The Los Angeles City Council has proposed a new law concerning celebrity privacy, as it is affected (and for the most part eviscerated) by the paparazzi. This brings up a whole host of questions, such as: "Doesn't the City Council have better things to think about?" and "Why do these rich people need any extra protection?" and "Why deprive them of the press that they so fervently seek when it suits them to do so?" All these are questions that a lot of people, in and out of the entertainment industry, find themselves asking.
The problem with that kind of attitude is the following:
Most of my clients are celebrities, and I will tell you that not all celebrities are wealthy, and can afford their own compound or security.
Continue reading "City Regulation of Paparazzi: Who Needs It?" »
Ed McPherson writes: Of course, in my first post, I feel that I should discuss what I know best—the Talent Agencies Act. Perhaps that is the only thing that I know—but I do know it pretty well, having written 7 1/2 (one pending) articles on the subject, spoken on numerous panels, and served as a consultant/expert witness on many occasions. Basically, the act forbids anyone who is not a licensed talent agent from "procuring" (which has been construed to include any negotiations) employment for "artists." I wrote an article 11 years ago for Hastings COM/ENT titled "The Talent Agencies Act—Time For A Change." I opined that the act is completely out of touch with the reality of the entertainment industry as it exists today, and that it must be amended. Well, until recently, nobody listened.
The California Supreme Court finally listened this year, and decided Marathon v. Blasi (management agreements are "severable," and therefore the old law that one violation of the act loses a lifetime of commissions is no longer the law).
Continue reading "The Talent Agencies Act—Still Time for a Change?" »
