By definition, disputes in the entertainment world have potential public repercussions that can adversely affect the public perception of a performer and the performer’s contractual relationship with their agent, studio, label or publisher. The media has insatiable thirst for entertainment “news” in large part because of our culture’s fascination with celebrities. However, these pervasive cultural dynamics are often at odds with the best interest of the artists and their employers.
Mediation is an option that can end a dispute before it spirals out of control. Except for alleged criminal activity, there is no limit to the kind of dispute that can be resolved by mediation. In an entertainment setting, mediation’s primary virtues are speed and confidentiality, attributes that do not exist in our civil justice system. Mediation can also provide creative, mutually agreeable forms of relief that civil litigation cannot.
Two recent examples of mediated entertainment cases are illustrative. The first case involved a dispute over ownership of a cinematic piece of equipment in a very popular cable television show that was so valuable that the equipment itself was a paid performer on the show. Yes, this equipment item was treated financially as a human performer! Neither party to the dispute nor the network wanted the fight to become public, as much of the show’s popularity rested upon the strong family values of the participants. Mediation resolved the dispute before expensive and public litigation that, regardless of the outcome, would have damaged the image of the show’s franchise.
The second case also involved a successful cable TV show. There, a former employee asserted a claim of sexual harassment against the show’s star. A mediation was held before a suit was filed and, importantly, before the network was made aware of the claim. The claimant and her attorneys had reason to believe that if the network learned of the claim that cancellation of this popular family show was a real possibility. The dispute resolved at mediation pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement that enabled the show to continue.
In each of the above examples, a confidential settlement was only possible via mediation when compared with the publicity and protracted course of a civil trial. Trials are also notoriously expensive. However, in the cases described above, transaction costs were kept to a minimum and the affected networks and their viewers remained unaware of disputes that had the potential to negatively affect, or even end, these long-running, successful productions.
To recap: in mediation the parties are always in control of the negotiation. In court, however, judges and juries are the decision makers. Court is also public, slow and expensive. Mediation is private, informal and swift. In addition, the cost of most mediations is a small fraction of just a single party’s litigation expense. What’s not to like?
Gregg Bertram is CEO of Pacific ADR Consulting and one of this country’s most experienced and versatile mediators. He may be reached at [email protected].
Entertainment Disputes:
Consider The Mediation Option
By Gregg Bertram, M.A. J.D. LL.M.