Industry Sectors

COVID-19 Relief

By Tyler Horowitz

While certain states have started to ease lockdowns and shelter-in-place limitations, the COVID-19 pandemic’s effects have taken a toll on many lives, communities, and small businesses. One of the many challenges this unprecedented situation has spawned is how small business will weather the economic downturn it has caused. This situation has been particularly dire for the entertainment industry and businesses that are in early start-up stages as well as early stages of financing.

On March 27, 2020, the President signed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the CARES Act) to provide emergency financial and health care assistance for individuals, families, and businesses affected by the coronavirus pandemic. On the financial side, the Small Business Administration (SBA) received funding and authority through the CARES Act to modify existing loan programs and establish a new loan program to assist small businesses nationwide that have been adversely impacted by the COVID-19 emergency.

For those small and medium-sized businesses who are unfamiliar with, or haven’t applied to, the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) or other similar state and federal relief programs, this post will provide a high-level overview of what such businesses need to know to pursue monetary relief.

Paycheck Protection Program

What is the PPP?

The CARES Act, in Section 1102, authorizes the SBA to temporarily guarantee loans in accordance with the terms and conditions of Section 7(a) of the Small Business Act. This relief program provides loans designed to incentivize small businesses to keep their workers on the payroll. Small businesses receive funds to pay for up to eight weeks of payroll costs including benefits, and the SBA will forgive the loan if all employees are kept on the payroll for that time and the money is only used for payroll, rent, mortgage interest, or utilities. Applicants are required to submit a good faith certification stating the following:

  • The loan is needed to support ongoing operations;
  • The loan will be used to retain workers, maintain payroll, and pay for mortgage, lease, and utility payments;
  • The borrower does not have a pending application for a similar loan; and
  • The borrower did not get a similar loan between February 15, 2020 and December 31, 2020.

 Who can apply?

A business is eligible for a PPP loan if the business has not more than 500 employees and if its principal place of residence is in the United States. A business’ principal place of residence is determined in accordance with the guidelines set out in the Code of Federal Regulations (“C.F.R.”) §1.121-1(b)(2). Similarly, PPP loans are also available to 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations with fewer than 500 employees and the self-employed, sole proprietors, and freelance and gig economy workers.

In order to qualify under the PPP, a business must have been in operation during the “Covered Period” of February 15, 2020 – June 30, 2020. The loan may be used to ensure that a business meets its payroll obligations as well as any costs related to family leave, sick or medical leave, insurance premiums, commissions, or rent that is incurred during the Covered Period.

How is the loan size determined?

The loan size is calculated on a case-by-case basis as follows and in accordance with the terms of 13 C.F.R. § 120:

  1. Add all payroll costs for all employees whose principal place of residence is in the United States.
  1. Subtract any compensation paid to an employee in excess of a salary of $100,000.00 annually and/or any amounts paid to an independent contractor or sole proprietor in excess of $100,000.00 annually.
  1. Calculate the average monthly payroll costs (divide the number from Step 2 by 12).
  1. Multiply the average monthly payroll costs, calculated in Step 3 above, by 2.5.
  1. Add the resulting number to any outstanding amount of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”; discussed below) made between January 1, 2020 – April 3, 2020 and subtract the amount of any EIDL advance.

On April 24, 2020, the SBA issued further guidance on how to calculate maximum loan amounts for each type of applicant (available here).  

How to apply?

You can apply through any existing SBA 7(a) lender or through any federally insured depository institution, federally insured credit union, and Farm Credit System institution that is participating. Other regulated lenders will be available to make these loans once they are approved and enrolled in the program. A list of participating lenders as well as additional information and full terms can be found here. These loans are first-come, first-served and the Government will continue to make disbursements so long as Congress provides funding.

Economic Injury Disaster Program

The EIDL Program is another option for small businesses administered by the SBA under Section 7(b) of the Small Business Act.  EIDLs are lower interest loans of up to $2 million, with principal and interest deferment available for up to 4 years, that are available to pay for expenses had the pandemic not occurred (e.g., payroll and operating expenses).

To qualify for an EIDL, your business must have suffered “substantial economic injury” from COVID-19. EIDLs are based on a company’s actual economic injury determined by the SBA (less any recoveries such as insurance proceeds) but the amount of the loan may not exceed $2,000,000.00.

Loan parameters

  • The eligibility period commences January 31, 2020 and ends December 31, 2020;
  • Any small business (including sole proprietorships, with or without employees) with 500 or fewer employees;
  • The interest rate on EIDLs is 3.75% fixed for small businesses and 2.75% for nonprofits. The EIDLs have up to a 30-year term and amortization (determined on a case-by-case basis);
  • The money can be used for payroll, rents or mortgages, or other operational costs;
  • Up to $200,000 can be approved without a personal guarantee; and
  • No collateral is required for loans of $25,000 or less. For loans of more than $25,000, a general security interest in business assets will be used for collateral instead of real estate.

Emergency advance

The EIDL Program provides an emergency advance of up to $10,000 to small businesses harmed by COVID-19 within three days of applying for an EIDL. To access the advance, you must first apply for an EIDL and then subsequently request the advance. The advance does not need to be repaid under any circumstance, and may be used to keep employees on the payroll or pay business obligations, including debts, rent and mortgage payments.

Applications and more detailed information can be found here.

Snapshot differences between PPP and EIDL

TermsEIDLPPP
Maximum Loan Amount$2,000,000$10,000,000
Interest Rates3.75%, up to 30 years (2.75% for non-profits)   Any portion of the loan not forgiven will be treated as a two-year loan with a 1% fixed interest rate  
Forgivable AmountOnly $10,000 of the emergency advance is forgiven100% forgivable provided employees are kept on the payroll for eight weeks and the money is only used for payroll, rent, mortgage interest, or utilities
Approved UsesRent, payroll, accounts payable, and any other expenses that could have been met had the pandemic not occurredPayroll expenses, rent, mortgage interest and utilities  
Collateral and Credit Check RequirementsYesNo

Can I Apply to Both?

Yes! However, it is important to note that you cannot use funds from both loans for the same purpose.

For example, you can’t use both EIDL and PPP funds towards payroll.

Additional Resources and News

In addition to PPP and EIDL, private companies have lent support for members of the entertainment industry. For example, Sony Music announced a $100 million Global Relief Fund to support not only medical workers, but also creators, artists, and other partners in the entertainment community who have been impacted by COVID-19.  Similarly, Live Nation Entertainment’s Crew Nation Fund is currently providing financial support to music crews who have been directly impacted by suspended or cancelled shows.

Further, U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar, Chris Coons, Tim Kaine, and Angus King introduced the New Business Preservation Act . This legislation would create a new $2 billion program at the Treasury Department that would partner with states to invest in promising start-up businesses in areas of the country that do not currently attract significant equity investment and who are particularly vulnerable to the current economic crisis as a result of COVID-19.

Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams & Sheppard LLP will continue to provide updates on legal developments related to the present crisis and we are available should you need further guidance.

“The Good Lord Bird” Trailer Just Released

CDAS represented producer Blumhouse in its deal to acquire rights to the James McBride book, the deal with Ethan Hawke (who stars as abolitionist John Brown), and the deal with Showtime where the miniseries will premiere on August 9. Watch the trailer here.

Supreme Court Rejects Willfulness Requirement for Profit Awards in Trademark Infringement Actions

By Sara Gates

In a recent decision of considerable importance for trademark practitioners, the U.S. Supreme Court finally resolved a longstanding split among the circuits when the Court held that willfulness is not required to award the plaintiff profits in a trademark infringement action. Romag Fasteners, Inc v. Fossil, Inc., No. 18-1233, 2020 WL 1942012 (U.S. Apr. 23, 2020). Justice Gorsuch delivered the majority opinion in the unanimous decision, expressly rejecting the willfulness prerequisite to profit awards adopted by the Second and Ninth Circuits, which both handle a high volume of the nation’s trademark cases.

Background

The case before the Court involved a dispute over handbag fasteners between Romag Fasteners, Inc., a company that manufacturers the fasteners, and Fossil, Inc., a company that uses the fasteners on its handbags. For years, Romag and Fossil worked together under an agreement that permitted Fossil to use Romag’s fasteners on its handbags. As Romag later discovered, however, factories in China making Fossil products were using counterfeit fasteners, instead of Romag’s products. Believing that Fossil was not policing these factories, Romag sued Fossil for trademark infringement and false representation (along with other claims, including patent infringement).

The issues of fact went to the jury, which agreed with Romag’s view and found that, while Fossil had acted with callous disregard, its actions were not willful. Though the jury made its advisory awards, the Judge Janet Bon Arterton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut determined that Romag could not recover Fossil’s profits on the trademark infringement claim without a finding of willfulness. On appeal to the Federal Circuit, the Court upheld the district court’s decision, finding that it was consistent with Second Circuit precedent (the District of Connecticut sits within the Second Circuit). Romag’s writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court followed, and the Court granted the writ, presumably to resolve the outstanding circuit split that has persisted for more than 20 years.

Decision

The Court did just that in its recent decision, which fully and finally rejected the view that a showing of willfulness is a prerequisite to a profit award in trademark infringement actions. As the Court explained, while the infringer’s state of mind is certainly an important and valuable consideration, it is by no means a requirement for a court to award a trademark owner the infringer’s profits.

In reaching the decision, the Court relied heavily on the text of the Lanham Act, the statute governing recovery of federal trademark violations, and, specifically, 15 U.S.C. § 1117, the Lanham Act’s damages provision. The Court pointed out that states of mind, or mens rea, are carefully addressed in that section of the statute, as they are throughout the entirety of the Lanham Act. For example, the plain text of § 1117(a) provides for recovery of an award of the infringer’s profits for any violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (i.e., trademark infringement), but for violations of § 1125(c) (trademark dilution) the statute clearly requires a willful violation for such an award:

When a violation of any right of the registrant of a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, a violation under section 1125(a) or (d) of this title, or a willful violation under section 1125(c) of this title, shall have been established in any civil action arising under this chapter, the plaintiff shall be entitled, subject to the provisions of sections 1111 and 1114 of this title, and subject to the principles of equity, to recover (1) defendant’s profits, (2) any damages sustained by the plaintiff, and (3) the costs of the action. . . .

17 U.S.C. § 1117(a) (emphasis added).

The Court determined that the use of the term “willful” in one instance in § 1117(a), but not in another, indicated Congress’ intent with regard to how mental states should be treated vis á vis profit awards for particular violations. Likewise, in other sub-sections of § 1117, mental states are included judiciously in certain instances, but not others. As the Court, in its interpretation of the law, is careful not to read words into statutes that are not present, it declined to adopt the Second and Ninth Circuit’s interpretations and read in a “willful” requirement for violations of § 1125(a).

The Court similarly rejected other arguments lodged by Fossil, again turning to the text of the statute. For instance, Fossil argued a profit award was appropriate pursuant to “principles of equity” in § 1117(a). The Court discussed the definition and meaning of “principles of equity,” finding it unlikely that Congress intended for this language to denote such a narrow rule regarding profit awards. Even considering pre-Lanham Act case law, the Court again noted that there was no clear rule regarding a willfulness prerequisite, leading the Justices to the conclusion that, at most, mens rea was an historically important consideration in awarding profits but never a requirement. As the Court pointed out, the importance of mens rea has continued under the Lanham Act, as reflected in the provision of greater statutory damages for willful violations in § 1117(c). Finally, the Court briefly rejected Fossil’s policy argument, stating that the Court would instead leave the policy decisions to the policymakers in Congress.

With this decision, trademark plaintiffs will face one less obstacle when establishing their entitlement to an award of a defendant’s profits. In practical terms, courts will likely see fewer motions for summary judgment on willfulness, as defendants may no longer use this tool to foreclose a plaintiff’s ability to obtain the defendant’s profits. Though the Court’s decision that courts may award profits absent a finding of willfulness may, in theory, open the doors to more profit awards, it is unlikely to result in windfalls to plaintiffs. As courts have long recognized, the infringer’s state of mind bears on the relief the trademark owner should receive.

The Supreme Court echoed the well-established notion that an infringer’s state of mind bears on the relief the plaintiff should receive when it clearly articulated that a defendant’s mental state “is a highly important consideration in determining whether an award of profits is appropriate” in trademark infringement actions. Romag, 2020 WL 1942012, at *4. There is just no particular mental state required for profit awards, so it remains in the discretion of the courts, and juries, to determine what is appropriate under the circumstances.

This article was published by the Media Law Resource Center (MLRC) on May 6, 2020

Congratulations to CDAS Client Colson Whitehead on Winning a Second Pulitzer Prize

Just announced, Colson Whitehead received the Pulitzer Prize for The Nickel Boys. He was previously awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 2017 for his best-seller The Underground Railroad, making him one of only four authors to win the Pulitzer twice for fiction.

MiMO Studio to Adapt “The Pout-Pout Fish” as Animated TV Movies

On behalf of publisher Macmillan, Simon Pulman and Marc Hershberg negotiated the deal for MiMO Studio to adapt award-winning pre-school book series The Pout-Pout Fish, written by Deborah Diesen and illustrated by Dan Hanna, for multiple animated TV movies. A New York Times best seller when released in 2008, The Pout-Pout Fish received the Bank Street – Best Children’s Book of the Year award the following year.

Content in Quarantine: Copyright Best Practices During a Pandemic

By Scott J. Sholder

At a time when we are stuck at home, working or “working” (or, sadly for many, not working) the tenet that content is king has never been more relevant.  From Disney+ releasing “Frozen II” and “Onward” early to help placate restless youngsters, to DreamWorks releasing “Trolls World Tour” for “theatrical” in-house rental, to Instagram sensation DJ D Nice offering his “Club Quarantine” and “Homeschool” IG parties and Spotify playlists, there is something for everyone on one platform or another.  Musicians are even offering special live-streamed performances from their homes (thank you Dave Grohl, Billy Joe Armstrong, et al.).

While the Disney and DreamWorks releases were clearly authorized corporate decisions, the world of quarantine content becomes murkier when one turns their overly scrubbed fingers to the keyboard.  Of course, the lead singers of Foo Fighters and Green Day, respectively, likely have the rights to publicly perform music they wrote, and reports indicate that DJ D Nice made licensing deals to avoid copyright claims stemming from his streaming discotheques.  But in the further corners of social media, the always-gray field of copyright has spawned more than its usual fifty shades in the time of COVID-19.  So, what about musicians performing other artists’ songs?  Fitness instructors on Instagram Live with their playlists thumping in the background?  The Internet Archive[i] offering its own “Emergency Library” of digital copies of books (a decision decried by the Authors Guild and Association of American Publishers, but claimed to be fair use by archive.org)?  Or DJs who, unlike DJ D Nice, did not have permission to publicly perform or remix the music featured during that IG virtual dance party?

At least in the latter case, some DJs and performers streaming on Instagram Live have reported that they’ve had their streams cut short by copyright infringement claims over use of musical content without authorization.  Lesser-known and aspiring artists (who, like many, are out of work at this time) are having their online raves canceled mid-performance.  But at the same time, artists whose content is being used may also be out of work and may be incentivized, perhaps more than usual, to enforce their copyright rights and preserve their dwindling income streams.  This presents a sensitive nuance to an already delicate balance between online content usage and rights enforcement. 

There is no timelier example of COVID-era copyright enforcement than Richard Liebowitz, the infamous plaintiff’s lawyer behind more than 2,000 copyright infringement lawsuits filed by photographers over the last four years.  His business model – which he characterizes as fighting for photographers’ rights, and much of the digital media industry characterizes as “trolling” – has, like COVID-19, mutated to adapt to its new circumstances.  It was recently reported[ii] that, despite quarantine and widespread isolation (or perhaps because of it), Liebowitz’s filings have actually increased, with his firm filing 51 lawsuits between mid-March and early April (39% of all copyright infringement lawsuits filed since the World Health Organization declared a global pandemic).[iii]  Likewise, porn studio Strike 3 Holdings is also keeping busy during the pandemic, having filed a more modest 11 new lawsuits since mid-March.[iv]  The uptick in these types of cases is potentially correlated to the increased use of content during quarantine and the reduced number of opportunities for photographers and other content creators to earn a living.  So, what’s a pandemic hermit to do?

The short answer: the same thing you’d do in pre-COVID life.  Even in these strange times of social distancing and mandatory isolation, the same rules apply even when unauthorized content use is undertaken for seemingly laudable reasons such as alleviating boredom, distracting your kids, or entertaining your Instagram followers.  For better or for worse, there is no exception in the Copyright Act for what’s going on out there, so vigilance in defense as well as enforcement is paramount.  For instance, the test for fair use set out in section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976 requires a lot more than benevolence in alleviating boredom or even supplementing one’s income during hard times to successfully fend off a claim of infringement.  One of the keys to establishing a viable fair use defense is “transformative use” – use of existing content that adds new expression, meaning, or message to the original underlying work.  Simply using the content as intended, even in an unprecedented environment, almost certainly will not be considered transformative.  As tempting as it may be to utilize others’ content for a seemingly good cause, good intentions do not a fair use make. 

Best practices for content usage remain largely unchanged.  The first-tier best solution is to use vetted licensed content (ideally pursuant to representations, warranties, and indemnification from the licensor) or seek permission, preferably in writing, directly from the copyright owner.  There are plenty of options out there for many types of content.  Licensing agencies like Getty Images, Shutterstock, Adobe, and Pond5 are stalwarts for visual content.  Many book and journal publishers are now offering resources[v] for newly minted home teachers.  Creative Commons licenses and use of public domain material are also viable options, particularly for photographic content, although may be less useful for things like popular music and are not always fool proof.  Music licensing is a unique beast that could fill an entire treatise, but suffice it to say that several licenses may be required depending on the nature of the use, including public performance licenses from performing rights organizations like ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, and Global Music Rights, “mechanical” licenses from music publishers and “master use” licenses from labels when content is downloadable, and synchronization licenses from publishers and record labels for music that is cued up with accompanying video content.  It’s certainly worth noting that some sites offer royalty-free and low-cost licensable music, such as Freeplay Music, Audioblocks, and Free Music Archive, without the added worry of the music licensing labyrinth.

Reliance on defenses like fair use should be a last resort, and in such cases, it is always wise to seek advice from an experienced copyright lawyer.  And, on the other side of the equation, if you believe your content is being used in a way that violates your copyright rights, platforms like YouTube and Instagram have DMCA takedown forms for removal of infringing content, but recent developments in the law require at least some consideration of whether the user has potential defenses (such as fair use) before submitting a takedown notice.

As we stay vigilant against the virus that is causing so much havoc worldwide, we must also make sure that we stay within the bounds of the law and mitigate our legal risks as we mitigate our health risks.  While troubled times such as these call for cooperation, collaboration, forgiveness, and flexibility, absent content owners and users working together to reach mutually beneficial arms-length deals, or the creation of a collective effort to allow free use of IP like that of Open COVID Pledge[vi] for health-based patents and technology, the rules remain as they were even if the world outside doesn’t.   

This article appeared in the May 1st issues of LAW360 Intellectual Property, LAW360 Media & Entertainment, and LAW360 Coronavirus.


[i] “Announcing a National Emergency Library to Provide Digitized Books to Students and the Public,” Internet Archive Blogs (Mar. 24, 2020), https://blog.archive.org/2020/03/24/announcing-a-national-emergency-library-to-provide-digitized-books-to-students-and-the-public/

[ii] Bill Donahue, “During Pandemic, Prolific Copyright Lawyer Keeps Suing,” Law360 (Mar. 27, 2020), https://www.law360.com/ip/articles/1257593/during-pandemic-prolific-copyright-lawyer-keeps-suing?nl_pk=db11a53e-b04f-44a7-96e1-76824544133d&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ip

[iii] See id.

[iv] See id.

[v] “What Publishers Are Doing to Help During the Coronavirus Pandemic,” Association of American Publishers, https://publishers.org/aap-news/covid-19-response/

[vi] Open Covid Pledge (Apr. 7, 2020), https://opencovidpledge.org/

Three Tips for Broadway Producers Recording their Shows for Streaming Platforms

By Frederick Bimbler and Marc Hershberg

Broadway producers interested in recording musicals for streaming platforms should pay attention to a new lawsuit.

The complaint was filed by Chapman Roberts, a Broadway music arranger, and alleges that a team of Broadway producers entered into an agreement with the plaintiff in 1994 to make original vocal arrangements of some famous songs from Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller for their musical revue, Smokey Joe’s Café. According to the complaint, the contract stated that Roberts’ arrangements in the show could not be performed, transcribed, recreated, copied, published, or recorded without his permission.

But, according to the complaint, in 1999, Broadway Television Network recorded a couple of performances of the Tony Award-nominated show without Roberts’ permission.

“When Roberts learned of this, he contacted BTN, and BTN then asked retroactively for permission to commercially distribute the recording of the [m]usical to the public,” his lawyers claim. But, it is alleged that no agreement was ever reached, and Broadway Television Network broadcast the recording as several pay-per-view events and then licensed it for distribution through BroadwayHD, a video on-demand service for musicals and plays.

More recent digital streaming licenses of the recording purportedly have occurred, and in October, Roberts sued Broadway Television Network, BroadwayHD, and several other related parties in federal court, alleging direct and contributory copyright infringement and the intentional and knowing distribution of false Copyright Management Information.         

The merits of this lawsuit aside, which the court will decide in due course, Broadway producers should bear in mind the following three lessons from the allegations in the lawsuit.

1.     When creating an audiovisual recording of a theatrical production, Broadway producers should be certain to obtain all of the necessary rights. Experienced entertainment attorneys can help producers determine which rights are necessary and who owns them – and then negotiate the deals for those rights.

2.     The rights to various protectible elements required to perform a work on stage do not necessarily include the right to create and exploit an audiovisual recording of the same work on stage. While some contracts might include provisions that address audiovisual productions, for many elements of a theatrical production, it is likely that the audiovisual rights will need to be granted in a separate license agreement.

3.     If Broadway producers cannot successfully obtain all of the necessary rights for an audiovisual recording of a theatrical production, then they should not proceed with distributing the recording. Missing some of the necessary rights will frustrate deals with distributors who do their homework, and the recording might result in a lawsuit, like this lawsuit involving Smokey Joe’s Café.

The case is Chapman Roberts v. BroadwayHD LLC et al., Index No.: 1:19-cv-9200 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2010).

YouTube Launches Stick Figure’s “Stay Home With: Yungblud”

“Stay Home With: Yungblud,” a weekly series featuring the U.K. recording artist and his band as they create music while in quarantine, premiered this week as part of YouTube’s “Stay Home #With Me” campaign. Amy Stein represented producer Stick Figure Entertainment in the license agreement with YouTube and agreements with Yungblud and his label, Interscope. Viewers are encouraged to donate to No Kid Hungry.

“A Secret Love,” from CDAS client Blumhouse, Rated 100% on Rotten Tomatoes

Blumhouse’s bittersweet documentary “A Secret Love” premiered today on Netflix to rave reviews. Simon Pulman represented Blumhouse in its deal with the filmmakers, Briana Hill was involved in the film’s financing, and Calvin Mohammadi and Simon represented Blumhouse in its deal with Netflix. Watch the trailer here.