CIM 409 Chapter Notes - Chapter 8: Spelling Television, Pregnancy Discrimination, Barry Goldwater

34 views1 pages

For unlimited access to Textbook Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

CIM 409
Chapter 8: Entertainment Contract Obligations
Not whether there is a contract but whether a party has breached the contract
Two types of contracts
o Intellectual Property Rights Contract = securing the rights necessary to produce a
finished product
o Personal Service Contracts = securing talent for a project
Must be both flexible enough to deal with necessary changes, yet precise
enough to be an enforceable instrument in resolving disputes
Performer/Author Obligations
o Hornbook contract law requires that a breach be material before the contract can be
o Goudal v. Cecil B. Demille Pictures Corp. (1931)
Facts- Cop teiated Goudal’s otat, statig she had failed to pefo he
parts as requested (giving a too voiced opinion)
Ruling- found it was NOT true that Goudal had refused or failed to perform her
part of the contract; suggestions and even objections to the scenes were in the
interest of the employer and states within the contract itself
Civil Rights in Entertaining Roles
o Interplay of artistic freedom and equal opportunity
o Tylo v Spelling Entertainment- Pregnancy discrimination Act
Whether an actress becoming pregnant violates her contract commitment, or
instead, whether Spelling was guilty of discrimination against her on account of
Studio-Publisher Obligations
o Absent an enforceable commitment, the publisher is naturally tempted to reduce its
iestet i the pojet aodigl; etetaiet esio of the Pisoe’s Dilea
o Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Inc. v. Barry Goldwater
HBJ breached its contract with Shadegg (hired writer) and Goldwater by willfully
failing to engage in any rudimentary editorial work or effort; no right under its
contract to reject that manuscript
HBJ did NOT act in good faith
Best Promotional Efforts
o Courts have typically read into such contracts an implied obligation of publishers/labels
to at i good faith  epedig easoale effots to poote the podut
o Zilg v. Prentice-Hall, Inc (1983)
The lower court ruled that PH had violated its good faith obligation to extend
est effots to poote the autho’s ook he it edued the ue of opes
and lowered advertising budget w/o valid cause
Cotat epessl leaes to PH’s disetio pitig ad adetisig deisios
Judgmet eesed; PH’s pootioal effots ee adeuate eough i
regards to the contract
find more resources at
find more resources at
Unlock document

This preview shows half of the first page of the document.
Unlock all 1 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in

Get access

$10 USD/m
Billed $120 USD annually
Homework Help
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
40 Verified Answers
Study Guides
1 Booster Class
$8 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Homework Help
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
30 Verified Answers
Study Guides
1 Booster Class