UNDERSTANDING RECORD PRODUCER RIGHTS & ROYALTY RATE CALCULATION IN THE DIGITAL ERA

     Music producers are authors of a sound recording as a matter of copyright law. Under U.S. Copyright law (17 U.S.C. § 102), when musical sounds are “fixed in a tangible medium of expression” in the recording studio a producer qualifies for such copyright ownership. Copyright ownership can only be transferred by a signed, writing under 17 U.S.C. § 204(a). In other words, unless and until the producer signs an agreement with the artist, the producer and artist are co-owners of the copyright in the sound recording and are entitled to share equally in any and all revenues which arise from the use and exploitation thereof.  Therefore, a producer and artist would share 50/50 in the sound recording copyright. Where the artist has multiple members or is a band, then the multiple authors of the sound recording would share on a pro-rata basis (i.e., 3 authors share 3 ways, 4 authors share 4 ways, etc.).

     That is the main reason why, in most instances, an artist and producer enter into a written producer agreement: to determine and adjust shares of ownership in the master and revenue division from the use and exploitation of the master sound recording. Major record labels under their record contacts with the artist wanted the master assigned to them, so producer agreements often mirrored that copyright transfer model. The producer would agree to transfer rights in the master sound recording copyright in exchange for an advance payment, royalties and producer credit on the records.

      Modern producer royalties are calculated differently than under the old record business model. The producer advance is usually an agreed upon amount, typically a portion of the amount advanced to the artist by the record company or distributor, if any, usually calculated in proportion to the royalty share between the artist and the producer for a master recording. Under the old physical record business model, the royalty was often based on suggested retail list price (SRLP), and a producer would typically agree to receive 3-5% or "points" out of the artist's 12-15% retail royalty paid to the artist by the record company. Since the newer recorded music world is mostly digital and streaming, and is calculated based on a "net receipts" basis, the mathematical translation is as follows: 15% - 25% of net receipts as the basic rate for many producers; 25% - 50%+ for established producers or producers who discover and/or develop an artist from an earlier stage.  Net receipts is the amount the artist actually receives from use and exploitation of the master recording (after distributor/retailer share). For example, if the digital streaming service pays the artist (or pays the label or distributor who then pays the artist) the amount of $100, and the producer royalty is 25% of net receipts, then the producer’s royalty should be approximately $25 out of the artist’s share. In addition, the producer also earns a pro rata share of royalty income from any use and exploitation of the sound recording just as the artist does, whether from synchronization licenses for film and TV use, from social media, and from streaming digital streaming services like YouTube, or otherwise. A producer is also entitled to a pro rata share of the amounts payable to the artist from SoundExchange for the performance rights in the sound recordings.

       As easy as this math may appear to be (or not), if you believe in yourself and your talents as a producer, give yourself the benefit of the doubt and invest in good legal representation - all the successful producers do. Your lawyer can "translate" the deal and explain its terms to you, and then help negotiate more favorable terms for you as appropriate. My advice: never sign anything - other than an autograph - without having your entertainment lawyer review it first.

Wallace Collins is an entertainment lawyer and intellectual property attorney based in New York with over 35 years’ experience in music, film, television and emerging technology, and he handles many current digital media matters including issues that arise with AI. He was a songwriter and recording artist for Epic Records before receiving his law degree from Fordham Law School. Tel: (212) 661-3656 Website: http://www.wallacecollins.com

 

BEWARE: OpenAI's "Sora" Text-To-Video AI Model May Be The Most Dangerous Threat Yet!

Sora is an AI model from OpenAI that can create realistic video scenes from simple text instructions. As such, Sora is bound to raise a myriad of potential intellectual property issues as well as name and likeness and invasion of privacy issues depending on the extent to which it is exploited by the user.

OpenAI states that Sora can generate videos up to a minute long while maintaining visual quality and adherence to the user’s prompts. Sora is able to generate complex scenes with multiple characters, specific types of motion, and accurate details of the subject and background. The AI model can understand not only what the user has asked for in the prompt but also how those things exist in the physical world, and it has an understanding of language enabling it to accurately interpret prompts and generate compelling characters that express human emotions. Sora can also create multiple shots within a single generated video that accurately demonstrate and enhance characters and visual style. With all of the photos and information available on social media and the internet at Sora's disposal, the possibilities are endless. 

Most concerning is that, like ChatGPT and other AI applications, the more Sora is used to more it will learn, grow and advance to become better and smarter at production - so it seems inevitable that Sora will eventually have the ability to produce HD-quality and feature-length film productions.

For example, the user can write a sentence stating details such as "it was a dark and stormy night when through the foggy window of a castle we see a maniacal scientist flipping a switch to bring a robot to life" - and the more detailed the description the more detailed the video Sora can provide with photo-quality production. Initially this may appear innocuous enough enabling a parent to easily turn their child's playtime story into a video or allow a struggling screenwriter who might never otherwise get a film produced to use Sora to create a feature length film. However, as some commentators have pointed out, taking it a step further, a corporation might try to take an image of someone famous (or just anyone attractive they think might help sell their product), and then have Sora create a video commercial showing that person endorsing the product and promoting it. On the darker end, a co-worker could create a video of a fellow employee appearing to do all sorts of illicit activities and then anonymously bring it to the attention of the employer. Imagine the chaos that could be created in the political arena (as if there is not already enough confusion and misinformation in circulation). Or worse, imagine all of the carnal, erotic activities that could be generated by a user (or even a stalker) to make any person in their sights appear to be doing anything the user's imagination can conjure. 

AI has already disrupted copyright law norms for creators particularly in the music space, and has challenged established intellectual property concepts in the entertainment world and beyond. Sora would seem to be poised to expand those problems exponentially. Without some type of common sense regulations in place, whether from the government or the industry (or a combination thereof), Sora could be used by the most vile of individuals to create videos that could defile, mislead and scare people, or even instigate riots based on the appearance of something that is completely fabricated but entirely realistic in appearance. 

It might not be long before there is more clarity on the matter since lawsuits will inevitably make their way through the courts, and these cases may establish some parameters for the use of Sora. Like other current AI platforms, Sora is somewhat crude and imperfect, but by design AI improves and gets “smarter” the more it is used. Sora may still be in the early horse & buggy stage now, but it is quickly advancing to the Tesla level - at which point chaos is very likely to ensue. 

Wallace Collins is an entertainment lawyer and intellectual property attorney based in New York. He was a songwriter and recording artist for Epic Records before receiving his law degree from Fordham Law School. www.wallacecollins.com 

UNDERSTANDING TERMINATION RIGHTS UNDER U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW

The 1976 Copyright Act provides for the termination of copyright transfers. It entitles content creators to reclaim their copyrights - regardless of any contract stating otherwise –after certain time periods. So, even if an author, artist, musician, photographer or songwriter signed a contract which purports to transfer all rights in a work for perpetuity, the Copyright Act provides that the author of the work (or the author's heirs) can terminate that grant and demand that the rights revert in a shorter period of time. Authors and creators are now entitled to terminate their contractual transfers and demand back control of their copyrights: authors can terminate their book publishing contracts, songwriters can demand return of their musical compositions from music publishers and recording artists and record producers can demand return of their sound recordings from the record companies.

Generally speaking, for copyright grants made on or after January 1, 1978 (the effective date of the 1976 Copyright Act) the termination period is 35 years under Section 203 of the Copyright Act. For pre-1978 works Section 304(c) of the Copyright Act, says that a copyright owner (or his or her heirs) can terminate all grants, licenses or transfers of beginning on the 56th year after that assignment was made. Termination may be exercised anytime during a 5 year period beginning at the end of either the 35 year or 56 year period from the execution of the grant (as applicable) or, if the pre-1978 grant concerns the right of publication of the work, then the period begins on the sooner of 35 years after publication or 40 years after execution of the grant. Although there are certain formalities which must be complied with to effectuate transfer, this essentially means that recording artists and songwriters were entitled to start exercising their right of termination on post-1978 works as of the start of 2013. 

The big exception to the termination right is if a work was done as a "work-for-hire.” Section 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976 delineates what types of works by their nature are incontestably works for hire. It is essentially a two part test: (1) was the work created by an employee within the scope of his or her employment, and; (2) if not, is it (a) one of the nine enumerated work-for-hire classes of works and (b) is there a written agreement signed by the author acknowledging the work for hire relationship. Included on the list of nine enumerated categories of works that are works for hire are collective works, compilations and motion pictures. Not included on this list are books, photographs, songs and sound recordings.

There are ongoing legal battles over how termination rights affect the book, comic book and motion picture fields. Not unexpectedly, the entertainment business companies are not pleased with the copyright termination provision and the inevitable ramifications thereof.

With respect to songs and music publishers, some litigation has already been decided. In Scorpio Music S.A. v. Willis (Case No. 11 CV 1557 (C.D. CA 2012), California Federal District Judge Moskowitz determined that original Village People member, Victor Willis, could terminate his transfers and recapture a direct copyright interest in many of his group's songs, including "YMCA." In this case, after Willis notified Scorpio that he was terminating the prior transfers, Scorpio sued arguing that Willis could not terminate because a majority of each song's authors had not also agreed to terminate their transfers. The court sided with Willis, ruling that an author can unilaterally terminate the transfer of his share in a copyrighted work without his co-writers.  Although the Scorpio decision addressed a fairly narrow point concerning multi-author transfers, the decision opens the way for most songwriters to get their composition copyrights returned and sets the stage for the bigger battles looming on the recorded music side of the business. The copyright termination procedures apply to the separate and equally lucrative sound recording copyrights transferred to record labels as part of typical recording artist contracts over the years. Since the term “sound recordings” is not explicitly contained in the enumerated work for hire category list, practitioners representing record companies will need to try to find other ways to justify any claim that sound recordings are indeed works for hire in order to preclude termination by artists.

The termination rights of the author or creator of a copyrighted work are generally subject to a 5 year window. Termination must be made effective within the termination window or the right to terminate the grant is forfeited. To be effective, the author must serve a written notice of termination on the original record company or publisher (and/or any successors) no more than 10 and no less than 2 years prior to the effective date stated in the notice. The notice of termination must state the effective date of termination. Perfection of the termination requires that a copy of the written notice also be filed with the U.S. Copyright Office prior to the effective date of termination.

Although the termination rights of an artist under the 1976 Copyright Act would only be effective for the U.S. territory, the size of the U.S. consumer market still makes this a valuable right to reclaim.            

Wallace Collins is an entertainment and intellectual property lawyer based in New York. He was a songwriter and teenage recording artist for Epic Records before receiving his law degree from Fordham Law School. 

Tel: (212) 661-3656;  www.wallacecollins.com 

Thinking Out Loud about the Blurred Lines in Current Copyright Law

As a copyright lawyer, my opinion is that the "Blurred Lines" decision should have been overturned on appeal. However, the more recent victory for Ed Sheeran in the "Thinking Out Loud" copyright case probably has the same net effect, and will mute the prospective ramifications of the "Blurred Lines" decision.

The genre or musical style of a song is not specifically protectable under the language of the copyright statute nor the relevant case law. In most cases, the lyrics and the melody are what is at issue, and whether there was copying or substantial similarity between the lyrics or melody of one song and the other. However, that was not the allegation in the "Blurred Lines" case. The essence of the claim was that defendants copied the groove and style of the Marvin Gaye song "Got To Give It Up" when they created "Blurred Lines", and I did not believe that the jury's decision should be upheld on appeal as a matter of copyright law.

In modern popular music it is understandable that current artists are effectively midgets standing on the shoulders of giants in order to reach new heights... and some similarities are bound to appear in the new works so created. However, when it comes to the particulars and technicalities of copyright law, emotions (particularly envy and jealousy) are usually not well-suited to reaching a correct resolution (and that applies to the jury as well as to the many pundit opinions that proliferated after the Blurred Lines decision).

Prior to the Ed Sheeran "Thinking Out Loud" decision, my research indicated that the "Blurred Lines" case was the only copyright infringement lawsuit in which no specific melody or lyrics were alleged to have been copied. The apparent 'that songs reminds me of another song' threshold suggested by the "Blurred Lines" jury decision could potentially have established a new legal standard. If that was the new threshold for copyright infringement, a lot of modern artists as well as 60's British artists (from the Beatles on across the spectrum) could have been in legal trouble. The floodgates for such litigation could have been flung open.

For now, however, it appears Ed Sheeran's "Thinking Out Loud" case will mute the effect of the "Blurred Lines" decision and hold back what could have been a flood of potential lawsuits - at least for now.

Wallace Collins is an entertainment lawyer handling contract negotiation and general copyright and trademark law matters in the music, film, television, book, fine arts and technology areas. He was a songwriter and recording artist for Epic Records before graduating from Fordham Law School. T: (212) 661-3656; wallacecollins@gmail.com; www.wallacecollins.com 

WHAT’S THE SCORE WITH SYNCHRONIZATION RIGHTS

As the composer of a film or TV score or as a songwriter, artist or producer whose song is used in a movie, TV show, advertisement or video game, under U.S. copyright law you own 100% of the copyright in your work from the moment you create the work and "fix it in a tangible medium." However, you must be careful what you sign so that you do not assign away those rights without fair compensation for your work. 

When it comes to the use of music there are two copyrights: one in the musical composition or song and one in the sound recording which is the fixation of the sounds that make up the music. When music is used in synchronization with visual images, whether it is created especially for the particular score or whether it is a pre-existing song that the director wants to use in a scene in a TV show or a theatrical motion picture, this is referred to as the "synchronization" of music with visual images. Permission in the form of a synchronization license (sometimes referred to as a “synch license”) must be procured by the makers of the audio/visual production from both the owner of the sound recording (the artist or record company) and from the owner of the song copyright (the songwriter or publishing company) Sometimes these are one and the same person or entity, sometimes they are not.

A synchronization license may take various forms. If a show's producer, director or music supervisor decides that a certain pre-existing song is right for a particular scene in a film or TV show or commercial or video game, then a synch license covering the master and the composition would be requested. Depending on the length and prominence of the use, if limited solely to use in the show the amount paid can range from a few hundred dollars to tens of thousand of dollars, or more. If the company also wants the right to include the music on a soundtrack album, then additional provisions would be required for that use which would pay royalties for each record sold. Also, the song should be registered by the author with the performing rights society (e.g., ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, etc.) so that revenues from performances in foreign movie theaters (U.S. movie theaters do not pay performance royalties) and from television broadcast can be collected and paid to the author.

On the other hand, a songwriter may be specifically employed to write incidental music or underscore cues for a film or for a TV commercial or other audio/visual work. Such an arrangement may be structured as a "work made for hire" whereby the songwriter is employed to write specific music which may ultimately be owned by the producer of the film. There is no set fee for such an arrangement - it can range from a few hundred dollars for a small budget project to hundreds of thousands of dollars for a blockbuster film score. However, in such circumstances, since the production company would usually claim ownership of the copyright, the author needs to be sure to try to negotiate to receive the 50% "writer share" of performance monies and have producer only get the 50% "publisher" share - otherwise the author may not be entitled to performance royalties from his or her performing rights society and it would all go to the producer. Issues like this would depend on the careful negotiation of the contract between the parties and their legal counsel.

Since this is a complicated area the details of which are beyond the scope of this article, I would suggest that if such an offer is made to you, an experienced entertainment lawyer would be a good investment on your part.  My advice on such matters is always “don’t sign anything – other than an autograph – unless you have a lawyer review it first!”

Wallace Collins is an entertainment and intellectual property lawyer based in New York. He was a songwriter and recording artist for Epic Records before receiving his law degree from Fordham Law School. Tel: (212) 661-3656;  www.wallacecollins.com 

Judicial Approval of Contracts With Minors

As a recent Wall Street Journal cover story pointed out, technology start-ups and other computer software companies like Apple and Google often compete to employ young teenage whiz kids to write code or create new apps. With media giants like Disney and Viacom creating shows featuring younger and younger performers, and YouTube, Spotify and other online companies hosting content by eager young creators, content from minors is in ever-increasing demand by corporations. All of this raises the predicament of employing or dealing with contracts with minors (or contracts which involve a contracting party under the age of 18). I have handled many court proceedings concerning contracts with minors so the following might be of interest to my colleagues in legal departments of tech firms.

A minor may disaffirm a contract at any time during minority or upon reaching majority. Without a valid written agreement the employment is "at will" under the law of most states which means the minor can depart at any time. Copyright law, which is applicable to computer code, requires a signed writing to transfer copyrights and applies to authors of all ages, so without a valid written agreement the content created by the minor may not be validly transferred from its author to the employer. The dilemma created by a minor's ability to disaffirm a contract is that it may seriously jeopardize the employer's financial investment in the services of the minor.

The mere exercise of having the parent or guardian of the minor co-sign, approve or "guarantee" the contract does not resolve the problem. The minor may still repudiate the contract on the ground of infancy, asserting that the parent or guardian lacked authority to make the contract. In some jurisdictions, courts deem it against public policy to even enforce such guarantee language against the parent or guardian since it would subvert the purpose of the laws concerning the judicial approval of contracts with minors. So-called "working papers" under state law might work for purposes of a fast food chain or similar hourly wage employment but probably are insufficient for a tech company's purposes.

Although many tech companies may rely on the fact that they believe the minor is an employee creating intellectual property for the company, this may not be sufficient to transfer rights to the company in the computer code written by the teenage whiz kid as, for example, "work made for hire" under U.S. copyright law. It is beyond the scope of this article to address all of the factors courts consider when determining the issue of work for hire and the ramifications of the various outcomes of the cases concerning employers and computer programmers. Suffice to say that relying on the work for hire doctrine is an uncertain path for a tech company (all the more so when dealing with a minor).

State Laws

Several states, including New York and California, have laws specifically concerning judicial approval of contracts with minors. New York's Arts and Cultural Affairs Law §35.03 provides for judicial approval of certain contracts for services of "minors" under the age of 18. The procedure involved can be somewhat arduous to navigate, and may prove to be a difficult gauntlet to run for a lawyer inexperienced in this area. However, tech and media companies employing minors or contracting with minors should investigate the efficacy of pursuing court approval to protect their investment.

Once the court judicially approves the contract, the minor is held to a standard of adult responsibility for its contractual obligations assuring the employer company that it will get what it bargained for and that the contract is legally valid.

As a practical matter, a proceeding for judicial approval of a minor's contract in New York is commenced by the filing of a verified petition. It can be filed by a parent, the guardian, a relative of the minor or any interested person or entity such as the employer. The petition must contain a statement of the length of the employment term, compensation, and all other relevant, material terms of the agreement. A complete copy of the proposed contract must be annexed to the petition together with affidavits from the parents and/or guardians which consent to the petition and support the facts.

In addition to identifying the details of the nature of the minor's employment and the compensation to be paid, the petition must also contain a statement of who, other than the minor, is entitled to the minor's earnings and facts regarding the property and financial circumstances of the parent or parents so entitled. The petition may nominate a person to be appointed as limited guardian solely for purposes of establishing a trust account for the proceeding and should set forth the reasons why the person nominated would be proper and suitable.

Although a lawyer is usually appointed, a parent or other petitioner is not precluded from being appointed as limited guardian by reason of his or her interest in any part of the minor's earnings or in the contract provided such interest is disclosed. The court will designate how much is to be set aside and saved for the minor under guardianship until the minor becomes 18 years old. The court also has the option to appoint a special guardian to represent the interests of the minor at any time after the petition is filed.

As directed by the court, before the time at which the petition is noticed to be heard certain persons (other than the petitioner and anyone who has joined in the petition) must be served with an order to show cause why the petition should not be granted: (1) the minor; (2) the parents of the minor; (3) the minor's guardian(s); (4) each party to the contract; (5) any person having the care and custody of the minor; (6) the person with whom the minor resides; and, (7) the minor's spouse.

An order granting judicial approval of a contract for the services of a minor will rarely be granted on the papers alone. Usually a brief hearing is held at which the minor, the parent(s) and the various other interested parties may be questioned by the judge regarding the contract. Courts may require provisions in the court's order concerning how many hours the minor can work and may require that the employer provide tutors if regular schooling will be disrupted by the employment. Most terms and conditions of each arrangement will be affirmed as long as they are found by the court to be reasonable and not contrary to the best interests of the minor. Once the court does grant approval, an order will be issued which will, in effect, declare the minor an adult for purposes of fulfilling his or her contractual obligations.

California law concerning the judicial approval of minors' contract for artistic or creative services (Ca. Family Code §6750, et seq.), although similar, differs in certain respects. For instance, under California law there is no limitation on the length of the term of a minor's contract whereas in New York the limit is seven years. A hearing is usually required in California as in New York but under California law a maximum of only 50 percent of net earnings will be set aside until the minor becomes 18 years old whereas New York has no limit on what portion the court can direct to be set aside.

Once the court does grant approval, an order will be issued which will, in effect, declare the minor an adult for purposes of fulfilling his or her contractual obligations. Then all the results of the minor's services, including any copyrights in code or apps created by a minor during employment by the start-up or tech company, will be properly transferred as bargained for by the employer.

  

Wallace E.J. Collins III is an entertainment and intellectual property lawyer based in New York. He was a recording artist for Epic Records before receiving his law degree from Fordham Law School. Tel: (212) 661-3656; www.wallacecollins.com 

*reprinted with permission of The New York Law Journal 2014

http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/expert-analysis/id=1202667640206/Judicial-Approval-of-Contracts-With-Minors%3Fmcode=1380566174563&curindex=0

Contracts With Minors: Protecting Your Child's Talent Assets

If your son or daughter is an aspiring entertainer, computer code writer, app designer or video game whiz kid, this article might be of interest. With media giants like Disney and Viacom/Nickelodeon creating shows featuring younger and younger performers for the adolescent and ‘tween demographic, and YouTube, Spotify and other online companies hosting content by eager young creators, child stars and teenage creators are in ever-increasing demand. Moreover, technology companies often employ young teenage whiz kids to write code and develop video games and mobile apps. All of this raises the predicament of dealing with a contract which involves a contracting party under the age of eighteen.

The dilemma for these companies is that a minor may disaffirm a contract at any time during minority or upon reaching contractual majority (at the age of 18). The mere exercise of having the parent of the minor co-sign, approve or “guarantee” the contract does not resolve the problem. The minor may still repudiate the contract on the ground of infancy, asserting that the parent or guardian lacked authority to make the contract. Although many tech companies may rely on the fact that they believe the minor is an employee creating intellectual property for the company, this may not be sufficient to transfer rights to the company as a “work made for hire” under U.S. Copyright law, or otherwise.

For this reason, the people and companies that your children deal with may seek court approval of the employment arrangement. States such as California, New York and Tennessee have laws which establish procedures regarding the judicial approval of contracts with minors. Companies working with minors will probably seek to employ this process at some point because once the Court judicially approves the contract the minor will be held to a standard of adult responsibility for its contractual obligations – and this procedure assures the company that it will get what it bargained for.

The legal procedure is nothing to be afraid of for parents although in most cases you will want to retain a lawyer to guide you through the process – probably the same lawyer that you use to negotiate the contract itself. A proceeding for judicial approval of a minor's contract is usually commenced by the company or employer filing a petition with the Court. Along with the petition there will be affidavits or statements from the parents of the minor consenting to the arrangement.

An order granting judicial approval of a contract for the services of a minor will not usually be granted on the papers alone. A hearing will be commenced in which the minor, the parents and the various other interested parties may appear before the assigned Judge. In the course of the proceeding, the court will decide what portion of the net earnings of the minor, if any, are to be set aside in a trust. In fixing the amount to be set aside, the court will take into consideration the financial circumstances of the parents entitled to the minor's earnings, the needs of the parents' other children and the needs of the minor's spouse, if married. Such amounts as are set aside are to be saved for the minor under guardianship until the minor becomes 18 years old.

Once the court does grant approval, an order will be issued which will, in effect, declare the minor an adult for purposes of fulfilling his or her contractual obligations. This will assure that the company gets what it bargained for and that your child is adequately and fairly compensated for his work.

One final warning: some companies try to avoid the cost of the court proceeding and, instead, seek to have the parent or guardian of the child sign a guarantee. Parents are well-advised to be very careful about what they sign. As mentioned earlier, the parent cannot bind the child to the contract no matter what is signed. The child, as a minor, can legally walk away from the contractual arrangement. However, if the parent has signed some document or guarantee provision in an agreement that states that the parent is liable for costs, expenses and damages if the minor disavows the contract, that may give rise to a prospective cause of action enforceable against the parent, and the parent could possibly be on the hook for much more than originally anticipated. A Court may refuse to enforce such a parental guarantee arrangement as a matter of public policy since there is an applicable procedure in place for the company to have protected itself under the law but the company elected to circumvent it. However, it might be best not to test such a scenario. A parent can sign something that consents to the child working with the company but should be wary of signing any document that goes any further.

    

         

WALLACE E.J. COLLINS III, ESQ. is a leading industry authority on contracts with minors practicing primarily in the areas of entertainment, technology and intellectual property law. www.wallacecollins.com; Direct Tel: 212-661-3656