Showing posts sorted by relevance for query fair use. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query fair use. Sort by date Show all posts
Friday, October 26, 2012

Faulkner Quote in "Midnight in Paris" Sparks Lawsuit

The past is not dead! Actually, it's not even past. You know who said that? Faulkner. And he was right. And I met him, too. I ran into him at a dinner party.” 
                                                       -- Wood Allen's "Midnight in Paris"
 
The above quote from William Faulkner's "Requiem for a Nun" was used in Woody Allen's "Midnight in Paris" (2011) without permission.  It has sparked a copyright and trademark infringement lawsuit.  As reported by The Hollywood Reporter, the suit was filed with the U.S. District Court in Mississippi on Thursday. In the movie, Gil Pender (Owen Wilson), who utters Faulkner's words, is a successful Hollywood screenwriter who, to quote The New Yorker ,"considers himself a hack," someone "struggling to write a novel, a dubious-sounding story about a man who lives in the past."

The dialogue is categorized in the complaint as both an "infringing quote" and "likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, and/or to deceive the infringing film's viewers as to a perceived affiliation, connection or association between William Faulkner and his works, on the one hand, and Sony, on the other hand." 

A good case can be made for fair use of the borrowed language.  The studio, if it wishes to litigate the matter, would argue that the screenwriter didn't lack imagination.  Allen wasn't padding the script or regurgitating Faulkner. He was bringing new insight to Faulkner, and the words quoted.  Among other things, William Faulkner is cultural shorthand for the struggling novelist who turns to Hollywood for fame and fortune. Gil called himself a Hollywood hack.   Faulkner called himself a failed poet who took up the novel.  Point.  Counterpoint. Gil's struggle is the inverse of Faulkner's.  How can we learn anything about ourselves if we can't quote enough to make a larger point about the human condition?  Put another way, the word "Faulkner" packs a lot of meaning. The motive for quoting Faulkner matters. It was to make a larger point -- not steal bread from the mouths of Faulkner's orphan children.    

Okay, but the Faulkner orphans might still wonder why Congress would allow Allen to borrow (steal?) their
literary property - but not their feeding bottles or bonnets?  Fair use allows scholars, researchers and others to borrow or use small (and sometimes large) portions of in-copyright works for socially productive purposes without seeking permission. The doctrine -- which complements the First Amendment -- helps courts avoid rigid application of copyright law where rigid application would "stifle the very creativity which the law is designed to foster." Against this backdrop, fair use can be looked at as a balancing act. It is an imperfect attempt to reconcile the competing ideals of free speech with the property rights of individual creators. Fair use recognizes that the reason for our nation's copyright laws is not so much for individual creators, but, rather to promote the progress of art and science.

Regarding the trademark claim, more likely than not it would be dismissed on a motion for summary judgment.   Arguably, it's not a trademark use. It's a passing reference in an artistic work to another artistic work.  Artistically relevant references to cultural icons, whether dead novelists or consumer products, are often protected under the First Amendment. They call it the Rogers artistic relevance test or exception. Ginger Rogers once tried to stop a movie that included her name in the title.  The movie was Fellini's satire "Ginger & Fred," which concerned two retired small-time dancers who were known as Ginger and Fred.  When Ginger Rogers learned of the film, she claimed the movie falsely implied she endorsed it - a violation of Section 43(a) of the Trademark Act. Affirming the trial court, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that, provided, a celebrity's name has some reasonable "artistic" relationship to the content of the work, and is neither "explicitly" misleading, nor a thinly veiled commercial advertisement, the slight risk that the celebrity's name might implicitly suggest endorsement or sponsorship, may be outweighed by the public interest in free expression. 

In the context of a recent blog on the HathiTrust ruling, I commented that when suing you have to keep in mind the "clear" purpose of copyright. Copyright may be called a "monopoly," but private reward must be balanced against the public good.  Based on what I know, my money is on Mr. Allen and Sony Pictures. 


 
Monday, May 16, 2011

Enhanced e-Books 101: Simple Music Clearance Strategies


By Lloyd Jassin & Adam Ness


    Including music in an enhanced e-book or other multimedia work that combines more than one type of expression -- whether images, photographs, video or audio -- presents unique and challenging clearance or permission issues. Obtaining the right to use music in your production, generally, will require you to obtain permission or "clear rights" from two different parties, the owner of the song and the owner of the sound recording. And, if you fail to obtain proper clearances, harsh penalties under the Copyright Act include statutory damages of up to $150,000 per infringement. 


     While it may appear as if no one is paying for music today, if  the music you wish to include in an app or enhanced e-book is still under copyright, and the use doesn't qualify as a “fair use,” that music element will have to be removed.  This article provides an overview of  the issues involved in clearing music rights for multimedia projects.

     Multiple sets of rights must be cleared to use a piece of preexisting music because recorded music is subject to at least two copyrights.  As such, there is no “one stop shopping” when it comes to music clearance.  If you obtain permission for the owner of a particular sound recording, you still have to obtain permission whoever owns the copyright in the underlying song.   On a happy note, it is often easier to locate music rights holders than the holders of other creative elements, because of the existence of online music rights databases.   

     Allow sufficient time for the challenges unique to music clearance.  Clearing any type of rights takes time, and music rights holders are still skittish about “new media.” As a result they are often reluctant to grant rights for different technical platforms or media platforms.

     Copyright No. 1:  Rights in the Underlying Song

     The first copyright is in the musical composition itself, which consists of the underlying lyrics, melody and rhythm.  The songwriters generally assign their copyright to a music publisher, who then administers the issuance of what are called “videogram” and “synchronization” licenses to multimedia and other producers.  If you wish to use a musical composition in combination with moving images, you must obtain a synchronization or videogram  license from the music publisher.   Whereas a”synch” license is associated with film and television, when dealing with home video devices, including so-called “enhanced e-books” a videogram license is needed.  Interestingly, “synch” and “videogram” rights are not mentioned in the Copyright Act.You will also need permission from the music publisher if you wish to reproduce the sheet music or lyrics.  The best way to locate a music publisher (or songwriter) is to visit one of the performing rights society websites.  ASCAP (www.ascap.com), BMI (www.bmi.com) and SESAC (www.sesac.com) each maintain searchable online databases of song titles and composers, which lists publisher contact information.  Harry Fox also maintains a song database, but, it tends to be harder to navigate than the aforementioned sites.  However, it’s a safe bet that the songwriters belong to one of these three performing rights societies.  

     Fees are highly negotiable, and the price you are quoted will depend on the popularity of the song, the attractiveness of your project, the duration of the use, the license term, geographic scope of the license, the nature of the use (e.g., theme song, background use), and the platforms or devices licensed.  When negotiating for multimedia rights, remember that multimedia works are non-linear, containing pathways a user may never explore.   If the music you are licensing is unlikely to be heard, you may argue that the fee you are quoted should reflect that.  If you are negotiating with different music publishers, you may be held hostage to what is known as the most favored nations clause ("MFN").   Publishers and record companies include MFN's in their license agreements.  They are like insurance policies.  If another publisher receives more favorable terms than they do, this clause is triggered, and the publisher who was paid less, automatically becomes entitled to receive the more beneficial terms.
  
Copyright No. 2: Rights in the Sound Recording

     The second copyright is in the sound recording itself. Sound recordings are generally owned by record companies, or, in some instances, by the artist. If you want to use an existing performance by a recording artist in your project, you will need a “master use” and “videogram” license from the record company or artist. In the case of an “app,” the combination master use / videogram license maybe referred to as a “multimedia” or “software” master use license. If you can't obtain the right to a particular recording of a song, consider a substitute recording by a less popular recording artist, or, create your own original recording.

     Streaming

     A public performance rights -- as opposed to synchronization rights -- is implicated when music is streamed from a website. If the listener or user clicks a button or link for a particular recording, and s/he hears the song, but a copy of the sound file isn't downloaded directly to the listener's music device, the music is being streamed.  If your website will stream music, you will need at least two licenses, i.e., one from a performance rights organization (i.e., ASCAP, BMI or SESAC),  and the other from the owner of the sound recording.

     SoundExchange manages payments for owners of sound recording rights (usually record companies), and should be contacted. Unlike synch licenses, ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and SoundExchange (http://www.soundexchage.com/) use standardized rights definitions, and issue licenses based on statutory rates set by Congress.

     Clearing music rights can be costly and time consuming.  There are no standardized rights definitions and fees vary tremendously   “Budget” options include commissioning music on a work for hire basis, and using low cost “production” or stock music.  If you have a complex clearance project, consider using a music clearance specialist.  They know the right people, and understand the industry’s customs and practices, and, thus, could move the process along more quickly than you.     



Resources

Kohn on Music Licensing: 4th Edition, Al Kohn & Bob Kohn (the music licensing “bible”)
BZ Rights & Permissions, http://www.bzrights.com/ (music clearance professionals)
EMG Music Clearance, http://www.clearance.com/ (music clearance professionals)
U.S. Copyright Office, http://www.copyright.gov/

Thursday, February 4, 2016

"No Copyright Infringement Intended" (Yeah, Right!)


Copyright Permission Attorney
Pure hearts and empty heads.
"No Copyright Infringement Intended" is a familiar disclaimer you see at the beginning and end of video mash-ups posted on YouTube. But is it an effective disclaimer?  Not really. That's because copyright is what is known as a strict liability tort. There is no pure heart and empty head defense to copyright infringement. For example, in the Harrisongs case, the court determined that George Harrison's song My Sweet Lord unintentionally infringed the Chiffons’ 1963 hit He’s So Fine.   

There is one limitation to the innocent intent is no defense to copyright infringement statement. YouTube, and other internet service providers, are shielded from secondary liability on the condition they remove infringing content posted by users when notified of the infringement by the copyright owner.    

While not a defense, intent is relevant for purposes of determining monetary damages. Simply put, bad-faith infringers are treated more harshly than innocent ones. One point of view is the deliberate affixing of a "No Copyright Infringement Intended" disclaimer is evidence that the person either knew they were infringing or recklessly disregarded the possibility. Unless the poster has a viable fair use defense, "no copyright infringement" is seen by many copyright practitioners as self-incriminating behavior.
In cases where the infringement is willful, depending upon the degree of culpability, a court can award between $750 and $150,000 per infringement, plus reasonable attorney's fees and costs. This is known as statutory damages in copyright jargon.     

When Mark Twain was accused of cribbing the dedication to his ironically titled The Innocents Abroad from a book of poems by Oliver Wendell Holmes, he quipped, "Adam was the only man who, when he said a good thing, knew that nobody had said it before him.” Twain's point, or purpose, wasn't forgiveness. He was driving home the point that his behavior was neither good nor bad. His subconscious was to blame. While mildly unrepentant, the explanation makes Twain appear less blameworthy than if he included a "No Copyright Infringement Intended" disclaimer on the reverse title page of the Innocents Abroad - or composed an apology that appeared insincere.

What was true for Twain was also true for Holmes, who reportedly laughed off the incident, saying there was no crime in unconscious plagiarism, which he said, "I commit every day." 
If you struggle with permissions issues, there's no reason to go it alone. Seek the advice of an experienced copyright attorney who can help you ascertain if permission is needed. Further, without an attorney, if you receive a cease and desist letter, you may not be able to know whether you have a valid defense such as fair use.  

Resources
Fitzgerald Pub. Co., Inc. v. Baylor Pub. Co., Inc., 807 F. 2d 1110 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1986

ABKCO Music, Inc. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 722 F. 2d 988 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1983
 
Copyright Permission Lawyer


Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Amazon & Google Agree to Antitrust Consent Decrees

2018 Publishing Predictions

My 2013 predictions mainly concern the year 2018. Why?  It's easy to predict the near term (unless you are trying to accurately predict where the markets will go over the course of one year).  Also, the practical utility of a short term prediction is limited.  When the air raid siren has sounded, it's too late to build a shelter.  Predicting the mid term allows time to adjust behaviors and positions.  And, as a celebrity seer once said to me, "If you engage in fortune telling, foretell the mid-term.  That gives them time to forget your inaccurate or mistaken predictions."   His other advice was to "predict outcomes not details."  On that one, I've broken with accepted prophetic practice. 


[Suggested musical accompaniment:  Robert Plant & Alison Kraus' version of the late great Allen Toussaint's Fortune Teller.  Video embedded at end of post.]


Prediction 1


FTC Cuts Amazon & Google Down to Size

(New York) November 22, 2018.  The FTC concerned about
Depiction of FTC Attack on Google
vertical integration (control of content production and distribution) will prohibit Amazon and Google from having a monetary interest in content they distribute or display.  Amazon and Google will agree to consent decrees, whereby Amazon* is forced to spin off its Simon & Schuster, Avalon, Dorchester, Sony Records and Showtime divisions.  Likewise, in response to accusations it abused its market power, i.e. the ability to control price or reduce competition, in internet searches,   Google will agree to divest its Google Maps, JK Lasser Tax Institute, Automobile Club of America, Zagat and ESPN divisions. In a complicated formula to be worked out by FTC and European regulators, within 90 days of the decree, Google will be ordered to start sharing proceeds of revenues derived from sale of personal data of users who click a new "Monetize Me"  button.  Neither Google nor United Parcel Service (UPS)  will be willing to comment on how the  consent decrees will impact their proposed merger.  Lloyd Jassin will be quoted as saying, "Privacy is the new copyright."


"Protecting competition in the digital marketplace is a high priority for the FTC," will say Bureau of Competition Director Richard Feinstein. "This order will ensure that vigorous competition continues in the worldwide online market for entertainment and information products, and that consumers are not faced with reduced innovation as a result of digital favoritism and dwindling access to markets for independent publishers and other independent content producers." 


"The Internet is better served with less regulation," David Crane, a Google-friendly legal scholar will be quoted as saying. "This violates nearly every tenet of laissez faire capitalism.   What Google is doing is good business.  It's not exclusionary.  While Google is invaluable, it's not essential.  Stop complaining about your inability to compete. Start competing."   

*Why the FTC Took Amazon & Google Apart: An Antitrust Analysis: By 2016, the FTC determined that Amazon and Google had turned their backs on their original missions of openness and innovation. The platforms, via exclusionary tactics, have  become toxic to healthy innovation. Responding to real or perceived external threats, both companies had abused their market power by raising barriers to entry,  making it difficult for potential new entrants as well as large companies to compete.   It started in earnest in June 2012, when Amazon Publishing acquired category publishers Avalon and Dorchester. Four years later, Forrester Research reported that 70% of America's online shoppers began their search for a product at Amazon. Google which tied search to advertising, controlled 70% of America's advertising sales by 2016, and was rumored to be in talks with UPS about a possible merger. That same year, the EU fined Google $500M Euros for cooking search results, i.e., favoring its own content over the content of others. Book publishers and more so, film and television studios and the interactive gaming industry had become a threat to Amazon. They could withhold products, or, in the case of studios and the interactive gaming industry, increase license fees at the end of a license term. Google, now a mature business, simply lost its way. The FTC determined it was time to regulate the platforms. But they needed to make their case.  Amazon had shown an unsavory willingness to withhold technological innovations from suppliers and vendors for its own advantage. Using its position of dominance, it often disabled "buy now" and "buy" buttons to address threats from its publishing suppliers. But, it wasn't just about books. Similar tactics were used to punish suppliers and deny threats to entry in gaming, music, publishing, motion pictures, kitchenware, infant diapers and formula, and shoes. Hoping to mimic the trading template created by Amazon, Google eyed UPS as a way to fill in the gaps in creating a fully integrated trading company. Amazon and Google's entrepreneurial audacity were tolerated until they exhibited parallel habits of willful exclusion of others - otherwise known as conscious parallelism in the rubric of antitrust law. After being scrutinized for possible antitrust violations for several years, the FTC determined that they ceased to be the instruments  of innovation; so the FTC cut them down to size. Reflecting on the Apple "Agency Pricing" consent decrees of 2012 - 2013, a former Justice Department attorney (anonymously) observed that "Price fixing cases were easy to sell, both politically and as a coherent story. There were clear villains. Apple. Big publishing. The consumer felt it in their wallets. The price of eBooks went up. When former innovators go bad, those are the tough cases. When do you bring an enforcement action? It's a matter of timing. The FTC waited until they believed innovation and openness had taken a back seat to discriminatory practices."

Prediction 2 
 
Google Wins Fair Use Battle *

If you are looking for something short-term, something 2013'ish, I predict that Google wins (or The Authors Guild settles) the fair use litigation commenced in 2005; that Google does not seek attorney fees or otherwise act punitively.  Is the mass digitization of  books a good thing?  Yes, unless Google favors its own content over yours.  See, 2018 predictions above. 

*Update: Yep, it came to pass.  On October 16, 2015 the U.S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a 2013 lower court ruling that Google’s library book scanning project was protected by fair use and was not copyright infringement.


Resources 

Looking Back on My 2008 Predictions (blog post) (Lloyd Jassin):  I urge you to to look at the end of the post, where I score my 2008 predictions.  The growth of the independent book sector, which was predicted, as well as Google's search engine preference for its own content, are just two or four major predictions that have become reality.    



Three Versions of Fortune Teller

 








Tuesday, October 8, 2019

Jassin Quoted in Fortune

I'm quoted in Fortune: Twitter Took a Trump Tweet Down, but Should It Have? And is Nickelback to Blame?

 


Lloyd Jassin discusses fair use.

In Jeff John Roberts' column in Fortune I talk about Fair Use, and the expanding scope of transformative use in the context of political discussion.   

Monday, September 27, 2010

Music & Publishing Industries Suffer Setback in Digital Download Case

 
Copyright Alert: 9th Circuit Holds Digital Downloads are Licenses Not Sales
FBT Productions LLC v. Aftermath Records (9th Circ. 2010)

What should musicians and authors be paid for digital downloads?  In a decision with implications for the publishing industry the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that rapper Eminem’s production company was entitled to 50% of his record label’s revenue from digital sales. 

The issue in F.B.T. Productions v. Aftermath Records was whether a digital download was a “sale” or a “license.” Like the music industry, publishers have taken the position that digital downloads should be accounted for as sales not licenses.  Typically, the royalty rate paid for subsidiary rights revenue is split 50/50 between the author and publisher, compared to 25% of net paid to authors for the “sale” of an eBook. 

Distinguishing Sales and Licenses
 
In its September 3, 2010 ruling, the court held that digital downloads should not be treated as auditable physical units for royalty accounting purposes.   The ruling is important for the recording industry, because recording artists (like book authors) receive 50% of the record company’s net receipts from rights licensed to third parties -- as opposed to 12% to 20% of the retail price. 

The divisibility of copyrights was the theory relied upon by the court in determining that a digital download from the iTunes store was not a sale but a license. 

The Ninth Circuit held:

When the facts of this case are viewed through the lens of federal copyright law, it is all the more clear that Afterrmath’s agreements with the third-party download vendors are “license” to use the Eminem master recordings for specific purposes authorized thereby — i.e., to create and distribute permanent downloads . . . — in exchange for periodic payments based on the volume of downloads, without any transfer in title of Aftermath’s copyrights to the recordings. Thus, federal copyright law supports and reinforces our conclusion that Aftermath’s agreements permitting third parties to use its sound recordings to produce and sell permanent downloads . . . are licenses.

To the extent publishers transfer the right to make digital copies available to a digital download distributor, who then sells direct to consumers, it would, under the holding of this decision, constitute a license.  Digital download distributors do not, to quote the decision, “obtain title to digital files.”  The legal principle is quite simple.  Copyrights are divisible.  They can be assigned for less than their complete term, for a particular territory, and for a particular use -- rather than all rights under copyright.  If iTunes or Amazon or Sony or Kobo purchases an eBook from a publisher and resells it to a consumer, in the Ninth Circuit, it would considered a sale.  On the other hand, if the publisher retains ownership of the files, and receives periodic statements iTunes, et al, the rule of the case, applied mechanically, would categorize revenue from the "sale" of a digital download as subsidiary rights income.  


Many contract templates have already been modified by publishers in anticipation of a decision such as this one.  As such, they are likely immune to the decision's economic impact.  With regard to legacy or backlist contracts, labels and publishers will try to mitigate the impact of this decision by seeking retroactive contract amendments, and, perhaps, waivers of claims for back royalties.

The court regarded the record label’s ability to regain possession of the digital files at any time as a key element in supporting it’s finding that the label did not “sell” anything.
There is no dispute that Aftermath was at all relevant times the owner of the copyrights to the Eminem recordings at issue in this case, having obtained those rights through the recording contracts in exchange for specified royalty payments. Pursuant to its agreements with Apple and other third parties, however, Aftermath did not “sell” anything to the download distributors. The download distributors did not obtain title to the digital files. The ownership of those files remained with Aftermath, Aftermath reserved the right to regain possession of the files at any time, and Aftermath obtained recurring benefits in the form of payments based on the volume of downloads . . . Under our case law interpreting and applying the Copyright Act, too, it is well settled that where a copyright owner transfers a copy of copyrighted material, retains title, limits the uses to which the material may be put, and is compensated periodically based on the transferee’s exploitation of the material, the transaction is a license.
Importantly, if FBT were applied to books, you would find the word “license” multiple time, in, for example, Amazon’s Digital Distribution and Sony’s eBook agreements with publishers. 
Opportunities for Authors & Strategies for Publishers
 There is no way to predict whether the Second Circuit would follow the same line of reasoning as the Ninth Circuit.  Historically, the Second Circuit and Ninth often come to different conclusions via-a-vis new media issues.  No doubt, the commentators will have a day of it.  The decision will be opposed by the music and publishing industries.  Public statements will be made stating that the decision should be limited to the facts of this particular case.  And, while Eminem’s label may threaten to take the case to the Supreme Court, it will likely not act on that threat, as a final adverse judgment (assuming the Supreme Court would hear the case) would be devastating to that beleaguered industry.   
"The Penguincubator"
Dowload or Book Sale?
Penguin's Early B2C Experiment
Like the recent Random House–Wylie dust up, and the Rosetta Books decision, matters such as this are usually settled on confidential terms.  As the  FBT decision is not limited to records, agents and publishers should turn to their lawyers to help them determine what is the best current business practice in view of this important decision.  Consequences?  Agents will be emboldened to demand higher royalties from digital downloads, raising the familiar argument, "There's little direct cost today in getting eBooks into readers' hands.  Give me more!"   The future?  eBook rates for backlist titles (but maybe not for frontlist titles) will rise above 25%, and some wise publisher in the next six months will issue a press release stating that “In the light of dramatic changes that have taken place in the book publishing industry over the past several years, it is only fitting that the authors who comprise our backlist – and their heirs – be paid in accordance with today’s standards.”  
As the Rosetta Books decision illustrated, additional rights beyond primary rights, when sought by a publisher, are subject to separate negotiations and consideration.  If not resolved by a separate agreement, or amendment to the contract, such matters can wind up in court.   Whether this decision helps establish new ground rules for artist and author compensation remains to be seen.  I bet it does. 




How will this affect book publishing?  Will it accelerate the pace of the industry’s transition from a B2B to a B2C model?  Will conglomerates unload (trade) publishing houses?  Will Google start acquiring houses like the TV networks once went after studios?  A Penguincubator on every corner?  Stay tuned. It's not the end of publishing, just another chapter. 






THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS ARTICLE IS OF A GENERAL NATURE.  IT IS NOT INTENDED AS LEGAL ADVICE.  READERS ARE STRONGLY ADVISED TO CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RELYING ON ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN.  THIS POST DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP OR ANY OTHER EXPECTATION OF REPRESENTATION
Wednesday, November 25, 2015

What Every Author and Publisher Should Know About Media Liablity Insurance

By Lloyd J. Jassin & Steven C. Schechter

Publishing can be a risky business. 
 
Copyright infringement, defamation and invasion of privacy are just three of the media perils that authors, writers, bloggers, and publishers are exposed to. 

In addition to becoming familiar with fair use (a defense to copyright infringement), and clearing rights to preexisting materials when permission is required, you can reduce personal and business risks with author and publisher liability insurance.
 
Unlike comprehensive general liability policies, media liability policies cover claims of copyright and trademark infringement, invasion of privacy, defamation and other contextual errors and omissions. Some policies even cover claims of misappropriation of ideas, as well as a number of other media perils. Most of these policies also cover the costs of defending a lawsuit, including attorney's fees and court costs.

What Should I Look for in a Media Perils Policy?

Insurance policies vary widely. It is important to emphasize your comprehensive general liability policy almost never protects you against the types of claims discussed in this article. However, if you are sued, or threatened with a lawsuit, your attorney should consult your policy to ascertain the scope of protection - if any - offered.  Keep in mind as well, that if your publisher is sued, the indemnity clause in your publishing agreement will make you responsible for legal defense costs, as well as for any settlement or damage award. 

In the following section we discuss what questions you need to ask when shopping for a media perils insurance policy.

1. Does the Policy Cover Attorneys' Fees?

Determine if the policy provides coverage for legal fees and defense costs, as well as payment of damages. Some policies have defense costs within the limit of liability, while others offer defense costs in addition to the limit of liability. Defense costs outside the limits of the policy provide broader coverage.  Other policies require you to obtain approval before incurring any attorneys' fee or expenses. It's also important to determine whether the policy requires the insurance company to defend a lawsuit against you.  If it does, you can save a tremendous amount of money in legal fees.  A secondary concern is whether the policy will allow you to choose your own defense counsel. 

2. Does the Policy Cover Punitive Damages?

Another key point to investigate is whether the insurance policy covers punitive or exemplary damage awards. Some states, such as New York, do not permit insurance companies to insure you against punitive damages. Because an award of punitive damages may be substantial (sometimes even more than actual damages and attorneys' fees), where permissible, you should make sure that your insurance policy will cover any punitive or exemplary damage award. 

3. Does the Policy Require a Lawyer's Opinion?

Many insurers will not issue a media risks policy unless the publisher, or author, provides an opinion letter from a publishing attorney analyzing the risks of a lawsuit. While the cost of hiring a publishing lawyer to vet your manuscript can be significant, it is another form of insurance in and of itself.  However, it is a cost that should also be taken into account when comparing policies and their rates.

While more common when insuring a film production, some policies will not insure the title of a work unless they receive a lawyer's title report.  While titles are not protected by copyright law, some may fall under the rubric of trademark law, especially titles that evoke an established brand, thus, creating a likelihood of confusion as to source or association with that brand.  Therefore, the cost of obtaining a title report should should be taken into consideration when shopping for coverage.  

4. What Types of Claims Are Covered?

It is important to speak with an insurance broker familiar with this type of coverage to find out exactly which types of claims are covered and which are not. For example, some policies cover claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress or misappropriation of ideas, while others do not. Other insurance policies offer optional coverage, for an additional fee, for claims for bodily injury or property damage resulting from negligent advice or instructions.

All writers and publishers should obtain a policy that covers, at a minimum, claims of libel (written defamation) slander (spoken defamation), invasion of privacy, violation of the right of publicity, copyright infringement, trademark infringement and unfair competition. Obviously, the more types of claims covered, the better the policy. Many insurance policies exclude certain claims, such as those alleging intentional or malicious acts, from coverage. It is important to find out what types of claims are excluded, as you will bear the cost of defending excluded claims yourself.

5. Which Versions of the Work Are Covered?

You should investigate whether the insurance policy will cover more than one version of your work. If your work will be published in hardcover, paperback, traditional eBook and multimedia form, make sure the insurance policy covers all of those versions.  Additionally, find out whether the policy covers condensed versions, serializations, audiobook and other versions of your work. Similarly, you should find out if coverage extends to book jackets, flap copy, press releases, advertising and promotional materials (including catalog copy and companion blog),  interviews and personal appearances.

6. Where Is the Policy Effective?

It may seem like a simple question, but many policyholders fail to ask whether their policy covers claims outside the United States. Most insurance policies cover claims only brought in the US. If your work is going to be distributed outside of the United States, you'd better make sure that your insurance policy will cover claims and lawsuits brought in any country where your work is sold, or translated.

7. Is the Policy a "Claims Made" or "Occurrence" Policy?

There are two types of insurance policies: "claims made" policies and "occurrence" policies.  An occurrence policy offers broader coverage.  A "claims made" policy covers claims made during the policy period, whether or not the actual activity which gives rise to the claim occurred before the policy came into effect. An "occurrence" policy covers material published during the policy period.  If your policy is a "claims made" policy, and a lawsuit or claim is brought the day after your policy expires, the insurance policy will not cover the claim even though the acts giving rise to the claim occurred while your policy was in effect. Alternatively, with an occurrence policy, it doesn't matter when the claim is made. As a rule, you should avoid "claims made" policies.

8. Settlement

As an author or publisher your freedom of speech or press rights are protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as well under most state constitutions.   Therefore, it's important to ask the broker if the policy gives you input into the selection of a qualified First Amendment or media defense counsel. 

Insurance Policy Prices

The premiums for media insurance policies vary depending a number of factors, including the amount or limit of protection you elect.  The premiums generally take into consideration several additional factors, including:

Whether you consulted a qualified publishing attorney. Most insurers allow rate card credits to authors and publishers who have their manuscripts reviewed by an experienced publishing attorney.
The type of book. For example, the premium for a science-fiction novel will be less than that for an investigative report, unauthorized biography, or roman a clef, which might result in a lawsuit for defamation or invasion of privacy.
Whether releases and permission forms have been secured, and if their scope cover all the uses, versions and editions of the work during the term and throughout the territory in which the work will be exploited.      
Whether you've cleared the title of the book.
Whether any claims have been threatened.
The amount of coverage sought and the deductible. As coverage goes up, so do the premiums, but as deductibles go up, premiums go down.
The writer's experience and reputation.
If you are a publisher, the adequacy of the author or other contributor's contractual representations and warranties as to originality of content and factual accuracy of information.  
The use of appropriate disclaimers.
          The revenues you expect to derive from the sale of your work.  

If you are an author, you can ask your publisher to name you as an additional insured under their media perils policy, if they carry one.  However, don't be lulled into a false sense of security, as these policies often have very high deductibles, which are used to lower the publisher's insurance costs. 

If there is already a claim made against a book, an insurance company may refuse to insure you, or exclude the preexisting claim.   For this reason, think twice about publishing all or part of the book online, or in a magazine or newspaper before the official book is published.

INSURANCE CHECKLIST

While not an exhaustive list, here is a checklist of points to raise with the broker when shopping for a media perils policy:

          What types of claims are covered?  
     
          What is the period of coverage? 
What is the deductible and the limits of coverage for each claim? 
Are legal fees and defense costs covered separately or in addition to the maximum policy coverage? 
What are the conditions for coverage, i.e., is prepublication review and an opinion letter by an attorney required? 
Who is covered (publisher, author, or both)? 
Is there an additional charge or fee for naming an author as an "additional insured" party? 
Are lawsuits outside the United States covered? 
Is the policy a "claims made" policy or an "occurrence" policy? 
Does it cover translations or other editions of the work (e.g., mass market paperback, trade paperback,  eBook versions, etc.)? 
Are punitive damages covered? 
Do you have the right to have your own attorney represent you or does the insurance company require their attorney? 
Can the insurance company settle a case without your approval or do you have the right to approve settlements?
Resources

Organizations such as the Authors Guild and National Federation of Press Women, offer its writer members affordable media perils insurance policies. If you are a small independent publisher, contact the Independent Book Publishers Association (IBPA). 

DISCLAIMER: This article discusses general legal issues of interest and is not designed to give any specific legal advice pertaining to any specific circumstances. It is important that professional legal advice be obtained before acting upon any of the information contained in this article.

LLOYD J. JASSIN is a New York-based publishing attorney and entertainment lawyer in private practice. He is co-author of the bestselling Copyright Permission & Libel Handbook (John Wiley & Sons). Contact: Law Offices of Lloyd J. Jassin, The Paramount Bldg, FL 12, 1501 Broadway, New York, NY 10036, Tel: (212) 354-4442, email: jassin@copylaw.com. Follow him on Tweeter:  https://twitter.com/lloydjassin

STEVEN C. SCHECHTER is a media and entertainment law attorney based in Paramus, NJ, and co-author of The Copyright Permission & Libel Handbook (John Wiley & Sons). Contact: Law Offices of Steven C. Schechter, 36 Farview Ter, Paramus, NJ 07652, Tel: (201) 880-9818, email: schechter@medialawyer.tv