Category Archives: Internet

Twitter Impersonator

"Mr And Mrs. Vader" courtesy of Cayusa

As with the Internet, cyber-squatters are hording the names of celebrities and other well-known people on Twitter. Some are even going so far as to pose as fictional characters like Don Draper from Mad Men.

If you’re an actor, be sure to register your name on Twitter while it’s still available (if it’s not too late already).

In this age of self-branding and the rising reliance on the Internet by the public at large, the famous and the famous to be need to maintain control of their names especially on social media sites like Twitter, Facebook and MySpace.

Twitter’s policy is to shut down fake Twitterers, most notably an ersatz Christoper Walken. However, there are exceptions to Twitter’s practices.

As reported in The Hollywood Reporter and elsewhere, CNN recently had to pay to recover the Twitter name “CNNbrk.” Let’s not even think about the attorneys’ fees.

Do not pass Go. Get your Twitter name now for free or pay later! [Thanks to Stephen Strauss for the heads-up on this one!]

Syndicate This!

"Hollywood . . ." Courtesy of Epzibah

DealFatigue is now being featured on entmedialaw.com, a website that aggregates legal and business writing specific to the entertainment industry.

A little less than a month since its launch, entmedialaw.com is already bringing an impressive network of people together who focus on entertainment law, deal making and the business culture of the entertainment business including Gordon Firemark, Jonathan Handel, bizmedialaw.net and feeds from The Legal Satyricon, Anne Thompson and others.

It takes a lot of web surfing to keep up with the ever changing legal landscape of the entertainment business but entmedialaw.com is poised to bring all of it to you in one place.

Check it out and let me know what you think.

Grass Roots Licensing Of Youtube Fare

My kids turned me on to “Charlie The Unicorn” shortly after it made its debut on youtube several years ago. Like most user generated content, Charlie, a flash animated 2D short, was made on a shoestring and the production values reflect that. Still, the work is smart, funny and quotable in the vein of Caddyshack and The Simpsons.

Charlie has been viewed over 35 million times worldwide and spawned a sequel.

Still, I wasn’t really intrigued until I visited Hot Topic, a teen-oriented store in my local mall, and spotted Charlie merchandise.

Plenty of talented (and not so talented) folks make shorts and distribute them on youtube. Far fewer generate millions of views or eyeballs; and only a handful of those successfully make the jump to ancillary exploitation.

Whether Charlie’s creator is making meaningful revenues isn’t really the point (nor is the aesthetic value of such a work).

Charlie’s transition from youtube short to retail merchandise represents nothing less than a sea change in the ability of a single content creator to leverage the internet and its potential access to millions to build a following and potentially profit from ancillary and derivative exploitation of content without the need or prohibitive expense of traditional distribution channels.

It means that self-distribution is now a meaningful and sustainable distribution alternative and will become even more so as internet based distribution (e.g., faster downloads) matures.

It means that traditional distributors better figure out how to stay relevant (hint: content marketing not content distribution) or get out of the way.

Just ask the people who (used to) work in the music business.

Negotiation Culture Redux: Lying Makes Sammy Run

There’s nothing new about lying during negotiations. Almost sixty years ago, Budd Schulberg wrote What Makes Sammy Run, a novel about an agent who lies to get ahead in the movie business. There have been a number of other works published or produced on the subject as well. More recently, I wrote about it here.

Then as now, negotiating is nothing less than a confrontational (and largely, animal instinct-driven) struggle for limited resources. There’s only so much pie to go around and a rep wants the client’s slice to be as big as possible; not just for the deal on the table but to set precedent or the quote for other deals down the road. These precedents greatly influence, if not become the floor to subsequent negotiations, taking into account the project’s budget and vintage of the quote. Agents, managers and sometimes, lawyers have an added incentive since their fees are based on a percentage of what the client makes on a particular project.

It’s only natural then that some reps feel that they have an absolute obligation to their clients (and to their law firms or agencies) to maximize their slice-to-total-pie ratio even if it means lying to the other side about a material term.

I suspect it was that desire that recklessly drove one particular rep to repeatedly lie to me about his client’s quote during negotiations; the first time by more than double the actual quote.

The rep stalled over days when I asked for documentary backup to the quote (a pro forma request usually provided on demand or verbally confirmed by the studio or network business affairs exec who initially put the quoted deal together). And when the days of stalling turned into weeks, I suspected the worst and only pressed harder. He ultimately confessed that he had misquoted the figure and that his client’s quote was really [a number that was about a third more than the actual figure].

I was furious. When I insisted on seeing the prior deal, the rep had the gall to blame me for drawing negotiations out.

The rep’s actions were particularly dumb since a quote is one of the easiest things to verify. When I told the story to R, a manager, former agent and friend, he laughed and said cynically, “he should have only lied to you about things you couldn’t check.”

Ultimately, the debacle left my client with substantially more leverage and the moral high ground to close the deal on more favorable terms.

“So why am I still angry?” I asked.

“Because you caught him lying and had to do something about it.” R said.

This business is based on trusted relationships meticulously built over time. Like deals drafted on a napkin over lunch back in the day, a rep’s integrity and reputation can still go a long way to closing deals faster and on better terms today.

In contrast, lying makes deal making harder; can polarize the parties; and makes the negotiations feel more like protracted litigation. Lying can kill a deal and, even in the best of outcomes, slow things down.

In this instance, we were lucky. The rep’s lies (not to mention the endless delays caused by his stalling) ended up costing our clients only time and money. It cost the rep much, much more.