Industry Liabilities


                        Lamensdorf vs. NYC, et Others

One recent case that is making it’s way to court is centering around the death of an NYU student on a student thesis film set in Georgia, USA. This case will have the biggest direct impact on my business plan as it deals with the danger of the unseen accident on a film set.  The case centers around film students from New York University that wanted to shoot on a very remote location in Georgia. The location being so remote that for the night shoots the only lights available during set up where from the floodlights of their cars, without them it would be pitch black. This inability to see created the dark look the director and cinematographer wanted yet left every available opportunity for accident offset where the lights would not be shining.  In the darkness the gaffer, who was on a lift with a 12k light, was being instructed by the cinematographer where he want the light positioned in the total darkness. The lift struck a power line no one saw and sparks flew from the 12k, which exploded, all the way down the electrical lines on the set until it reached a student named John Lamensdorf who was positioning another light on the opposite side of the set. Lamensdorf died at the scene. What I’ve failed to mention previously is that the shooting location was in a couple miles radius of “dead zone” for cell phones. In order to place a call one must drive out of this dead zone. When Lamensdorf fell dead, one had to do this in order to call 911 and then had to wait the couple hours it took for them to get to the location.  On the outside looking in, we can find it irresponsible for the students to have picked such a location, without notifying authorities of their presence and without having EMT’s on location for safety. These reasons are why Lamensdorf’s parents are suing the university, the students involved on the set and outside hires involved in the shooting in Georgia. Most importantly for my business plan, their suit outlines many safety precautions I have to include to make sure I am not making myself openly liable for a negligence or wrongful death suit.  

Thrasher, S. (2010, April 6). NYU’s Snuff Film.The Village Voice.Retrieved on March 30, 2011, from http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-04-06/news/nyu-s-snuff-film/

FILMS CORP v. MGM UA HOME VIDEO INC MGM UA

Another case is from the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Film Corp asked for an appeal on the ruling that denied that the motion picture, “King of Kings” distribution company, MGM, had to cease the distribution of the film based on the expiration of the original copyright that granted them exclusive distribution rights filed jointly by both parties. MGM agreed to finance and distribute the film if they owned the rights in perpetuity, which means forever. They state that they never would have agreed to the terms in the first place if they didn’t not have rights to the copyright in perpetuity. The outcome was that the court agreed with the original ruling of the district court, which ruled in MGM’s favor. This is important in my business plan as it teaches me to have explicit details when it comes to copyright rights, distributions rights, promotion rights, film rights, etc. Without these listed in detail I may end up in court and could lose the rights to the film I founded and brought to the table to make a motion picture.

P.C. FILMS CORP., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. MGM/UA HOME VIDEO INC., MGM/UA Communications Co., Warner Home Video, Inc., Turner Entertainment Co., Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees.
No.97-7399.
Argued Sept. 26, 1997. -- February 23, 1998



                                       UNIVERSAL STUDIOS INC v. VIACOM INC
The final case I wish to discuss happens in the Court of Chancery of Delaware, New Castle County.


 UNIVERSAL STUDIOS INC., a Delaware corporation, and Universal City Studios Inc., Plaintiffs, v. VIACOM INC., a Delaware corporation, Viacom International, Inc. (successor by merger to Paramount Communications Inc.), a Delaware corporation, and Eighth Century Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Defendants.
VIACOM INC. and Eighth Century Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. The SEAGRAM COMPANY LTD., Universal Studios Inc. and Universal City Studios Inc. Defendants.
Civil Action Nos.14971, 14973.  May 15, 1997



0 comments:

Post a Comment

 

Usage Rights

DesignBlog BloggerTheme comes under a Creative Commons License.This template is free of charge to create a personal blog.You can make changes to the templates to suit your needs.But You must keep the footer links Intact.