tormey.org/

Clearances For Name & Likeness, Location License, And Life-Story Rights In Motion Pictures And Television: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And Film & Television Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq.

© John J. Tormey III, PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

This article is not intended to, and does not constitute, legal advice with respect to your particular situation and fact pattern. Do secure counsel promptly, if you see any legal issue looming on the horizon which may affect your career or your rights. What applies in one context, may not apply to the next one. Make sure that you seek individualized legal advice as to any important matter pertaining to your career or your rights generally.

An entertainment lawyer handling production and rights motion picture work can spend much of his or her time fighting off detractors. One example? It is actually quite common for individuals who incidentally appear in a film or television shot, to later sue or otherwise claim upon the production company or network, asserting violations of their personal or proprietary rights. It is also fairly common for those that believe their life-story in whole or in part has been used or referenced in a film or TV program, to put an adverse life-story rights claim on the motion picture project, even if the reference is but a passing reference. When such a claim is long on bluster but short on underlying legal merit, it is known as a nuisance claim, or “strike suit” if and once litigated.

Entertainment lawyers with a motion picture practice in the U.S. who have worked in Business Affairs or other in-house positions at entertainment companies, as well as most all entertainment lawyer litigators at outside law firms, will confirm all of this. I have served as both, prior to my solo law practice here in New York. One thing you learn quickly in this line of work, is that, while some claims are valid, more people claim more rights in more situations than actually have them.

Film and television producers usually complain to their own entertainment lawyers that the commencement of such a rights nuisance claim is a sleazy thing to do, and the sign of someone watching too many motion pictures with too much time on his/her hands. Often true. Yet the film or TV production can be out time and money by the time that same complaint can be made to the person with the power to dismiss the claim – that is, the judge in the applicable court system. The film or TV producer’s feeling is understandable, unless the person incidentally depicted in the motion picture program is truly ridiculed or hurt in some way. But many Americans use litigation as a sport, and greed is a powerful motivator. There is an entire section of the motion picture entertainment insurance industry and an entire cadre of in-house entertainment lawyers devoted almost exclusively to extinguishing rights nuisance claims and strike suits, often but not always through what is known as errors and omissions (E&O) insurance. Without insurance, even a strike suit can sometimes close a company down.

The first thing an entertainment lawyer does when fielding an adverse film or television claim – life-story, likeness, location, or otherwise - is evaluate the apparent sense and sensibility of the rights-complainant. So, let’s assume that the distinction has already been made between an unstable unfortunate soul who thinks that every successful Hollywood motion picture director is stealing his persona and private thoughts with implanted electrodes and radio waves, on the one hand – versus a person whose full name, likeness, and/or life-story in whole or in part actually appears in an exhibited film or television property. Let’s assume that the entertainment lawyer has reviewed the claimant’s identity with his or her film or TV producer client, and it turns out that the claimant has certain rights and is sane, stable, sympathetic, aggrieved – and unsigned. If the person’s name or likeness or life-story is recognizable in the film shot or in the television script, and no written “clearance” (to wit, signed “license”, “release”, or “agreement”) is in place, then the entertainment lawyer tells the producer of the film or TV production that rights may have been violated thereby and the motion picture production is that much more at risk.

Period.

In reply to the next likely question, the entertainment lawyer next opines that the dollar value at law of the risk or exposure to the rights violation claim cannot be accurately quantified, unless and until the issue is litigated between the aggrieved claimant on the one hand, and the film or TV company (or its insurer) on the other hand.

Period.

These decidedly-fuzzy motion picture law principles even apply to film and television location licenses and related rights, albeit under different legal theories than those corresponding to names, likenesses, and life-stories. As an example, the entertainment lawyer might next ask the motion picture producer to consider the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce that historically has licensed uses of the famous “Hollywood” sign located up on Beachwood Canyon. The Chamber has, at least in the past, asserted rights to claim and sue for unauthorized uses and depictions of the “Hollywood” sign itself - even though the sign is comprised of but a bunch of letters, and rights to letters of alphabet themselves should in theory be public domain and not owned by anyone. In any event, reasonable minds in the film and TV businesses and elsewhere, including as between entertainment lawyers themselves, have differed in the past as to whether there is legal support for these types of “location” rights claims in motion picture practice. Rather than risk it, though, a careful film producer, or television producer or executive producer, usually “clears” depicted locations rather than pay the entertainment lawyer to tell him to clear those (possible) rights post facto after the film or TV project is in the can - or else the producer moves the motion picture shot to a different location if the location license rights “clearance” is too expensive. This is particularly true of the film or TV executive that knows he or she must keep the company’s errors and omissions (E&O) insurance carrier happy and motivated to provide and not cancel coverage. Much of an entertainment lawyer’s detractor-fighting discussed above, includes the creation of alliances with the E&O carriers and their counsel. E&O carrier counsel are sometimes even more rights-sensitive and risk-averse than the motion picture studio or television network Business Affairs in-house counsel are, themselves.

Sure, a film or television producer - particularly one without an in-house or other entertainment lawyer to advise him/her, or an E&O carrier to chastise him/her - can try and fly under the radar on the “incidental use” issue, and hope no rights-violation claims occur. Many producers in fact do try this. But seemingly-incidental shots and uses cannot necessarily be safely assumed to be immune from rights claims. And Murphy’s Law will tell you that someone whose life-story truly appears in a picture in whole or substantial part, will always see it and recognize it. Some of these seemingly-innocuous motion picture uses can in fact turn out to be legally-actionable, and there are plenty plaintiff-side entertainment lawyer litigators out there who seem to be hungry to take on such causes. Even if not legally-actionable, a nuisance claim or lawsuit based on location, likeness, or life-story rights against a film or TV company can still be predicated upon an incidental-shot use in a motion picture, as a practical matter. Even with no supporting legal merit to it, it can still become an expensive headache. In other words, the law is what you read in the casebooks and statutes, but life is what happens out on the street, and rights are often what even undeserving allege until extinguished in a litigation.

Moreover, most of the good film and TV rights and “clearance” stories, though perhaps bandied-about as anonymous and sanitized hypotheticals, never make it to the casebooks. Most of these types of motion picture rights and clearance claims are never litigated, much less revealed by the publication of judicial opinions thereafter. From a film or TV entertainment lawyer defense counsel’s perspective, it is often worth paying the motion picture rights claimant US$2,500 or more, just to go away. Oftentimes, the deductible on the errors and omissions (“E&O”) insurance policy for a film can be at least US$10,000. Sometimes the deductible is even more. (Life-story encroachments and celebrity likeness rights violations can be far more expensive). Therefore, in practice, in the case of an incidental use “passing shot”, the film or TV company, with or without its entertainment lawyer’s advice, may simply pay the rights claimant. The producer may elect to do this rather than (rightfully or wrongfully) even report the claim to the E&O insurance carrier, much less seek coverage on it. Moreover, the E&O carrier will typically not defend against the motion picture rights claim and staff it up with its own defense-counsel entertainment lawyers, unless and until the suit is actually commenced or filed. So it is often the film or TV producer’s or distributor’s exclusive headache unless and until the lawsuit is filed.

The New York statute on point for those in the film and television industries and other media and entertainment industries as well, is New York Civil Rights Law, Sections 50 and 51, a statutory lattice which should be deemed relevant to both name & likeness and life-story rights matters:

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=@SLCVR0A5+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=EXPLORER+&TOKEN=38256299+&TARGET=VIEW

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=$$CVR50$$@TXCVR050+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=EXPLORER+&TOKEN=38256299+&TARGET=VIEW

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=$$CVR51$$@TXCVR051+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=EXPLORER+&TOKEN=38256299+&TARGET=VIEW

If anyone thinks that an individual can’t sue for an unauthorized use of his or her likeness in a motion picture, then that skeptic should read that statute and the cases decided under it. California (Civil Code Section 3344) and most other American states have law similar to New York’s Civil Rights Law 50/51, on the books.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/CIV/5/d4/1/2/2/3/s3344

“50/51” and “3344”, are the bread and butter of entertainment lawyers. A private person usually sues a film or TV company on this type of likeness claim, under his or her “right of privacy”, whereas a celebrity usually sues the motion picture company on this type of likeness claim under his or her “right of publicity”. And the best way to evaluate a life-story rights claim is to navigate through a morass of prior case law, or else, better yet, have your entertainment lawyer do it for you.

It’s rough out there. One should obtain signed written rights clearances from those whose names, likenesses, or life-stories recognizably appear in one’s motion picture or TV production. Even a location-depiction claim could tie up a film or television shoot in a worst-case scenario, including that familiar case that many entertainment lawyers have dealt with on an incoming cell phone call when the location-landlord shows up on set 15 minutes before cameras roll and demands more money. When that happens, count your blessings, though. After all, the film likeness rights claimant or life-story rights claimant often doesn’t approach the production company until after the film is in theatrical release, when it is too late to cut the film’s negative.

Click the “Articles” button at:

http://www.tormey.org/art.htm

to return to the main Articles page.

My practice as a film lawyer and entertainment attorney includes film and television rights, life-story rights, clearances, location agreements, licensing matters, and other aspects of motion picture development, production, exhibition, and distribution. If you have questions about legal issues which affect your career, and require representation, please contact me:

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq.

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY  10128  USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

brightline@att.net

http://www.tormey.org/

Page:

Clearances For Motion Pictures

Title Metatag:

film, entertainment lawyer, rights, motion pictures, life-story

Meta Description:

film,entertainment attorney,life-story rights,entertainment lawyer,TV,motion pictures,chain-of-title,production,license

Keywords:

actors,chain-of-title,entertainment attorney,entertainment lawyer,entertainment litigation,film law,insurance, motion pictures,New York lawyer,production counsel,SAG,Screen Actors Guild,

television law, entertainment attorney, entertainment lawyer, clearances, motion pictures, film, entertainment lawyer, rights, motion pictures, life story, film, entertainment attorney, life story rights, entertainment lawyer, TV, motion pictures, chain of title, production, license, actors, chain of title, entertainment litigation, film law, insurance, motion pictures, New York lawyer, production counsel, SAG, Screen Actors Guild, television law

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT

http://www.tormey.org/clear.htm

LLC’s, Corporations, And Other Business Structures - Part I: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And LLC Counsel John J. Tormey III, Esq.

http://www.tormey.org/business1.htm

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq. – Entertainment Lawyer, Entertainment Attorney

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY  10128  USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

brightline@att.net

http://www.tormey.org/

LLC’s, Corporations, And Other Business Structures - Part I: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And LLC Counsel John J. Tormey III, Esq.

© John J. Tormey III, PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

This article is not intended to, and does not constitute, legal advice with respect to your particular situation and fact pattern. Do secure counsel promptly, if you see any legal issue looming on the horizon which may affect your career or your rights. What applies in one context, may not apply to the next one. Make sure that you seek individualized legal advice as to any important matter pertaining to your career or your rights generally.

While many artists continue to do business as individuals, there often comes a point in their career when it makes sense to ascend to the next level - to create a business, to create a company, usually in this day and age a limited liability company (LLC) or a corporation, with its own name and identity. In the fields of arts and entertainment, this process is often handled by and through an entertainment lawyer, and is often the first reason for which a new client seeks counsel. If you are an artist who has reached that point in your career, or even if you have already surpassed it and want to revisit your decision, then this article is for you. I am a New York entertainment lawyer who regularly handles corporate and LLC matters and my contact information appears below.

1. Choosing a Name For A New Business

If one is choosing a structure for a small business, there are a number of different types of business entities that can be formed. At minimum, one likely will need to assess the relative merits of the subchapter-”S” corporation (“S-corp”); the subchapter-“C” corporation (“C-corp”); and the limited liability company (“LLC”). This choice will be described in more detail, below, and in Part II and Part II of this Article. But the first issues one should address, also typically addressed with and through one’s entertainment lawyer, are the trademark considerations which may arise as a result of the chosen name for the limited liability company (LLC), corporation, or other form of company.

“Fanciful” (i.e., fictitious) new business names for a limited liability company (LLC), corporation, or other form of entity should be searched as trademarks, especially in fields like entertainment where name recognition can be so important. Entertainment lawyers will routinely search and then issue opinions on proposed trademarks of properties for clients, including trademark-searches on LLC names and corporation names themselves. Why go through this process? Because a new LLC, corporation, or other form of business needs to confirm that no other businesses have prior rights or viable claims to its newly-proposed name (or a name substantially similar to its newly-proposed name). In any event, one may be barred from registering a corporate, LLC, or other business name, if someone else has already registered the same name in the jurisdiction in which the entity-filing is intended. Moreover, if one’s business is intended to ultimately be national or international in scope, as is often the case in entertainment-related and Internet-related LLC’s and corporations, a careful trademark search conducted through one’s entertainment lawyer becomes all the more important. One doesn’t want to invest sweat and equity in a fanciful business name, only to later find out that he or she is legally prevented from using it, or is unable to stop others from infringing on the newly-chosen business name.

Principal owners of a new business do sometimes elect to incorporate or form a limited liability company (LLC) under their own legal and given name (i.e., “John Doe, Inc., or “John Doe LLC”), instead of a fanciful name, in the hopes of saving money that they would otherwise spend on a trademark search through an entertainment lawyer. But there are at least two potential drawbacks to doing so:

Incorporating or forming a limited liability company (LLC) under one’s given name often makes it more difficult to later successfully develop a separate and distinct brand identity for one’s products and services.

Incorporating or forming a limited liability company (LLC) under one’s given name (or even a variant thereof) marginally increases the chances that a court may be inclined to let a plaintiff “pierce” one’s “corporate veil” in a litigation, if the “corporate veil” issue ever arises. “Piercing” means “finding individual economic liability” on the part of the owner/principal. The plaintiff’s argument would be that a self-titled corporation (or LLC) is more likely to be the “alter ego” of its individual principal. Now, although the odds of one’s “veil” being “pierced” may not be that high - assuming that the business owner observes all other corporate or LLC filings and formalities up until that point - the risk of individual liability is still worth mentioning. After all, for many people, the avoidance of “personal liability” and the avoidance of possible “veil piercing” is the whole reason for their incorporating or forming an LLC in the first instance.

What do I mean by “personal liability”? That is probably the most important legal concept that a limited liability company (LLC) owner, corporation owner, or other form of business owner will ever seek to avoid! Please read the next installment of this article.

Click the “Articles” button at:

http://www.tormey.org/art.htm

to return to the main Articles page.

My law practice as an entertainment attorney includes incorporations and the formation of limited liability companies (LLC’s), as well as work relating to trademarks and service marks. If you have questions about legal issues which affect your career, and require representation, please contact me:

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq.

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY  10128  USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

brightline@att.net

http://www.tormey.org/

Page:

Business Structures - Part I

Title Metatag:

LLC, entertainment lawyer, corporation, limited liability company

Meta Description:

LLC,entertainment attorney,corporation,limited liability company,New York,entertainment lawyer,record label, start-up

Keywords:

business entities,corporation,entertainment attorney,entertainment lawyer,incorporation,legal services,limited liability company,limited liability companies,LLC,LLC’s,New York lawyer,start-up

business, entertainment attorney, entertainment lawyer, business structures, LLC, entertainment lawyer, corporation, limited liability company, LLC, entertainment attorney, corporation, limited liability company, New York, entertainment lawyer, record label, start up, business entities, corporation, incorporation, legal services, limited liability company, limited liability companies, LLC, LLCs, New York lawyer, start up business

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT

http://www.tormey.org/business1.htm