• Welcome

    Gordon Firemark headshot
    The Law Offices of Gordon P. Firemark are entertainment attorneys dedicated to the legal and business affairs needs of clients in the entertainment and media industries. By offering those kinds of legal and business affairs services handled in-house at the larger studios, production companies, talent agencies and record labels, we help small and mid-sized entertainment businesses, individual producers, writers and artists to reliably and efficiently out-source their legal and business affairs work.
  • SUBSCRIBE

    To receieve email updates when new material is added to this page
    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner


    Subscribe in a reader

  • Recommended Reading


  • Del.icio.us

  • RSS TheatreMania

  • Archives

  • Meta

  • « No Permit Required - Handheld Filming & Photogaphy in NYC | Main | No Right of Publicity for Marilyn Monroe »

    Is Jon Lovitz’s life-long contract really a life sentence?

    By Gordon Firemark | June 14, 2007

    lovitz.jpgActor/Comedian Jon Lovitz recently signed contract to appear on stage at the Laugh Factory every Wednesday for the rest of his life. (He’ll be 50 on July 21st)

    I don’t mean to suggest that the deal is anything but great for all parties, but given California’s statutory 7-year limit on personal services, can Jamie Masada, owner of the Laugh Factory really expect to enforce the terms for very long?

    Entertainment Lawyers learn about this law very early in their schooling and/or careers.

    California’s Labor Code Section 2855 (otherwise known as the “Seven Year Statute”) limits the amount of time anyone can be held to a contract for “personal services” to a maximum of seven years. This law has been on the books since the end of the so-called “studio system” in Hollywood. The idea behind the seven year limitation is to ensure that artists are able to reap the rewards of their successes, and won’t be held to low-paying and exploitative contracts entered into early in their careers.

    How then, can the parties expect to bind one-another for a longer period? Not being privy to the deal’s specific terms, it’s impossible to tell. Here, obviously, Lovitz is not a newcomer, is certainly being paid very handsomely, and no doubt has excellent representation, so he’s unlikely to wind up feeling exploited, but ultimately, My suspicion is that all parties have simply agreed to ignore Section 2855, and are glad to take advantage of the big announcement for its Public-Relations value.

    Perhaps we’ll find out in 2014 or so.

    Topics: Entertainment law
    Print this Post

    Comments