Re: Underdown and Release Form (name changed at request of thread starter)
- Thread starter Clancie
- Start date
-
- Tags
- john edward mediums psychics
Claus,
Think of the title as an honorific. One can be labeled "producer" and not have any legal standing. The owners of the property (CO) is 6th Avenue Productions, JE as "Producer" is seperate and distinct from that. Now, he might own a piece of ^th Avenue, in fact he might be a sole propriator BUT that is distinct from JE, the person, with the title of "producer".
Think of the title as an honorific. One can be labeled "producer" and not have any legal standing. The owners of the property (CO) is 6th Avenue Productions, JE as "Producer" is seperate and distinct from that. Now, he might own a piece of ^th Avenue, in fact he might be a sole propriator BUT that is distinct from JE, the person, with the title of "producer".
NoZed- Same question to you as Thanz:
Is it possible for John Edward to be a part of "Sixth Avenue Productions" in the first place in his capacity as executive producer? I think that is what Claus is trying to get at.
I know it has no relevance to the contract as is, because it is a different issue, because the contract separates the entities. But it appears to me we are getting entangles in several separate definitions of Producer here, and how they are used in this contract, and in the show.
Read the first paragraph of the contract. That is how "Producer" is defined within the contract. You are confusing the definition within the contract with the more conventional usage of the word "Producer" in the show. It could have been called "Purple Monkey Alligator" and meant the same thing in the contract. Get off the fact that they refer to themselves as such.
But it is possible John Edward is part of Sixth Avenue Productions, so I am awaiting comment from NoZed and Thanz
Is it possible for John Edward to be a part of "Sixth Avenue Productions" in the first place in his capacity as executive producer? I think that is what Claus is trying to get at.
I know it has no relevance to the contract as is, because it is a different issue, because the contract separates the entities. But it appears to me we are getting entangles in several separate definitions of Producer here, and how they are used in this contract, and in the show.
CFLarsen said:
Read the first paragraph of the contract. That is how "Producer" is defined within the contract. You are confusing the definition within the contract with the more conventional usage of the word "Producer" in the show. It could have been called "Purple Monkey Alligator" and meant the same thing in the contract. Get off the fact that they refer to themselves as such.
But it is possible John Edward is part of Sixth Avenue Productions, so I am awaiting comment from NoZed and Thanz 
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Messages
- 11,286
The language in the document has no effect on his position with the show. The document has no effect on his job or actual title with the show or the company.
The word "Producer" was simply picked as a word to be used in place of the company name within this document. Any time you see "Producer" in that document (and no where else), simply read it as saying "Sixth Avenue Production, Inc." That's it. It really is just a common method to avoid repeating the same, long name of some business in drafting these documents.
For example, "NoZed Avenger Prime Bottling Co." may be one party in a contract. Under the law, you would want to use the full name of the company to make sure that the rights and duties in the contract all apply to the right company. But writing "NoZed Avenger Prime Bottling Co." every time that you want to say "NoZed Avenger Prime Bottling Co." or refer to "NoZed Avenger Prime Bottling Co." is unwieldy -- see how hard it gets to actually read the terms?
So, at the first of the document, I would state that "NoZed Avenger Prime Bottling Co. is hereafter referred to as "Distributor" within the agreement. Now, all I have to do is type that Distributor agrees to provide x and Distributor promises delivery on y date. Much easier to read.
I, NoZed Avenger (personally), may have the title of distributor with the company -- but it is clear that "Distributor" in the agreement refers only to the company with regard to the rights and duties set out in the document itself. If "Distributor" in the document promises to deliver product by the first of the month, it is the company that can be sued for that failure -- not me personally. And, though I may have ten "distributors" working for me, none of them is personally resonsible for the delivery -- it is only the company as a whole ("Distributor" as defined by the contract) that can be sued directly.
In the same way, the person in the JE document agrees that "Producer" (read as: Sixth Avenue Productions, Inc.) is not responsible for the statements from JE, but JE will be. He is still a producer of the show.
The choice of the word "Producer" does not affect the "real world" definitions of what JE does for the show. It is perhaps unfortunate that they chose the word "Producer" to refer to the company, instead of "Company" or something similar.
NA
The word "Producer" was simply picked as a word to be used in place of the company name within this document. Any time you see "Producer" in that document (and no where else), simply read it as saying "Sixth Avenue Production, Inc." That's it. It really is just a common method to avoid repeating the same, long name of some business in drafting these documents.
For example, "NoZed Avenger Prime Bottling Co." may be one party in a contract. Under the law, you would want to use the full name of the company to make sure that the rights and duties in the contract all apply to the right company. But writing "NoZed Avenger Prime Bottling Co." every time that you want to say "NoZed Avenger Prime Bottling Co." or refer to "NoZed Avenger Prime Bottling Co." is unwieldy -- see how hard it gets to actually read the terms?
So, at the first of the document, I would state that "NoZed Avenger Prime Bottling Co. is hereafter referred to as "Distributor" within the agreement. Now, all I have to do is type that Distributor agrees to provide x and Distributor promises delivery on y date. Much easier to read.
I, NoZed Avenger (personally), may have the title of distributor with the company -- but it is clear that "Distributor" in the agreement refers only to the company with regard to the rights and duties set out in the document itself. If "Distributor" in the document promises to deliver product by the first of the month, it is the company that can be sued for that failure -- not me personally. And, though I may have ten "distributors" working for me, none of them is personally resonsible for the delivery -- it is only the company as a whole ("Distributor" as defined by the contract) that can be sued directly.
In the same way, the person in the JE document agrees that "Producer" (read as: Sixth Avenue Productions, Inc.) is not responsible for the statements from JE, but JE will be. He is still a producer of the show.
The choice of the word "Producer" does not affect the "real world" definitions of what JE does for the show. It is perhaps unfortunate that they chose the word "Producer" to refer to the company, instead of "Company" or something similar.
NA
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Messages
- 11,286
CFLarsen said:
The legal separation between JE and the company comes from incorporation -- not from the choice of words in this disclaimer document.
When incorporated, a business is considered a completely separate legal entity for purposes of owning property, paying taxes, suing, and being sued.
JE can be an owner of the business -- he may in fact be the sole shareholder -- but his personal assets and the assets of the company are separate and they are two separate legal entities in the eyes of the law.
This can sometimes be set aside if the corproation is a "sham" set up to shield someone from liability, as well as under as few other situations - but I really cannot get into a discussion on all of that.
NA
NoZed Avenger,
I cannot for the life of me imagine that each and every word has not been twisted and turned to make the contract as safe as possible. JE a control freak? The show is claiming JE has paranormal abilities, yet describes it as entertainment?
It's possible that "producer" is poorly chosen, but very unlikely, IMNSHO.
I also have problems with JE being described as a producer, without him having producer-rights over the show - which is produced by SAP. The title has to have some legal "weight" (I don't know the English term here).
NZA, I understand your last point - JE being an owner, but is separate etc. But do we know this? From SAP being INC? Is that default under US Law?
JE is an executive producer. So, he must be in SAP INC. Right? Can an executive producer not be working for SAP INC?
Man, not only do I put woowoos on the line, I create a lot of work for lawyers, too!
I cannot for the life of me imagine that each and every word has not been twisted and turned to make the contract as safe as possible. JE a control freak? The show is claiming JE has paranormal abilities, yet describes it as entertainment?
It's possible that "producer" is poorly chosen, but very unlikely, IMNSHO.
I also have problems with JE being described as a producer, without him having producer-rights over the show - which is produced by SAP. The title has to have some legal "weight" (I don't know the English term here).
NZA, I understand your last point - JE being an owner, but is separate etc. But do we know this? From SAP being INC? Is that default under US Law?
JE is an executive producer. So, he must be in SAP INC. Right? Can an executive producer not be working for SAP INC?
Man, not only do I put woowoos on the line, I create a lot of work for lawyers, too!
CFLarsen said:Ed,
Sure, it can be honorific. I want to know if it is.
Think of JE. Think about how he describes himself as a control freak. Think about the stakes here.
Nope, I am not convinced. Yet.
Convinced of what? JE has no legal standing with respect to the property "CO". Does he exercise control? You betcha, and he would regardless of any title. I don't see the problem that you are having.
SteveGrenard said:
That would be me, Steve. My bad! My memory was not clear on this point, and I'm glad that you were here to set the record straight.
What about the people who end up getting read? Are they required to sign a second release form when they go back and do the post analysis taping? Or is this the only one? ......neo
CFLarsen said:
So, why is Martha facing jailtime?
D'OH!! Bad example....
She is not facing jail time for stuff with her company, but for insider trading of stock she personally owned. But I bet the company and her are separate even though she was CEO (I think she stepped down since). So even though she may be in jail, the brand may go on, and the company, the magazine, etc are not liable for her own misdeeds.
CFLarsen said:
"Executive Producer" is a very loosely defined term in the world of media. For instance I've been credited with being an "Executive Producer" on some media works without having an "official" link, connection or contractual rights with the production or development company that created the work.
It could be that JE's contract with Sixth Avenue means that he has approval or control on some aspects of the program, for instance it is not unusual for a "star" to have some control over how they appear in a program. On the other hand it could just be a recognition that he has some creative input into the programme or he makes suggestions.
The term "Executive Producer" doesn't tell us anything about the legal relationship that JE has with Sixth Avenue or what his input or control really is.
(Has anyone been able to do a search on the company’s ownership etc?)
renata said:
D'OH!! Bad example....
She is not facing jail time for stuff with her company, but for insider trading of stock she personally owned. But I bet the company and her are separate even though she was CEO (I think she stepped down since). So even though she may be in jail, the brand may go on, and the company, the magazine, etc are not liable for her own misdeeds.
renata,
No, no...not "bet". We have to know.
Darat,
Could be, sure. We have to know.
CFLarsen said:
Oh, OK, Claus. I will just go over to her office, get the confidential contracts, incorporation papers, board meeting minutes and whatever other agreements they have and let you know!!
Sheesh!!
A corporation is a separate entity before the law than an individual, even if he owns it, separately protected. Indeed sometimes people incorporate themselves, so their assets belong to a corporation and are protected...and I know nothing about corporation law so I will just stop here.