<\/p>\n

Eriq Gardner at the Hollywood Reporter, Esq. blog has got me thinking. In his post today<\/a> he discusses a Wall Street Journal article<\/a> that pokes fun at entertainment lawyers' use of\u00a0 “throughout the universe, in perpetuity”\u00a0 to define\u00a0 the territorial scope and the term of rights being granted by a contract.<\/p>\n

This kind of language is, of course, a relatively new inclusion in contracts, that used to cover “the world”.\u00a0 But nowadays, with satellite communications technology, there's some question whether beaming a signal to an orbiting machine constitutes an exploitation of rights within the territory of “the world” or outside that territory… So, lawyers expanded the language to address that concern (however silly it may seem).\u00a0\u00a0 The fact is, NOT to have done so, might have left lawyers responsible for clients' missed opportunities to exploit their existing libraries of content in new media and areas\u00a0 that transcend traditionally accepted territorial boundaries.\u00a0 (The somewhat classic example of such an omission\u00a0 is illustrated by Peggy Lee's lawsuit against Disney following the studio's release of “Lady and the Tramp” on video, when her contract didn't specifically authorize such exploitation of her performance in the film.)<\/p>\n

In his parting shot, Gardner asks why these deals don't contemplate parallel<\/em> universes.<\/p>\n

Eriq, you've just made things more complicated for us lawyers.\u00a0 Now that someone has raised the issue, some might argue that we're professionally obligated to consider that possibility and address it in our contracts.<\/p>\n

So, with tongue planted only partly in-cheek, I propose that, henceforward,\u00a0 we all agree to use the following language:<\/p>\n

In any and all media, now known or hereafter devised, throughout this and any other universes, whether known, unknown, parallel, intersecting, obtuse or otherwise, throughout space, time and all other dimensions, whether now known or hitherto discovered, in perpetuity, or longer, as the case may be.<\/p>\n

Amen.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

of course,\u00a0 those who favor plain english<\/em> in their contracts might prefer:<\/p>\n

forever and ever, everywhere, no matter what.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

let the comments begin.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Eriq Gardner at the Hollywood Reporter, Esq. blog has got me thinking. In his post today he discusses a Wall Street Journal article that pokes fun at entertainment lawyers’ use of\u00a0 “throughout the universe, in perpetuity”\u00a0 to define\u00a0 the territorial scope and the term of rights being granted by a contract. This kind of language […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[17],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n