This online dispute resolution service is provided in accordance with new legislation - the EU Regulation No 524/2013 regarding Consumer Online Dispute Resolution ("ODR") and the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Amendment) Regulations 2015.
Friday 19 February 2016
NEW EU ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICE
This online dispute resolution service is provided in accordance with new legislation - the EU Regulation No 524/2013 regarding Consumer Online Dispute Resolution ("ODR") and the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Amendment) Regulations 2015.
Friday 30 October 2015
‘A VETERAN OF THE WELSH MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT SPACE’ – HIGH PRAISE FOR PAMELA FORTE FROM CHAMBERS UK 2016
Thursday 23 August 2012
FORTE LAW'S UPDATED EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY POLICY
Forte Law has recently updated its Equality and Diversity Policy. The up-to-date policy below replaces the policy published at the foot of the Forte Law website.
Discrimination arising from disability (section 15 of the Act)
4.2 What is the duty to make adjustments (section 20 of the Act)?
4.3 What is harassment (section 26 of the Act)?
4.4 What is Victimisation (section 27 of the Act)?
Thursday 6 October 2011
FORTE LAW IS AUTHORISED AND REGULATED BY THE SRA UNDER SRA NUMBER 466875
Friday 29 October 2010
PROTECTING IDEAS - IT'S A QUESTION OF CONFIDENCE
The article below was first published in ScreenDaily by Emap on 14 October 2010.
Don’t allow others to rip off your ideas when you can take some simple steps to protect yourself! Pamela Forte, media lawyer at Forte Law, offers some practical tips on safeguarding confidential information.
It shouldn’t happen but it does and we’ve all heard the stories. The producer, whose development pitch is rejected by a broadcaster, discovers twelve months later that the commissioner has set up his own production company and is developing a project suspiciously like the one she pitched. The company looking for co-production finance finds out that its former co-production partner is hawking its treatment round financiers following the break-down of negotiations. As a media lawyer, I’ve heard more of these stories than most and the question I am most frequently asked over a soggy bruschetta at media gatherings is ‘How can I stop someone else ripping off my idea?’
The short and truthful answer is you can’t. It’s a business risk which you can’t eliminate entirely. However, you can manage and reduce the risk by a combination of practical and legal measures.
The main difficulty in protecting ideas against copying and misuse is that there is no copyright in an idea. The law of copyright in England and Wales protects only certain categories of ‘works’ which have been recorded in some form rather than the ideas embodied in the work. A treatment may be protected by copyright as a literary work but this only gives the owner of it the exclusive rights to copy and exploit that particular literary work and prevent others from doing so. If another writer comes along and independently creates a new treatment based on the idea contained in the original treatment there will be no infringement of copyright.
So if your idea isn’t protected by copyright what legal protection do you have if someone walks off with it? In this situation your idea may be protected under principles of common law or equity which have evolved over time through decisions of the courts. Broadly, the law provides protection for confidential information which has been disclosed to third parties where two conditions are satisfied. The information must be inherently of a confidential nature and it must have been disclosed, expressly or impliedly, in confidence.
In the context of ideas and treatments for films there will generally be no problem with satisfying the first condition but in order to avoid any argument as to whether or not information was imparted to a third party in confidence it is best to ensure that, wherever possible, a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement is signed before the idea is disclosed. As well as putting beyond doubt the fact that the relevant idea was disclosed in confidence, a confidentiality agreement creates a contractual obligation of confidence which, if breached, will give rise to an action for breach of contract.
How then, in practical terms, should you go about protecting your ideas? I suggest the following:
1. Make sure all ideas, treatments and outlines are recorded in writing and marked with an appropriate copyright notice in the form © [Name] [year]. All rights reserved. While the copyright notice isn’t essential for copyright protection in England and Wales and won’t serve to confer copyright protection on the idea embodied in the relevant treatment or outline, it does convey the message that you are serious about protecting your intellectual property.
2. Where the circumstances and your bargaining position allow, ensure that all third parties sign a confidentiality agreement before you disclose your idea to them. Realistically, major financiers and broadcasters are not going to sign confidentiality agreements prior to receiving submissions (and may indeed ask you to sign a submission agreement). This is understandable when you consider the number of submissions they receive and the risk that they will subconsciously copy an idea or develop an idea which, although original in the mind of its creator, is strikingly similar to another idea which may have been submitted and rejected. But when you can insist on it, a confidentiality agreement not only protects your legal position in the case of unauthorised disclosure of your idea but concentrates the mind of the person asked to sign it and demonstrates your professionalism in managing your intellectual capital.
3. Above all, take care that ideas, treatments and outlines are not disclosed more widely than is necessary to seek development interest/finance. It is far better to prevent confidential information from coming into the hands of third parties in the first place than to rely on legal remedies for its misuse!
Pamela Forte established Forte Law, a media and entertainment law practice, in 2007. Pamela previously worked for 16 years as an in-house lawyer at S4C where she gained extensive experience in film and television financing, production and distribution. Pamela contributes regularly to media and legal journals and is noted in Chambers Directory 2011 as a media and entertainment law expert.
Disclaimer: The points made above are intended as general guidelines and should not be regarded as a substitute for legal advice on any particular situation or agreement.
Copyright © Forte Law 2010. All rights reserved.
Monday 22 March 2010
COLLABORATING ON FILM DEVELOPMENT – WHY TRUST DOESN’T COME INTO IT
Media lawyer, Pamela Forte of Forte Law, explains why trust is no substitute for a legally binding agreement when it comes to collaborating on feature film development material.
If I had a tenner for every time someone’s said to me “We don’t need an agreement – we trust each other” I could buy a small Caribbean island. And the area of film production where this occurs most frequently is in the development stage.
You know how it is. You may be a producer or director working in collaboration with a writer or another producer/director. You’re working together on a treatment/first draft script. You feel a tad uneasy about the copyright and rights situation but it’s not worth getting an agreement drawn up at this stage, is it? Plenty of time to sort out the legals when you get financiers on board and, hey, you trust each other don’t you?
I can never understand the logic of this. So the time to enter into an agreement is when you don’t trust each other? I’ve done both types and, believe me, the ones where the trust has gone out of the relationship take longer and hit your legal fees budget harder. Financiers and the money they bring to the table, welcome though they are, can often show up the cracks in relationships built on the most solid of foundations. At this crucial stage you don’t want to discover that the person you’re collaborating with has an entirely different view to you as to the direction the project should take.
Far from damaging trust, entering into an agreement before the collaboration commences builds trust. It ensures you and your collaborator are clear as to the expectations that you both have in respect of issues such as ownership of resulting copyright works and the basis upon which these may be further developed and/or exploited by you together or individually. Having an agreement in place before you approach a financier will also underline your professionalism and demonstrate your attention to legal detail.
Convinced? If so, what do you need to cover off in the agreement at this stage? Here are a few issues you might want to think about:
Ownership of any existing material. This might include any outline, treatment, etc.on which the collaborative work is based. Is it owned by one or both/all of the collaborators? Have any necessary rights been acquired from third parties?
Ownership of copyright in the resulting copyright works and the proportions which each party will hold. Copyright can be held in any proportions not just 50:50. Holding a nominal share of the copyright is a good way of ensuring that you won’t be cut out of the production at a later stage without acceptable terms being agreed.
Waiver of moral rights. Financiers will invariably require moral rights to be waived and it is preferable for the parties to agree specific contractual provisions in place of the rights comprised in moral rights.
Licence/consent to exploit jointly owned rights in specified ways. Where the copyright is jointly owned it may be useful for the parties to provide advance consent to specified forms of exploitation.
Rights of owner of any existing material to exploit that material in ways which do not compete with the collaborative work. For example, if the existing material is a play its author may wish to reserve the exclusive right to exploit live stage rights, radio rights etc.
Warranties and indemnities. (Originality, non-infringement of third party rights etc.)
Provisions which will apply if a film is produced based on the collaborative work. Depending on the nature and circumstances of the collaboration these may include provision for the parties to have an ongoing role in the production and a share of net receipts as these may eventually be defined in respect of the film. These provisions need to be drafted carefully to achieve the outcome of protecting the parties’ position while ensuring there is sufficient flexibility to meet financiers’ requirements.
So the next time you’re planning to proceed on trust alone just ask yourself - if you and your collaborator wrote down your expected position on the above issues would your answers be the same? Time to get your agreement down on paper?
Pamela Forte established Forte Law, a media and entertainment law practice, in 2007. Pamela previously worked for 16 years as an in-house lawyer at S4C where she gained extensive experience in film and television financing, production and distribution including structuring complex international co-productions involving treaty finance. In 2009 Pamela lectured on copyright and film related issues at Newport University’s International Film School and she contributes regularly to media and legal journals. She is recognised in Chambers Directory 2010 as a media and entertainment law expert.
Disclaimer: The points made above are intended as general guidelines and should not be regarded as a substitute for legal advice on any particular agreement.
Copyright © Forte Law 2010
Monday 5 October 2009
DIGITAL BRITAIN - THE FIGHT AGAINST ONLINE PIRACY
The tide may have turned against online piracy in the UK. In its Digital Britain final report, published on 16 June, the government outlined proposals to legislate to achieve a reduction of 70-80% in the incidence of unlawful peer to peer file-sharing.
Unlawful file- sharing is not the only form of online piracy but it is arguably the most damaging to rights holders because of the nature of the technology. Peer -to-peer file-sharing software allows files to be downloaded and disseminated across the file sharing community very quickly and its decentralised nature means that there is no central server which can be held liable for hosting or authorising the downloading of infringing material. Rights holders therefore have had to seek redress against individuals in respect of their unlawful uploading and downloading although in other jurisdictions cases have successfully focused on the operators of sites facilitating access to torrents hosted elsewhere – most recently in The Pirate Bay trial in Sweden, in which the four founders of the site were earlier this year sentenced to a year in prison and given a £2.4m fine.
The government has been forced to legislate to resolve the issue of illegal file-sharing because the voluntary memorandum of understanding between ISPs and rights holders, which it brokered in 2008, has not been effective in reducing the incidence of such activity. This is hardly surprising given the disparity of interests between the rights holders whose rights are being infringed and the ISPs, which are being asked to take action against their own customers. But this means that the carrot of self-regulation through a voluntary agreement will now be replaced with the stick of legislation.
The government proposes to place the media and telecommunications regulator, Ofcom, under a duty to take steps to reduce online copyright infringement. Specifically, it will be required to place obligations on ISPs to:
notify alleged infringers of rights (subject to reasonable levels of proof from rights holders) that their conduct is unlawful; and
collect anonymised information on serious repeat infringers (derived from the ISPs’ notification activities), to be made available to rights holders together with personal details on receipt of a court order.
The government is hopeful that most people who receive a notification will cease unlawful file-sharing. It has stated that existing evidence to this effect has been backed up by survey results, which found that significant numbers of people say they would stop or significantly reduce their file sharing activity upon receipt of a notification. The second limb of the obligation is intended to facilitate targeted court action against the “serious repeat infringers”.
The proposals have been given a lukewarm reception by many rights holders and their representatives, for whom they do not go far enough. They argue that file-sharing and the expectation of accessing free content has become so embedded in online culture, particularly among the young, that the mere act of notification, unless backed up by sanctions to prevent continued infringement, will not prove to be a sufficient deterrent. There are also concerns that, given the scale of unlawful file sharing, court action against individual 'serious repeat infringers' is impracticable in terms of time and costs and unlikely to have a significant impact on reducing the incidence of illegal file-sharing by the desired 70-80%.
Given that the majority of the individuals engaging in such activity are probably already aware that it is unlawful, the government’s optimism that notification will be effective does appear naïve. In addition, the proposals place the onus on rights holders to inform the ISPs in an agreed format and to provide 'reasonable levels of proof' of infringing activity. It may be that it will be relatively straightforward for rights holders to track downloads and obtain IP addresses from 'torrent swarms'to provide ISPs with the desired level of proof; but will they have the incentive to devote resources to doing s, if notification cannot be backed up by technical measures to restrict future infringement?
The government acknowledges that more draconian measures may be required, and proposes to take the unusual step of providing backstop powers for Ofcom 'to place additional conditions on ISPs aimed at reducing or preventing online copyright infringement by the application of various technical measures'.
Ofcom will be given the power to specify, by statutory instrument, these additional conditions which may include blocking access to subscribers through various means, capping the speed of a subscriber’s internet connection and/or the volume of data traffic which the subscriber can access (bandwidth capping), limiting the speed of a subscriber’s access to selected protocols/services and/or capping the volume of data to such services (bandwidth shaping), and/or content identification and filtering.
Ofcom’s backstop powers will be triggered only if, at the end of a period of 12 months from the date at which a code covering notifications and identification of serious repeat offenders became operational, there has not been a significant reduction in unlawful file sharing. The Government is consulting on the so-called 'trigger mechanism' but it is currently suggesting that it should be calculated by '(a) taking the number of unique individuals notified and (b) assessing what percentage of those notified have stopped unlawful file sharing ,either voluntarily or due to prosecution. If that percentage does not exceed or is not significantly close to 70% the mechanism will be triggered.'
Rights holders will no doubt be quick to respond on this but it does seem incongruous that, having expressed its belief that measures to address the problem of unlawful file sharing need to result in a reduction of 70-80% in its incidence, the government has set the benchmark by reference to the percentage of those notified who have ceased file sharing. As the government itself points out in its illustration: 'If the baseline unlawful peer- to- peer universe identified by Ofcom was 100, and notifications were sent to 50% of that universe with prosecutions against serial repeat offenders, the benchmark would be met if there was a 35% reduction in unlawful file sharing i.e. 70% of 50%'. In fact, given the onus on rights holders to identify infringers and provide evidence to ISPs of infringement, it seems highly unlikely that notifications would be sent to 50% of the file-sharing universe. The number of notifications is therefore likely to be much lower with the result that a comparatively small overall percentage reduction in the incidence of unlawful file- sharing may look like a large one - and the 'trigger mechanism' for additional technical measures will not be activated.
In addition, 12 months is surely an unrealistically short timescale in which to expect to see an impact from court action against serious repeat offenders? Some rights holders have accused the government of 'digital dithering' arguing that it will have to put in place technical measures in any event and should do so now rather than lose another 12 months.
The proposed backstop powers pose a dilemma for rights holders. The government has signalled clearly that the backstop powers should be used only if notification by ISPs and the execution of legal action by the rights holders have been fully implemented, alongside other tasks the government considers to be the responsibility of rights holders. These tasks include educating consumers to respect copyright and evolving business models that provide attractive alternatives to unlawful file sharing. This is a considerable burden to place on rights holders who, to the extent that they are not represented by collective organisations, will vary in their ability to take court action against piracy and put in place the other expected measures. But if they do not, the government will hold back from imposing on ISPs the technical measures to address unlawful file-sharing for which many rights holders have been lobbying.
The tide may have turned against online piracy, but rights holders will still have a difficult course to steer in the year ahead.
Pamela Forte
Forte Law
The above article was first published by and is reproduced here by kind permission of the Law Society Gazette. It reflects the situation as at June 2009 and has not been updated to reflect subsequent developments.
Copyright (c) Law Society Gazette 2009.