Anonymous User wrote:EntmntAttny wrote:Also, because when I was a law student I probably wouldn't have even known what kinds of questions to ask, here are some things I can weigh in on if anyone is interested in:
- pros and cons of different types of entertainment practices
- recommendations for classes and career paths
- opinions on firms and companies
- difference between firm side and in house entertainment
Would love to hear about all of the above.
Thought I'd address pros/cons of different types of entertainment practices. I'm going to list the practice areas I'm aware of on a very broad level, along with some of my subjective opinions. Obviously this is going to be largely colored by my own experience mixed with second hand information from colleagues and friends in the industry. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I am focused on roles that assist with the creation and dissemination of creative content, so you not ancillary legal work in the entertainment industry such as M&A, labor/employment, etc, as opposed to coming up with novel legal solutions to anything.
Talent Side:
Talent Representation - Talent representation encompasses a broad array of legal work that is related to their services as a creative. If they're a musician, that means record label agreements, publishing agreements, side performer agreements, production agreements, etc. If they're an actor it means talent agreements, appearance releases, on-set riders (nudity, etc), and the like. Can also be on behalf of writers, producers, directors, etc. And if they're one of the former but also a celebrity, it means spokesperson agreements, promotion agreements, merchandising agreements, etc. Pros of this work is that people find it exciting, and it is very varied, especially if you're at a firm that represents a lot of top level talent. Cons is that these types of clients can (at times) be difficult to work for. Oftentimes your primary contact is actually their management teams and not the talent themselves. Deadlines can be tight, and much of the work may be repetitive or simple. I would also say if you like complex, cutting-edge legal work, this is not that. A lot of these agreements are primarily about haggling over business points (compensation/royalties, on-set requirements, timelines, etc). Even negotiating things like morals clauses or force majeure provisions, which are more legal-specific, can become pretty rote.
Company Side:
Content production - The entertainment industry is about the creation of content. Content production lawyers assist with all legal matters to assist in that creation. In film/TV that means talent agreements, script review and IP clearance, among other things. In music that means record deals, production deals, etc. This is very much the other side of the coin of talent representation, so if you like being close to talent but prefer your client to be the entertainment company, this is the position to go for. You will lose out on some of the variety being on this side, since different deals are handled by different teams. Also, in this era of massive content production, these roles can be hyper-focused (think, "assistant counsel for scripted series 14 and under, latin america").
Content acquisition/distribution - After content is created, entertainment companies want to acquire it and/or distribute it. Content acquisition / distribution lawyers are farther from the direct creative services, but these are the revenue driving groups. So the deals are more complex, and primarily business-to-business. The work is much less varied, as you're really focusing on certain types of agreements. But you're much closer to c-suite executive and the business development and strategy teams. This is the way to go if you're more about complex deal making and negotiating, and if you're more interested in the business part of entertainment than the flashy talent part. There are way fewer of these roles, and because they drive revenue they tend to pay better. High stakes/complex deal or IP transnational work is a prereq.
Business affairs - Business affairs teams are sort of unique to the entertainment industry, in my view. And while their role may vary company to company, the best way I can describe them on a general level is they are the teams that serve as the legal support for INTERNAL teams/matters. So if your company has an internal production team or an internal marketing team, the business affairs team will help them with their legal work. That's in contrast to hiring third parties (celebrity talent, directors, etc) to produce content. Some people very much like these roles because they tend to be more business than legal. Less papering deals and more advising the internal client on how to get things done. For that reason, in a lot of places they may not even be lawyers, but they tend to be just so that when things do need to get papered that can be handled by the same person. In my experience, the con with this type of role is that sometimes the substance of the work can be taken up by non-entertainment-related work, such as vedor agreements, privacy work, SAAS agreements, etc - basically stuff that helps the company run but may not be directly related to content creation. Again, this will vary wildly company to company but that is my very broad take. If you're interested in this type of role I would just try and get as much info about the specific function at a particular company.
Advertising/marketing - This area is not often considered within the scope of traditional entertainment work, but I'm including it here because (1) the work often is very similar, (2) its often overlooked by law students, and (3) the advertising lawyers I know are some of the happiest I've met. Keeping with my overall theme of this post, advertising and marketing lawyers are involved with the creation of COMMERCIAL content. So their work will involve some elements overlapping with content production lawyers (e.g. talent agreements, rights clearance, content review), some elements overlapping with content distribution (e.g. media buying/selling agreements), and some elements overlapping with business affairs (e.g. SAAS, privacy, tech agreements), but it also involves advertising-specific expertise such as false advertising review, regulatory compliance and claim substantiation. This role is probably one of the most varied roles you can have as a lawyer, because advertising and marketing is so diverse these days. It's not just TV or print advertising. Marketers create real-time experiences, video games, websites, contests, etc, and they also make product claims and have to comply with product-specific regulations. And this work can also entail major sponsorship deals, cross-promotions, product placement, etc. So the work is really all over the place, and that's why I think people tend to like it. Cons: this work will vary significantly depending on who the client is. Consider the types of brands that spend a lot of money on advertising and do interesting types of advertising, vs those that might do very traditional stuff, and little of it. That's why I think this type of role is going to be better if you're on the firm side or in house at an ad agency rather than working directly for a brand, unless that brand spends a LOT of money on advertising. And even if it does, you better really like that brand. Something about marketing legal for a bank, for example, doesn't sound very exciting at all. I'm having a hard time thinking off the top of my head the kinds of brands that do really interesting, cutting-edge marketing, but they're out there.