HollyShorts

MindFusion Law Corporation was organized by a group of attorneys with diverse backgrounds whose common denominators are legal expertise and various hands-on experiences in the entertainment business. Partner Paul Batista’s clients include film and television producers, distributors, production companies and individual artists such as writers, directors, actors, musicians and performers. HollyShorts.com had the opportunity to catch up with Paul for this exclusive Q&A. In this insightful feature, Paul discusses with us the digital era, how filmmakers can protect themselves, Mindfusion, the strike and much more. …

Paul Batista

HS: What’s your take on the movie business these days in the “digital era”? Is this a new golden age for cinema and independent filmmakers as some experts are professing?

PB: Well, I guess it depends on the perspective from which it’s viewed, but overall the “digital era” is creating new opportunities that can be capitalized on by industrious individuals. From a business perspective, there are numerous examples of movies that are shot on high definition video and there is no loss of quality in the production value of the movie. Yet by shooting on video, and not film, the budget is decreased by 20 to 25 percent. On the other hand, there are numerous examples of movies where there is an appreciable loss in production value for numerous reasons – maybe it was shot on a digital video medium that is less quality than high definition, or the director of photography didn’t know how to properly light high definition video – whatever the reason, the loss of production value is not worth the budgetary savings. There are also burgeoning distribution channels to digitally distribute movies but by and large the consumers are finding and renting these films through large corporations (CinemaNow, Netflix, WalMart, MovieLink, Google, Amazon, etc.) that have the advertising budget to drive consumers to those sites, which is similar to traditional distribution models. However, the end goal seems to be an “integration” model through which consumers will be able to obtain content across numerous platforms (satellite television, cable television, internet, mobile & PDAs (personal digital assistants) and other similar devices) which still remains a largely unsettled arena.

From a film production perspective, the digital format has allowed movies to be made relatively less expensively than previously which translates into the opportunity to make more films. I believe this is a great thing for filmmakers (and audiences) because filmmaking is not an endeavor that is perfected by reading books on making films – it’s fundamentally a trial and error process in which filmmakers learn how to overcome the obstacles necessary to complete the film and, in particular, they discover how they individually approach the thousands of decisions that are made in the process of making a film. From that process some movies will be great, some OK and some not so good, but perhaps more importantly, the filmmakers have the opportunity to learn from the experience and make a better film the next time out.

HS: What’s the most important thing a short filmmaker can do to protect their property legally once they’ve completed their movie?

PB: In general, whether or not intellectual property (like a short film) is registered with the United States Copyright Office it is automatically protected under copyright law from the moment of its creation (i.e., fixed in a tangible form) and the protection generally lasts for the author’s life plus an additional 70 years after the author’s death. However, registering intellectual property with the United States Copyright Office is an important and relatively inexpensive step to further protect the intellectual property. There are numerous advantages to registering including: the creation of a public record for the work; if registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, the claimant can pursue additional benefits from the infringing party (i.e., statutory damages and attorney’s fees); and in any case, if a filmmaker wants to sue someone for copyright infringement, registration of the work is required before the lawsuit can be filed. The fee for registering is currently $35 if the registration is completed online (online registration is in the test phase and an applicant has to file a request to be allowed to register online) and $45 to file using traditional paper application. So overall it is a relatively inexpensive action that provides increased protection for the filmmaker.

HS: How can MindFusion Law help a filmmaker and what areas does your firm specialize in?

PB: MindFusion Law provides legal services to filmmakers from the beginning of the process through distribution, and into arbitration and litigation as well. It’s a common situation that a filmmaker reaches a point in his or her career where he or she decides to be proactive and produce a feature length screenplay that they have either written or obtained the rights to. The filmmaker then engages our services and we provide: the necessary legal services to help form an entity (most often, a limited liability company); the legal paperwork to raise funds; the production legal work; and guidance in acquiring distribution. Both my law partner, Mychal Wilson, and I have successfully completed this process not only with clients but also with our own projects. Mychal’s project is “The Gristle” which aired on HBO, Starz! and was distributed by Warner Home Video and my project is “Crooks” which is distributed by Warner Home Video. So what we bring to the filmmaker is not just legal know-how (there are many excellent lawyers available who provide this), but we also bring our industry contacts and experience to help a filmmaker get his or her film completed and distributed. It’s a value-added service that differentiates MindFusion from other law firms.

HS: Do you think there will be a quick resolution to the current writers strike?

PB: Wow…I think there are too many unknown variables to accurately forecast the length of the strike. However, both sides seem deeply entrenched in their respective positions which certainly doesn’t indicate a quick resolution. The 1988 WGA (Writer’s Guild of America) strike lasted about five months, which is, I believe, the longest WGA strike to date, and it seemed neither side was particularly thrilled with the deal that was struck in 1988, so hopefully this time a win-win situation can somehow be forged by both sides.

Posted on Friday, December 28th, 2007 at 2:31 am under News.
You can leave a response, subscribe to comments (RSS), or trackback from your own site.