Author Archives: Briana Hill

Recent Developments in IATSE, SAG-AFTRA, and WGA.

This entry was posted in Entertainment, Legal Blog on by Briana Hill.

IATSE, SAG-AFTRA, and WGA have all been in the news this summer with respect to subscription video on demand (“SVOD”) and ad-supported video on demand (“AVOD”) platforms and the impact the continued growth of those platforms continues to have on the entertainment industry.

2018 IATSE Agreement and the Editors Guild.

IATSE leadership reached a tentative deal with the studios and networks in July to replace the prior agreement that expired on July 31, 2018. While the agreement is expected to be ratified in September by the bulk of IATSE members, the Editors Guild (Local 700) has rejected the agreement in large part.  Editors Guild members and leadership don’t think that the new agreement sufficiently addresses residuals concerns (as well as other health and safety issues such as sufficient turnaround time), claiming that residuals revenue (which fund the pension and health fund) from traditional avenues of distribution such as DVD sales has greatly decreased in recent years, but the corresponding growth of SVOD content (and revenue) has not been reflected in the IATSE agreement. However, leadership of the twelve other locals that make up IATSE think that the new agreement addresses this concern adequately and are actively encouraging their members to ratify the agreement.

IATSE Reaches Deal on New Three-Year Contract With Studios, Networks

Editors Guild’s Board Votes Unanimously To Urge Members To Reject New IATSE Film & TV Contract

Hollywood Editors Break with Parent Union IATSE Over New Studio Contract

The Potential Strike No One Wants to Talk About: Streaming and the Future of Hollywood’s Union Crews

Continue reading →

Examine How the #MeToo and #TimesUp Movements are Impacting Entertainment Contracts

This entry was posted in Entertainment, Film, Legal Blog on by Briana Hill.

As the #MeToo and #TimesUp movements and their effects continue to unfurl, Hollywood is utilizing legal mechanisms via entertainment contracts to implement and supplement the changing norms, from “morals provisions” to “inclusion riders.”

What are commonly referred to as “morals provisions” have a long history in the entertainment industry, but in recent years, have been more commonly found in endorsement and advertising deals than in television and film agreements. Studios and production companies that had stopped using such provisions have started putting in place plans to reimplement them, while those that had been using them all along are revising them to conform to the new landscape.  Even distributors who never used morals provisions are starting to include them in their contracts, lest one of their projects ends up with some unexpected negative baggage.  Regardless, all of these industry players are looking for ways to tailor their contractual language to better address the valid business concerns related to fallout from the #MeToo movement.  Although talent attorneys are generally not pleased at the resurgence of these provisions, it appears unlikely at this time that the provisions will go away entirely; indeed, in some cases talent representatives think that there should be reciprocal provisions benefitting talent if there is another Weinstein-like situation with a studio or distributor. Continue reading →