John J. Tormey, Entertainment Lawyer

This Article Is Brought To You By The Letter Blank: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And Trademark Attorney John J. Tormey III, Esq.

This article is not intended to, and does not constitute, legal advice with respect to your particular situation and fact pattern. Do secure counsel promptly, if you see any legal issue looming on the horizon which may affect your career or your rights. What applies in one context, may not apply to the next one. Make sure that you seek individualized legal advice as to any important matter pertaining to your career or your rights generally.

Most of the American public including most all entertainment lawyers, heard about one of Oprah Winfrey’s well-publicized litigations a number of years ago. My understanding was that she was sued in Texas by a commercial cattle-oriented conglomerate. The plaintiffs apparently claimed that Oprah had inaccurately and unfairly maligned the culinary safety of cow meat, during one of her television programs. The Texas case seemed vaguely surreal and comic, even from the perspective of an entertainment lawyer - sort of like an overly-imaginative law school exam question. But next we must go from the sublime to the ridiculous. This next case was an entertainment lawyer and trademark lawyer’s delight. Talk about the eradication of your sacred cows. The local press in New York reported that a German “fetish magazine” named “O” sued one of Oprah’s companies and her publisher, over the sale of Oprah’s magazine bearing the equally-expansive title of “O”. Query if it was really a service mark dispute as opposed to a trademark dispute.

Perhaps even more befuddling, from the entertainment lawyer or publishing lawyer perspective or otherwise, the German “fetish” magazine somehow derived its own title from the erotic novel “Story of O” - serving as even more of a reminder that there is truly nothing new under the sun. And if this were not bizarre enough, the local press reported that Oprah’s company and publisher were prepared to change the name of her magazine to “O, The Oprah Magazine”, in an apparent attempt to assuage the seething service mark or trademark plaintiff and make the distinction between the two magazines more apparent.

Coincidentally, this lawsuit received even more attention from trademark lawyers, entertainment lawyers, and others, than usual, since Lions Gate was slated to release a film called “O” around the same time the suit materialized. I understand the Lions Gate film was somehow loosely based upon Shakespeare’s “Othello”. The Bard himself referred to the Globe Theatre as “this wooden ‘O’“. Maybe if we find Shakespeare’s heirs - perhaps arguably incarnate in the Bacon Brothers - we can thereby locate the real plaintiff who has something to complain about?

But come on. All kidding aside, could this trademark (or service mark) lawsuit really be happening? Yes. Yes it could. But maybe it shouldn’t be allowed to happen. The minds of reasonable trademark lawyers, entertainment lawyers, and others, may differ.

Let’s back up a step. Generally speaking, as entertainment lawyers or trademark lawyers will advise, one acquires trademark rights or service mark rights under U.S. law, by consistently using a trademark or service mark in connection with goods or services, and/or by registering the trademark or service mark with one or more appropriate governmental authorities.

Most people and businesses pick lousy names from a trademark or service mark perspective, and most people pick those names without the assistance of an entertainment lawyer or a trademark lawyer. The majority of marks go unregistered, and the majority of trademarks or service marks are never properly searched and cleared by a trademark lawyer, entertainment lawyer, or anyone else before use. Again, there is very little new under the sun, and as most all trademark and entertainment lawyers will attest, most word-paths have been tread upon by someone else previously. Then again, searching and registering a trademark or service mark, with or even without a trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer, is not without cost. So, many cost-constrained start-up businesses elect to just “wing it” and dispense with the search until they can afford to “get around to it”. And surprisingly, sometimes even major-league companies who can otherwise afford to so it, dispense with the trademark or service mark search, dispense with the services of the trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer, and just go ahead and use the proposed name. Ironically, this type of decision keeps trademark and entertainment lawyer litigators who work the back-end of these fact patterns, in business.

Trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers may sometimes advise their clients to select multiple-word names rather than one-word names - as rock-band-name trademarks or service marks, for example - since the statistical chances of infringing some other band’s name and trademark or service mark are likely thereby somewhat reduced. Most artists, on the other hand, are solely concerned about the aesthetics of the band name, and if a one-word band name sounds right to them, they will use it and darn the torpedoes. This type of decision can also keep trademark and entertainment lawyer litigators who work the back-end of these fact patterns, in business.

I have admittedly not yet trademark-searched any of the following band names. But as a trademark and entertainment lawyer, a proposed one-word band name like “Blur”, at first blush, would trouble me a bit more than the two-word “Def Leppard”, from a trademark or service mark perspective - since, without knowing anything else about the underlying facts, I would assume that the statistical chances were somewhat higher that another band might be named (or might have been recently named) “Blur”. When a trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer performs a search on a trademark or service mark or proposed mark, these kinds of concerns and historical analyses come into play.

Trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers may also sometimes advise their clients to try to use more incongruous word combinations as band-name trademarks or service marks, rather than predictable word combinations. By this rationale, “Squirrel Nut Zippers” (the first time, for the candy, that is!), or “Stone Temple Pilots” start to look pretty good as far as their trademark or service mark prospects, to say nothing I suppose about “Orchestral Manoeuvres In The Dark”. After all, what are the odds, the trademark lawyer queries, that the full name “Orchestral Manoeuvres In The Dark” name was used as a trademark or service mark by any other pop or rock band prior to or contemporaneously with 1986’s “If You Leave”? Then again, apart from entertainment lawyer legal concerns, the band and its handlers may have had trouble fitting the full name onto a record jacket sleeve, and may also have had trouble convincing record label A&R executives that the choice of name should be supported.

One must understand, therefore, that the prospect of trying to protect, let alone enforce and prevent others from using - a one-letter trademark or service mark, is the trademark lawyer’s or entertainment lawyer’s equivalent to fingernails scraping on a chalkboard. If a client walks into the office of a trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer and says “Hi. I’d like to protect, for my own exclusive use, the letter ‘W’“ - well, then absent some extreme fact pattern perhaps relating to a powerful Texas family, that lawyer can expect at least a long and tough road ahead - and perhaps a few broadsides of ridicule from the bench and other trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers at the bar as well. They might think that the so-subscribing lawyer took Sesame Street’s commercial endorsement announcement “This program was brought to you by the letter ‘W’”, a little too seriously when younger.

Most Americans conceive of “monopolies” as something anti-competitive, unfair to the consumer, and ultimately evil - especially given publicity in recent years accorded to the Microsoft case. But what is interesting about copyrights and trademarks and service marks, as a trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer will tell you, is that they are in fact legal monopolies protected by federal statute. A property right is, essentially, the right to exclude others from using that same property. That is conceptually quite similar to a monopoly. If I own my house, I can keep you off my land with a fence, and the law will back me up on that. If a company owns a registered trademark in “Chock Full o’ Nuts”, for example, then, through the efforts of its trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer counsel or otherwise, that company owns the right to exclude others from using the same name in connection with the sale of coffee, and perhaps related goods and services as well.

So here is the trademark lawyer entertainment lawyer philosopher question. Haven’t we as a society gone too far, when we even entertain the prospect of a company, or a celebrity, laying claim to a single LETTER of the ALPHABET as a service mark or trademark? Indeed, should any prior claimant be able to use the services if a trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer to legally monopolize the use of a letter of the alphabet, in connection with ANY kind of goods or services, magazine or otherwise? Should they and their trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers even be allowed into court with that kind of argument?

Are all individual Arabic numerals also now in play for trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers? We might as well allow some corporate behemoth to pull the character of Santa Claus out of the public domain, into the realm of copyright-protection, and charge a royalty whenever the fat man’s name or image is evoked. As for trademark versus service mark, does Mr. Claus provide goods or a service, when you get right down to it? And what about prior sources? Do the publishers of the first edition of Webster’s dictionary, or their successors, now have a valid trademark claim to assert through their trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer litigators, against Oprah and the German magazine, for the use of “their” letter of the alphabet as a service mark or trademark?

Harkening back to the Oprah cattle litigation, some cows are sacred. Some things should simply stay in the public domain. Section 105 of the U.S. Copyright Act, for example, excludes works “of the United States Government” from copyright protection. Shouldn’t letters of the alphabet be treated the same way, as non-service mark non-trademark public commodities exempt from any monopolistic endeavors, upon instruction to all trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers who might try to argue otherwise? There may well already be case law holding unitary alphabet letters to be disqualified from trademark and service mark protection under certain circumstances. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office likely has trademark application and registration procedures, possibly reading to similar effect. If so, why not simply codify that common-sense principle in all applicable trademark statutes and other laws, as a de facto and de jure standing instruction to all trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers and their clients? Among other things, a decisive action like this one could eliminate, or at least mandate a shorter life-span for, court-clogging trademark and service mark lawsuits like the “O” story.

And what’s next? Will the adjudicated winner of the O litigation also be awarded a legally-sanctioned monopoly as trademark or service mark over the corresponding three dashes in “- - -”; that is, in the International Morse Code symbol for the letter “O”? Will that be some other trademark lawyer’s or entertainment lawyer’s next argument? Or should that control instead now be awarded to the heirs of Morse, wherever they may be? And what about our National Anthem? Am I at risk of being enjoined by another trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer from singing “O(h) say can you see...” at the start of baseball games at Shea Stadium – I mean, CitiField? And what about Tic-Tac-Toe? Must there now be a Congressional mandate that “X” must always win, and must always occupy all 9 cells on the grid, so as not to “infringe” the trademark or service mark rights of the clients of any other trademark lawyers or entertainment lawyers? And if so, what about the fate of Whoopi Goldberg and Hollywood Squares in syndication?

A number of entertainers use single-word names, and we as a society tolerate that – as do, apparently, the trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers that represent and enable the talent. We tolerate the Gilbert Gottfried “One-Named Boy” routine moreso if the entertainer has the talent to back it up: “Elvis”. “Sting”. Now, “Prince” is, of course, a variation on the theme, an entertainer who at one point dispensed with his chosen one-word name in favor of an arcane symbol not found in the American alphabet – with or without his trademark lawyer’s or entertainment lawyer’s imprimatur. The general point here is that, Prince aside, the trademark lawyer and entertainment lawyer will advise the entertainer that he or she may be able to build up some trademark or service mark protection in his or her continuous and uninterrupted use of the [a]rtist’s one-word name, particularly if that entertainer is extremely well-known.

But some of us trademark and entertainment lawyers and others may feel that claiming one of the 26 letters of the alphabet as your own, takes its own special brand of... uh... chutzpah. Basketball’s Oscar Robertson was known as “The Big O”, probably because fans and the press tagged him with that moniker – probably not because his trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer told him to use it - and probably not because Oscar adopted it for himself. Oscar Robertson may not have been as well-liked a guy, if instead he himself had arrogated “The Big O” nickname for his own use! And speaking of Oscar, asks the trademark and entertainment lawyer, how ‘come he hasn’t appeared yet in this lawsuit?

In similar vein, some trademark lawyers, entertainment lawyers, and others may feel that Oprah should have been satisfied to call her magazine “Oprah” rather than, simply, “O”. It is unlikely that Oprah’s decision as to how to name the magazine was forced upon her by her colleagues – entertainment lawyers or otherwise. In other words, a different P.R. decision may have had incidental legal benefit, too.

Sure, there is precedent in the entertainment field, as trademark and entertainment lawyers are aware, for trademark or service mark use predicated upon a single letter of the alphabet. The musical group “M” had a number-one hit with “Pop Muzik” in 1979, and that was kind of cute - but the group seemed to disappear from the music scene before anyone even began to consider the trademark or service mark implications of their continued use of their band name. Perhaps the group’s trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer will read this article and write to this website to weigh-in.

The television company “E!” of Chelsea Handler and Talk Soup renown has apparently been successful in establishing a brand name for itself, presumably with trademark lawyer and entertainment lawyer counsel and assistance, accepting the inherent challenge in generating trademark and service mark rights in a one-letter name. But the E! Network’s use of the exclamation point, and their occasional use of the linked phrase “entertainment network”, arguably properly distinguishes them from the alphabet-usurping pack. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), along with the help of its trademark lawyer counsel, lays claim to its single-letter-ratings as trademarks or service marks in some fashion - that is, currently, “G”, and “R”. But then again, I suspect that the MPAA would carefully refrain from threatening another company’s use of the letter “G” or “R”, unless that use was made in the context of ratings or otherwise in connection with motion pictures or filmed entertainment.

The point is, there is something disturbing about this O lawsuit filed in the district court in Manhattan, from the perspective of an entertainment lawyer and trademark lawyer, and perhaps to others as well. What if a schoolteacher reads about this lawsuit, and now tries to find a trademark lawyer lay personal service mark claim to the letter grades “A” through “F” as used on student-graded papers? What if that same teacher starts invoicing all other teachers who grade papers in the U.S., demanding trademark royalty payments? And speaking of damage to the world of education, what will Grover, Elmo, and the gang at Sesame Street do, when they can no longer boast that a particular program is “brought to you by the letter ‘W’”, at least not without their entertainment lawyer or trademark lawyer counsel present on set? Worse yet, will that entertainment lawyer or trademark lawyer be required to wear an over-the-head costume or be a muppeteer to blend-in on the set when doing so? The consternation is enough to press the ghost of O. Henry and his trademark lawyer back into active service - the only question being, if O. Henry rejoins the non-ethereal world and joins the lawsuit, will he join as party-plaintiff or party-defendant on the advice of counsel? And, will O. Henry’s apparently-prescient use of the period after his “O” render him impervious to trademark or service mark liability?

But seriously folks, in defense of Oprah and the trademark and entertainment lawyers that love and enable her, it is apparently not her or her entertainment or trademark counsel or entities that initiated the aggressive attempts to exclude others from use of the letter “O”. Rather, according to the news reports, it was the German “kinky fashion” magazine promoting leather and garters that decided to attack Oprah’s company in the context of the New York court, and the magazine then sought out a trademark lawyer for that purpose. And in response, Oprah and her affiliates, presumably on trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer advice, apparently decided to expand her magazine title, to make the bright-line distinction between the two magazines more apparent to all, including the consumers. Maybe as a matter of reciprocal international courtesy, and in an effort to keep this dispute from wasting further judicial resources or using up more trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer time, the leather and garter crew should agree to change their magazine’s name from “O” to “Ouch!” But query if they thereby would risk receiving an adverse trademark or service mark claim from the ‘E!’ network based upon the use of ‘E!’s exclamation point.

Click the “Articles” button at:

to return to the main Articles page.

My trademark law practice as a publishing and entertainment attorney includes all fields of entertainment and media including music, film, publishing, television, Internet, and all other media and art forms – and trademark, service mark, and copyright work. If you have questions about legal issues which affect your career, and require representation, please contact me:

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq.

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY 10128 USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

http://www.tormey.org/letter.htm

Page:

This Article Is Brought To You By The Letter Blank

Title Metatag:

trademark lawyer, publishing, entertainment lawyer, service marks

Meta Description:

trademark lawyer,publishing,entertainment attorney,service marks,entertainment lawyer,PTO,New York,intellectual property

Keywords:

entertainment attorney,entertainment lawyer,intellectual property,IP law,law firm,litigation,media lawyer,New York lawyer,Oprah,PTO,publishing law,trademark,trademark law,trademark litigation,USPTO

entertainment attorney, entertainment lawyer, article, brought to you by, letter blank, trademark lawyer, publishing, entertainment lawyer, service marks, trademark lawyer, publishing, entertainment attorney, service marks, entertainment lawyer, PTO, New York, intellectual property, intellectual property, IP law, law firm, litigation, media lawyer, New York lawyer, Oprah, PTO, publishing law, trademark, trademark law, trademark litigation, USPTO

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT

Copyright Registration Is Not A Pre-Condition To Protection: Written By New York Entertainment Attorney And Copyright Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq.

http://www.tormey.org/copyright.htm

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq. – Entertainment Lawyer, Entertainment Attorney

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY 10128 USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

Copyright Registration Is Not A Pre-Condition To Protection: Written By New York Entertainment Attorney And Copyright Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq.

Contrary to the near-indefatigable lay assumption that entertainment attorneys like myself hear all the time, one is not required to register a copyright in one’s work with the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. (or elsewhere) as a condition precedent for U.S. copyright protection. In other words, the New York-based author in Chelsea, for example, already has copyright protection in his or her finished original work of authorship, under U.S. federal law, just as soon as the work is reduced to a tangible medium of expression in New York. That copyright protection is automatic, and inheres in the Chelsea-situate New York author immediately, his or her entertainment lawyer will opine.

Therefore, when the New York entertainment attorney hears the Chelsea-based New York writer saying “I ‘copyrighted’ my novel by registering it with the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office in Washington , D.C.”, the writer is usually operating under a mistaken set of geographic and legal assumptions. It is incumbent upon entertainment lawyers to correct those assumptions. This one is a particularly difficult myth to explode - because members of Congress, those that write and edit case law, and a few jurisprudential scholars have been known to use “copyrighted” as a verb form, too. When I hear it, it sounds to me like nails on a chalkboard.

So, “No”, the New York entertainment attorney replies to the New York writer in Chelsea, “you already had automatic copyright protection in your work as soon as you wrote down the text - as soon as you reduced your vision to a ‘tangible medium of expression’. Your act of mailing it from a post office on Manhattan’s West Side in New York City, to Washington D.C., isn’t what engendered the copyright. Rather, your prior act of crystallizing it in a tangible medium here in downtown West Side New York – pen to paper, or keystroke to hard-drive – is what caused the copyright in your work to be born. The New York entertainment attorney then explains that the phrases and verb forms “to copyright” or “I copyrighted” should probably be avoided outright – certainly avoided as synonyms for “registration” or “filing” - specifically to prevent that kind of lay confusion. After all, if the Chelsea screenwriter in New York “copyrighted”[sic] his or her work only by mailing it to Washington D.C. on Friday morning, then that would imply that no copyright yet existed in the work when he or she completed the final draft, hit the “Save” button on his keyboard, and printed it out in hard-copy form in his or her Chelsea home office in Manhattan on the Thursday evening prior – and that conclusion would be legally incorrect. In that fact pattern, the entertainment lawyer opines, the copyright existed and the screenwriter owned it as of Thursday evening based upon the events that happened in downtown West Side New York.

The process of U.S. copyright registration is just an after-occurring formality, though it is one which entertainment attorneys (from New York, and yes, even elsewhere in places like Hollywood) handle for their clients often. In other words, the work is already copyright-protected prior to one’s mailed submission of the work from New York or any other city, to the U.S. Copyright Office and Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. Yes, U.S. copyright registration does thereafter provide certain advantages over unregistered works, as your entertainment lawyer will tell you. But copyright registration is not itself a pre-requisite for copyright protection. The copyright protection exists first. The copyright filing comes second.

After all, the USCO form specifically asks the filer when – in what year - his or her work was completed. You could in theory file in 2011 for a 2006-completed work. In that case, the copyright would have existed as of 2006.

Under the U.S. Copyright Act, (which can be found at various locations on the Internet, at 17 United States Code [U.S.C.] Section 101 and following)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sup_01_17.html

the author of an original and otherwise-protectable work automatically possesses a copyright in that work as soon as the work is reduced to a “tangible medium of expression”. No later.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000102----000-.html

The New York choreographer on Manhattan’s West Side improvises a new set of dance steps for her students - fleeting, in the air - but owns no copyright in these movements or their performance or rendition. However, the moment she writes down the original dance steps using a detailed graphic chart, or videotapes herself performing them in her New York studio – perhaps at her entertainment lawyer’s suggestion - she may then have a chance to claim some copyright-protected work. The key, again, is the work’s reduction to a fixed medium.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000102----000-.html

In fact, she may own the copyright in that material without ever interacting with Washington, D.C. – even though her entertainment attorney will tell her that it sure would be a good idea to thereafter mail a filing to D.C. if the original work of authorship is perceived to have any economic or other long-term value.

And this makes sense. Look at it from the perspective of copyright enforcement – from the perspective of the New York entertainment attorney litigator trying to prove or disprove copyright infringement in a court of law downtown at 500 Pearl Street. How difficult would the job be of a federal judge or jury in a U.S. copyright infringement litigation in the Southern or Eastern Districts of New York, or that of a U.S. Copyright Office Examiner in Washington, D.C., if the U.S. Congress allowed all of us to claim copyright in the inchoate and evanescent? The courts in New York and indeed nationwide would be inundated with strike suits and other spurious copyright claims, perhaps more often brought by pro se litigants rather than their entertainment lawyers if any. Therefore, Congress doesn’t let us get away with it. Congress requires reduction to a “tangible medium of expression” as a pre-condition for copyright protection. But no, Congress does not require copyright registration as a pre-condition to copyright ownership itself - rather, copyright registration at or around the time of creation is discretionary with the copyright owner. Congress only requires copyright registration as a pre-condition to filing a lawsuit for copyright infringement – something that your entertainment lawyer litigator won’t miss when reviewing the statute pre-filing of the federal court lawsuit:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000411----000-.html

Yes, your entertainment attorney will tell you that after-occurring copyright registration of a work does provide certain strategic advantages, relative to unregistered works. Copyright registration notifies those of us in New York, and in California, the U.S., and the rest of the world, at least constructively, that the copyright claimant thinks he or she owns the copyright in that registered work. Practically speaking, copyright registration creates a likelihood that another company including its own entertainment attorney performing a copyright search, will “pick up” (i.e., see, or notice) the previously-registered work, when that company or its entertainment lawyer counsel later conduct a thorough professional (or for that matter even a cursory and informal) ocular copyright search of the public records of the Washington, D.C.-based U.S. Copyright Office.

http://www.copyright.gov/records/

Most film studios and their entertainment attorneys perform thorough copyright searches as a matter of course, for example, before optioning an author’s literary work.

As discussed above, whether you live in New York, Los Angeles, or elsewhere, copyright registration with the U.S. Copyright Office in the Library of Congress in Washington D.C. is also a necessary precursor to your entertainment attorney litigator bringing a copyright infringement litigation in a U.S. federal court. For this reason, in practice, individuals and companies and their entertainment lawyers have been occasionally known to register their copyrights days - or even hours, paying an emergency rush filing fee using a New York-to-D.C. Fed Ex - before they sue for copyright infringement in federal court. Of course, the entertainment lawyer will tell you that it is better to register the work at an earlier stage than that. Filing a copyright infringement litigation predicated upon a USCO copyright registration in turn allows for the entertainment attorney litigator to recover certain types of damages afforded by the U.S. Copyright Act, such as “statutory” damages, and plaintiffs’ attorneys fees. These types of damages would not be availing to the copyright plaintiff if his or her entertainment lawyer sued using a different common law theory. A copyright registration may also work advantages in terms of certain international copyright protections.

Click the “Articles” button at:

to return to the main Articles page.

My practice as a New York entertainment attorney includes copyright registration work in music, film, television, publishing, Internet, media, and all artistic fields. If you have questions about legal issues which affect your career, and require representation, please contact me:

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq.

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY 10128 USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

http://www.tormey.org/copyright.htm

Page:

Title Metatag:

Meta Description:

Keywords:

copyright,copyright registration,demo shopping,entertainment attorney,entertainment lawyer,film lawyer,intellectual property,music lawyer,New York lawyer,screenwriting,

script shopping, U.S. Copyright Office, WGA, entertainment attorney, entertainment lawyer, copyright registration, precondition, protection, copyright, entertainment attorney, New York, entertainment lawyer, copyright, entertainment lawyer, New York, entertainment attorney, US Copyright Office, registration, intellectual property, copyright, copyright registration, demo shopping, film lawyer, intellectual property, music lawyer, New York lawyer, screenwriting, script shopping, US Copyright Office,WGA

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT

Sunday, December 30, 2012

LLC’s, Corporations, And Other Business Structures - Part III: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And LLC Counsel John J. Tormey III, Esq.

http://www.tormey.org/business3.htm

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq. – Entertainment Lawyer, Entertainment Attorney

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY 10128 USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

LLC’s, Corporations, And Other Business Structures - Part III: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And LLC Counsel John J. Tormey III, Esq.

Part II of this article discussed how individuals historically incorporated their businesses in the hopes of avoiding personal liability, but then often became dissatisfied with the so-called “double taxation” thereby resulting. This, among other motivations, brought the S-corporation and then, the limited liability company (LLC), into being. As a New York entertainment lawyer practicing in this day and age, I most often see limited liability companies (LLC’s) as opposed to other forms of entities used in film, music, television, publishing, and Internet businesses. However one cannot understand and appreciate the advantages typically provided by the limited liability company (LLC) unless superimposed as bas-relief upon the entity’s historical context – which gives further meaning to the LLC across all sectors and industries including entertainment and media.

Society clearly benefits from encouraging people to start businesses - and take some commercial risks without an attendant risk of personal ruin. Yet otherwise well-intentioned and well-motivated people were either quitting businesses or exposing themselves to personal liability - in both instances due to their aversion to the so-called “double layer of taxation” engendered by the C-corp. Additionally, the “double” taxation of the C-corp was creating a disincentive for new people to go into business - particularly those who were risk-averse. There had to be a better way.

That better way, at the time, was the S-corp, which came into existence a number of years ago principally for the above types of reasons and rationales. It was named after a “Subchapter-S” in the Internal Revenue Code of the United States, and was regularly recognized by the IRS and state tax authorities alike. One of the familiar tasks for an entertainment lawyer became the act of ensuring that clients timely made their appropriate S-corp elections (see below) with appropriate governmental authorities – hardly the romantic notion one would have of what it is like to interact with talent and go to celebrity premieres..

Akin to the C-corp in most other respects, the S-corp only mandated a single layer of taxation, as opposed to the C-corp’s double layer of taxation. But there were also a few catches.

One had to make a formal written “election” (or in some cases, “elections”) to qualify as an S-corp. If one didn’t do so in time by a strict deadline, one would lose S-corp status and be “doubly” taxed like a C-corp instead. As most entertainment lawyers can attest, this kind of eventuality could actually snuff out a fledgling entertainment or media start-up business in its first years of existence, already engaging in risky and speculative business activity as is often the case in media and entertainment.

There were other restrictions on S-corps, too, such as a limit on the number of shareholders, a limit on foreign ownership, and a limit on corporate parent-subsidiary ownership. Some of these restrictions have been loosened - and in some cases eliminated - in recent years; so one should not rule out the S-corp without first updating its tax code requirements with one’s lawyer – entertainment lawyer or otherwise – as well as one’s tax accountant. The historical restrictions of the S-corp put business owners in a “Catch-22” situation - they clearly wanted a single layer of taxation, but in the context of an entity that wasn’t so restricted. The newer solution: scrap the idea of a corporation at all, and instead form a limited liability company, or LLC.

The limited liability company (LLC) is akin to the S-corp but without most of the attendant historical restrictions. Yes, there were a certain number of restrictions on the LLC, too, when it first appeared on the scene - most of which were subsequently lifted by either the IRS or state legislatures, or both. Again, S-corp restrictions have also been lifted in recent years, making the S-corp and limited liability company (LLC) look more similar to each other as time goes on.

But even as of this writing, the limited liability company (LLC) is usually considered the most advantageous entity from a tax perspective of all 3 most commonly available forms, for the small business owner to create. As a media and entertainment lawyer, the LLC is the entity which I am most often asked to create. The LLC is also considered the most flexible of all 3 entities. What does “flexible” mean? Well, it is considered easier to adapt the LLC to later-occurring additional equity-holders in one’s business, for example, which is another familiar task for an entertainment lawyer in the context of artistic co-ventures - and the word “easier” in this context translates to “less legal fees”. The LLC is in most cases an entity which is easier to manage and administrate.

There are some disadvantages to the limited liability company (LLC), too. The LLC can take more time to finalize, and in some cases can be more expensive to form and/or file with the government - as compared to an S-corp. Some states historically prohibited 1-person LLC’s. Some states still have an underdeveloped body of judicial case law on the LLC, since the entity is still quite new in many states - so the treatment of the LLC under the law may be less certain than the treatment of a corporation. We in New York have an odd restriction, too, as a result of the powerful newspaper and media lobby galvanized during the legislation’s enactment which as a media and entertainment lawyer I suppose that I should not begrudge. This restriction may be present in another state or two as well in analogous form. The restriction is this: if one elects to form a New York LLC, one must publish its existence in periodicals for a number of weeks, before being accorded the legal privilege of initiating a litigation - as a plaintiff - in the LLC’s name in the New York courts. Publication of an LLC’s naissance in Manhattan is expensive - the publication of a limited liability company in periodicals of the creation of a proposed Manhattan LLC can range between $1,000 and $3,000 (the figures can vary and are smaller in other parts of New York State apart from Manhattan).

Even so, the limited liability company (LLC) is considered the trend-setting entity of those “in the know”, across the country. As an entertainment lawyer in New York, I have noticed that hipster Californians gravitate to LLC’s just as much as hipster New Yorkers seem to do. And part from hype, assuming that one can afford to form an LLC, and assuming that one can live with whatever restrictions apply to the LLC in one’s jurisdiction, it may in fact be the entity of choice, and an improvement over the older S-corp and C-corp structures.

A limited liability company (LLC), though frequently mistaken for a corporation, is technically not considered a corporation – rather, it is an unincorporated entity under the tax code, more like a partnership than anything else, but one that (like the S-corp and C-corp), if properly formed and maintained, should provide its members with insulation against personal liability.

If one doesn’t incorporate or form a limited liability company (LLC), the business will likely be what is known as either a sole proprietorship (if a 1-person company), or a general partnership, de facto or otherwise, (if comprised of 2 or more persons). Any entertainment lawyer or other lawyer will opine that this could result in unlimited personal liability for the entity’s owner or owners. Again, that means that an owner’s personal assets can be at risk to satisfy the obligations and debts of the business. Any entertainment lawyer or other lawyer will opine that personal liability is not a risk worth taking. In addition, using a corporate entity or limited liability company (LLC) – particularly an LLC in this day and age - could add a good deal of “cachet” or credibility to one’s business endeavors, in the eyes of other persons and companies with whom the business has contact.

Click the “Articles” button at:

to return to the main Articles page.

My law practice as an entertainment lawyer includes incorporations and the formation of limited liability companies (LLC’s). If you have questions about legal issues which affect your career, and require representation, please contact me:

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq.

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY 10128 USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

http://www.tormey.org/business3.htm

Page:

Business Structures - Part III

Title Metatag:

LLC, entertainment lawyer, corporation, limited liability company

Meta Description:

LLC,entertainment attorney,corporation,limited liability company,New York,entertainment lawyer,record label, start-up

Keywords:

business entities,corporation,entertainment attorney,entertainment lawyer,incorporation,legal services,limited liability company,limited liability companies,LLC,LLC’s,New York lawyer,start-up business

entertainment lawyer, entertainment attorney, business structures, LLC, corporation, limited liability company, LLC, corporation, limited liability company, New York, entertainment lawyer, record label, start up, business entities, corporation, entertainment attorney, entertainment lawyer, incorporation, legal services,

limited liability company, limited liability companies, LLC, LLCs, New York lawyer, start up business

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT

LLC’s, Corporations, And Other Business Structures - Part I: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And LLC Counsel John J. Tormey III, Esq.

http://www.tormey.org/business1.htm

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq. – Entertainment Lawyer, Entertainment Attorney

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY 10128 USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

LLC’s, Corporations, And Other Business Structures - Part I: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And LLC Counsel John J. Tormey III, Esq.

While many artists continue to do business as individuals, there often comes a point in their career when it makes sense to ascend to the next level - to create a business, to create a company, usually in this day and age a limited liability company (LLC) or a corporation, with its own name and identity. In the fields of arts and entertainment, this process is often handled by and through an entertainment lawyer, and is often the first reason for which a new client seeks counsel. If you are an artist who has reached that point in your career, or even if you have already surpassed it and want to revisit your decision, then this article is for you. I am a New York entertainment lawyer who regularly handles corporate and LLC matters and my contact information appears below.

1. Choosing a Name For A New Business

If one is choosing a structure for a small business, there are a number of different types of business entities that can be formed. At minimum, one likely will need to assess the relative merits of the subchapter-”S” corporation (“S-corp”); the subchapter-“C” corporation (“C-corp”); and the limited liability company (“LLC”). This choice will be described in more detail, below, and in Part II and Part II of this Article. But the first issues one should address, also typically addressed with and through one’s entertainment lawyer, are the trademark considerations which may arise as a result of the chosen name for the limited liability company (LLC), corporation, or other form of company.

“Fanciful” (i.e., fictitious) new business names for a limited liability company (LLC), corporation, or other form of entity should be searched as trademarks, especially in fields like entertainment where name recognition can be so important. Entertainment lawyers will routinely search and then issue opinions on proposed trademarks of properties for clients, including trademark-searches on LLC names and corporation names themselves. Why go through this process? Because a new LLC, corporation, or other form of business needs to confirm that no other businesses have prior rights or viable claims to its newly-proposed name (or a name substantially similar to its newly-proposed name). In any event, one may be barred from registering a corporate, LLC, or other business name, if someone else has already registered the same name in the jurisdiction in which the entity-filing is intended. Moreover, if one’s business is intended to ultimately be national or international in scope, as is often the case in entertainment-related and Internet-related LLC’s and corporations, a careful trademark search conducted through one’s entertainment lawyer becomes all the more important. One doesn’t want to invest sweat and equity in a fanciful business name, only to later find out that he or she is legally prevented from using it, or is unable to stop others from infringing on the newly-chosen business name.

Principal owners of a new business do sometimes elect to incorporate or form a limited liability company (LLC) under their own legal and given name (i.e., “John Doe, Inc., or “John Doe LLC”), instead of a fanciful name, in the hopes of saving money that they would otherwise spend on a trademark search through an entertainment lawyer. But there are at least two potential drawbacks to doing so:

Incorporating or forming a limited liability company (LLC) under one’s given name often makes it more difficult to later successfully develop a separate and distinct brand identity for one’s products and services.

Incorporating or forming a limited liability company (LLC) under one’s given name (or even a variant thereof) marginally increases the chances that a court may be inclined to let a plaintiff “pierce” one’s “corporate veil” in a litigation, if the “corporate veil” issue ever arises. “Piercing” means “finding individual economic liability” on the part of the owner/principal. The plaintiff’s argument would be that a self-titled corporation (or LLC) is more likely to be the “alter ego” of its individual principal. Now, although the odds of one’s “veil” being “pierced” may not be that high - assuming that the business owner observes all other corporate or LLC filings and formalities up until that point - the risk of individual liability is still worth mentioning. After all, for many people, the avoidance of “personal liability” and the avoidance of possible “veil piercing” is the whole reason for their incorporating or forming an LLC in the first instance.

What do I mean by “personal liability”? That is probably the most important legal concept that a limited liability company (LLC) owner, corporation owner, or other form of business owner will ever seek to avoid! Please read the next installment of this article.

Click the “Articles” button at:

to return to the main Articles page.

My law practice as an entertainment attorney includes incorporations and the formation of limited liability companies (LLC’s), as well as work relating to trademarks and service marks. If you have questions about legal issues which affect your career, and require representation, please contact me:

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq.

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY 10128 USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)