This Article Is Brought To You By The Letter Blank: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And Trademark Attorney John J. Tormey III, Esq.

http://www.tormey.org/letter.htm

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq. – Entertainment Lawyer, Entertainment Attorney

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY  10128  USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

brightline@att.net

http://www.tormey.org/

This Article Is Brought To You By The Letter Blank: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And Trademark Attorney John J. Tormey III, Esq.

© John J. Tormey III, PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

This article is not intended to, and does not constitute, legal advice with respect to your particular situation and fact pattern. Do secure counsel promptly, if you see any legal issue looming on the horizon which may affect your career or your rights. What applies in one context, may not apply to the next one. Make sure that you seek individualized legal advice as to any important matter pertaining to your career or your rights generally.

Most of the American public including most all entertainment lawyers, heard about one of Oprah Winfrey’s well-publicized litigations a number of years ago. My understanding was that she was sued in Texas by a commercial cattle-oriented conglomerate. The plaintiffs apparently claimed that Oprah had inaccurately and unfairly maligned the culinary safety of cow meat, during one of her television programs. The Texas case seemed vaguely surreal and comic, even from the perspective of an entertainment lawyer - sort of like an overly-imaginative law school exam question. But next we must go from the sublime to the ridiculous. This next case was an entertainment lawyer and trademark lawyer’s delight. Talk about the eradication of your sacred cows. The local press in New York reported that a German “fetish magazine” named “O” sued one of Oprah’s companies and her publisher, over the sale of Oprah’s magazine bearing the equally-expansive title of “O”. Query if it was really a service mark dispute as opposed to a trademark dispute.

Perhaps even more befuddling, from the entertainment lawyer or publishing lawyer perspective or otherwise, the German “fetish” magazine somehow derived its own title from the erotic novel “Story of O” - serving as even more of a reminder that there is truly nothing new under the sun. And if this were not bizarre enough, the local press reported that Oprah’s company and publisher were prepared to change the name of her magazine to “O, The Oprah Magazine”, in an apparent attempt to assuage the seething service mark or trademark plaintiff and make the distinction between the two magazines more apparent.

Coincidentally, this lawsuit received even more attention from trademark lawyers, entertainment lawyers, and others, than usual, since Lions Gate was slated to release a film called “O” around the same time the suit materialized. I understand the Lions Gate film was somehow loosely based upon Shakespeare’s “Othello”. The Bard himself referred to the Globe Theatre as “this wooden ‘O’“. Maybe if we find Shakespeare’s heirs - perhaps arguably incarnate in the Bacon Brothers - we can thereby locate the real plaintiff who has something to complain about?

But come on. All kidding aside, could this trademark (or service mark) lawsuit really be happening? Yes. Yes it could. But maybe it shouldn’t be allowed to happen. The minds of reasonable trademark lawyers, entertainment lawyers, and others, may differ.

Let’s back up a step. Generally speaking, as entertainment lawyers or trademark lawyers will advise, one acquires trademark rights or service mark rights under U.S. law, by consistently using a trademark or service mark in connection with goods or services, and/or by registering the trademark or service mark with one or more appropriate governmental authorities.

Most people and businesses pick lousy names from a trademark or service mark perspective, and most people pick those names without the assistance of an entertainment lawyer or a trademark lawyer. The majority of marks go unregistered, and the majority of trademarks or service marks are never properly searched and cleared by a trademark lawyer, entertainment lawyer, or anyone else before use. Again, there is very little new under the sun, and as most all trademark and entertainment lawyers will attest, most word-paths have been tread upon by someone else previously. Then again, searching and registering a trademark or service mark, with or even without a trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer, is not without cost. So, many cost-constrained start-up businesses elect to just “wing it” and dispense with the search until they can afford to “get around to it”. And surprisingly, sometimes even major-league companies who can otherwise afford to so it, dispense with the trademark or service mark search, dispense with the services of the trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer, and just go ahead and use the proposed name. Ironically, this type of decision keeps trademark and entertainment lawyer litigators who work the back-end of these fact patterns, in business.

Trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers may sometimes advise their clients to select multiple-word names rather than one-word names - as rock-band-name trademarks or service marks, for example - since the statistical chances of infringing some other band’s name and trademark or service mark are likely thereby somewhat reduced. Most artists, on the other hand, are solely concerned about the aesthetics of the band name, and if a one-word band name sounds right to them, they will use it and darn the torpedoes. This type of decision can also keep trademark and entertainment lawyer litigators who work the back-end of these fact patterns, in business.

I have admittedly not yet trademark-searched any of the following band names. But as a trademark and entertainment lawyer, a proposed one-word band name like “Blur”, at first blush, would trouble me a bit more than the two-word “Def Leppard”, from a trademark or service mark perspective - since, without knowing anything else about the underlying facts, I would assume that the statistical chances were somewhat higher that another band might be named (or might have been recently named) “Blur”. When a trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer performs a search on a trademark or service mark or proposed mark, these kinds of concerns and historical analyses come into play.

Trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers may also sometimes advise their clients to try to use more incongruous word combinations as band-name trademarks or service marks, rather than predictable word combinations. By this rationale, “Squirrel Nut Zippers” (the first time, for the candy, that is!), or “Stone Temple Pilots” start to look pretty good as far as their trademark or service mark prospects, to say nothing I suppose about “Orchestral Manoeuvres In The Dark”. After all, what are the odds, the trademark lawyer queries, that the full name “Orchestral Manoeuvres In The Dark” name was used as a trademark or service mark by any other pop or rock band prior to or contemporaneously with 1986’s “If You Leave”? Then again, apart from entertainment lawyer legal concerns, the band and its handlers may have had trouble fitting the full name onto a record jacket sleeve, and may also have had trouble convincing record label A&R executives that the choice of name should be supported.

One must understand, therefore, that the prospect of trying to protect, let alone enforce and prevent others from using - a one-letter trademark or service mark, is the trademark lawyer’s or entertainment lawyer’s equivalent to fingernails scraping on a chalkboard. If a client walks into the office of a trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer and says “Hi. I’d like to protect, for my own exclusive use, the letter ‘W’“ - well, then absent some extreme fact pattern perhaps relating to a powerful Texas family, that lawyer can expect at least a long and tough road ahead - and perhaps a few broadsides of ridicule from the bench and other trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers at the bar as well. They might think that the so-subscribing lawyer took Sesame Street’s commercial endorsement announcement “This program was brought to you by the letter ‘W’”, a little too seriously when younger.

Most Americans conceive of “monopolies” as something anti-competitive, unfair to the consumer, and ultimately evil - especially given publicity in recent years accorded to the Microsoft case. But what is interesting about copyrights and trademarks and service marks, as a trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer will tell you, is that they are in fact legal monopolies protected by federal statute. A property right is, essentially, the right to exclude others from using that same property. That is conceptually quite similar to a monopoly. If I own my house, I can keep you off my land with a fence, and the law will back me up on that. If a company owns a registered trademark in “Chock Full o’ Nuts”, for example, then, through the efforts of its trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer counsel or otherwise, that company owns the right to exclude others from using the same name in connection with the sale of coffee, and perhaps related goods and services as well.

So here is the trademark lawyer entertainment lawyer philosopher question. Haven’t we as a society gone too far, when we even entertain the prospect of a company, or a celebrity, laying claim to a single LETTER of the ALPHABET as a service mark or trademark? Indeed, should any prior claimant be able to use the services if a trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer to legally monopolize the use of a letter of the alphabet, in connection with ANY kind of goods or services, magazine or otherwise? Should they and their trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers even be allowed into court with that kind of argument?

Are all individual Arabic numerals also now in play for trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers? We might as well allow some corporate behemoth to pull the character of Santa Claus out of the public domain, into the realm of copyright-protection, and charge a royalty whenever the fat man’s name or image is evoked. As for trademark versus service mark, does Mr. Claus provide goods or a service, when you get right down to it? And what about prior sources? Do the publishers of the first edition of Webster’s dictionary, or their successors, now have a valid trademark claim to assert through their trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer litigators, against Oprah and the German magazine, for the use of “their” letter of the alphabet as a service mark or trademark?

Harkening back to the Oprah cattle litigation, some cows are sacred. Some things should simply stay in the public domain. Section 105 of the U.S. Copyright Act, for example, excludes works “of the United States Government” from copyright protection. Shouldn’t letters of the alphabet be treated the same way, as non-service mark non-trademark public commodities exempt from any monopolistic endeavors, upon instruction to all trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers who might try to argue otherwise? There may well already be case law holding unitary alphabet letters to be disqualified from trademark and service mark protection under certain circumstances. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office likely has trademark application and registration procedures, possibly reading to similar effect. If so, why not simply codify that common-sense principle in all applicable trademark statutes and other laws, as a de facto and de jure standing instruction to all trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers and their clients? Among other things, a decisive action like this one could eliminate, or at least mandate a shorter life-span for, court-clogging trademark and service mark lawsuits like the “O” story.

And what’s next? Will the adjudicated winner of the O litigation also be awarded a legally-sanctioned monopoly as trademark or service mark over the corresponding three dashes in “- - -”; that is, in the International Morse Code symbol for the letter “O”? Will that be some other trademark lawyer’s or entertainment lawyer’s next argument? Or should that control instead now be awarded to the heirs of Morse, wherever they may be? And what about our National Anthem? Am I at risk of being enjoined by another trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer from singing “O(h) say can you see...” at the start of baseball games at Shea Stadium – I mean, CitiField? And what about Tic-Tac-Toe? Must there now be a Congressional mandate that “X” must always win, and must always occupy all 9 cells on the grid, so as not to “infringe” the trademark or service mark rights of the clients of any other trademark lawyers or entertainment lawyers? And if so, what about the fate of Whoopi Goldberg and Hollywood Squares in syndication?

A number of entertainers use single-word names, and we as a society tolerate that – as do, apparently, the trademark lawyers and entertainment lawyers that represent and enable the talent. We tolerate the Gilbert Gottfried “One-Named Boy” routine moreso if the entertainer has the talent to back it up: “Elvis”. “Sting”. Now, “Prince” is, of course, a variation on the theme, an entertainer who at one point dispensed with his chosen one-word name in favor of an arcane symbol not found in the American alphabet – with or without his trademark lawyer’s or entertainment lawyer’s imprimatur. The general point here is that, Prince aside, the trademark lawyer and entertainment lawyer will advise the entertainer that he or she may be able to build up some trademark or service mark protection in his or her continuous and uninterrupted use of the [a]rtist’s one-word name, particularly if that entertainer is extremely well-known.

But some of us trademark and entertainment lawyers and others may feel that claiming one of the 26 letters of the alphabet as your own, takes its own special brand of... uh... chutzpah. Basketball’s Oscar Robertson was known as “The Big O”, probably because fans and the press tagged him with that moniker – probably not because his trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer told him to use it - and probably not because Oscar adopted it for himself. Oscar Robertson may not have been as well-liked a guy, if instead he himself had arrogated “The Big O” nickname for his own use! And speaking of Oscar, asks the trademark and entertainment lawyer, how ‘come he hasn’t appeared yet in this lawsuit?

In similar vein, some trademark lawyers, entertainment lawyers, and others may feel that Oprah should have been satisfied to call her magazine “Oprah” rather than, simply, “O”. It is unlikely that Oprah’s decision as to how to name the magazine was forced upon her by her colleagues – entertainment lawyers or otherwise. In other words, a different P.R. decision may have had incidental legal benefit, too.

Sure, there is precedent in the entertainment field, as trademark and entertainment lawyers are aware, for trademark or service mark use predicated upon a single letter of the alphabet. The musical group “M” had a number-one hit with “Pop Muzik” in 1979, and that was kind of cute - but the group seemed to disappear from the music scene before anyone even began to consider the trademark or service mark implications of their continued use of their band name. Perhaps the group’s trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer will read this article and write to this website to weigh-in.

The television company “E!” of Chelsea Handler and Talk Soup renown has apparently been successful in establishing a brand name for itself, presumably with trademark lawyer and entertainment lawyer counsel and assistance, accepting the inherent challenge in generating trademark and service mark rights in a one-letter name. But the E! Network’s use of the exclamation point, and their occasional use of the linked phrase “entertainment network”, arguably properly distinguishes them from the alphabet-usurping pack. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), along with the help of its trademark lawyer counsel, lays claim to its single-letter-ratings as trademarks or service marks in some fashion - that is, currently, “G”, and “R”. But then again, I suspect that the MPAA would carefully refrain from threatening another company’s use of the letter “G” or “R”, unless that use was made in the context of ratings or otherwise in connection with motion pictures or filmed entertainment.

The point is, there is something disturbing about this O lawsuit filed in the district court in Manhattan, from the perspective of an entertainment lawyer and trademark lawyer, and perhaps to others as well. What if a schoolteacher reads about this lawsuit, and now tries to find a trademark lawyer lay personal service mark claim to the letter grades “A” through “F” as used on student-graded papers? What if that same teacher starts invoicing all other teachers who grade papers in the U.S., demanding trademark royalty payments? And speaking of damage to the world of education, what will Grover, Elmo, and the gang at Sesame Street do, when they can no longer boast that a particular program is “brought to you by the letter ‘W’”, at least not without their entertainment lawyer or trademark lawyer counsel present on set? Worse yet, will that entertainment lawyer or trademark lawyer be required to wear an over-the-head costume or be a muppeteer to blend-in on the set when doing so? The consternation is enough to press the ghost of O. Henry and his trademark lawyer back into active service - the only question being, if O. Henry rejoins the non-ethereal world and joins the lawsuit, will he join as party-plaintiff or party-defendant on the advice of counsel? And, will O. Henry’s apparently-prescient use of the period after his “O” render him impervious to trademark or service mark liability?

But seriously folks, in defense of Oprah and the trademark and entertainment lawyers that love and enable her, it is apparently not her or her entertainment or trademark counsel or entities that initiated the aggressive attempts to exclude others from use of the letter “O”. Rather, according to the news reports, it was the German “kinky fashion” magazine promoting leather and garters that decided to attack Oprah’s company in the context of the New York court, and the magazine then sought out a trademark lawyer for that purpose. And in response, Oprah and her affiliates, presumably on trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer advice, apparently decided to expand her magazine title, to make the bright-line distinction between the two magazines more apparent to all, including the consumers. Maybe as a matter of reciprocal international courtesy, and in an effort to keep this dispute from wasting further judicial resources or using up more trademark lawyer or entertainment lawyer time, the leather and garter crew should agree to change their magazine’s name from “O” to “Ouch!” But query if they thereby would risk receiving an adverse trademark or service mark claim from the ‘E!’ network based upon the use of ‘E!’s exclamation point.

Click the “Articles” button at:

http://www.tormey.org/art.htm

to return to the main Articles page.

My trademark law practice as a publishing and entertainment attorney includes all fields of entertainment and media including music, film, publishing, television, Internet, and all other media and art forms – and trademark, service mark, and copyright work. If you have questions about legal issues which affect your career, and require representation, please contact me:

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq.

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY  10128  USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

brightline@att.net

http://www.tormey.org/

Page:

This Article Is Brought To You By The Letter Blank

Title Metatag:

trademark lawyer, publishing, entertainment lawyer, service marks

Meta Description:

trademark lawyer,publishing,entertainment attorney,service marks,entertainment lawyer,PTO,New York,intellectual property

Keywords:

entertainment attorney,entertainment lawyer,intellectual property,IP law,law firm,litigation,media lawyer,New York lawyer,Oprah,PTO,publishing law,trademark,trademark law,trademark litigation,USPTO

entertainment attorney, entertainment lawyer, article, brought to you by, letter blank, trademark lawyer, publishing, entertainment lawyer, service marks, trademark lawyer, publishing, entertainment attorney, service marks, entertainment lawyer, PTO, New York, intellectual property, intellectual property, IP law, law firm, litigation, media lawyer, New York lawyer, Oprah, PTO, publishing law, trademark, trademark law, trademark litigation, USPTO

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT

http://www.tormey.org/letter.htm

Independent Contractors vs. Employees - Part II: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And Employment Attorney John J. Tormey III, Esq.

http://www.tormey.org/contractors2.htm

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq. – Entertainment Lawyer, Entertainment Attorney
John J. Tormey III, PLLC
1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188
New York, NY 10128 USA
(212) 410-4142 (phone)
(212) 410-2380 (fax)
brightline@att.net
http://www.tormey.org/

Independent Contractors vs. Employees - Part II: Written By New York Entertainment Lawyer And Employment Attorney John J. Tormey III, Esq.
© John J. Tormey III, PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

This article is not intended to, and does not constitute, legal advice with respect to your particular situation and fact pattern. Do secure counsel promptly, if you see any legal issue looming on the horizon which may affect your career or your rights. What applies in one context, may not apply to the next one. Make sure that you seek individualized legal advice as to any important matter pertaining to your career or your rights generally.

Part I of this article discussed the distinction between hiring “independent contractors” versus “employees”, and some of the consequences thereby resulting. To give the hypothetical some real-life relevance to an entertainment lawyer like myself, how could, for example, a recording studio or a film production characterize its workers as the former (independent contractors), rather than the latter (employees)? If the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) or applicable Department of Labor (DOL) challenges the characterization of the workers as independent contractors as opposed to employees, is there anything that the film production or recording studio could have done in retrospect to seek to prevent or withstand the challenge – aside from calling its entertainment lawyer at the point of hire and asking the entertainment lawyer, that is?

A signed written agreement between the music or film studio and each worker, which among other things characterized each of them as an “independent contractor”, prepared by the entertainment lawyer, might have been helpful. But do not believe for a minute that agencies like the DOL and the IRS will view that self-serving contractual “independent contractor” vs. employee characterization as fully-dispositive, even when drafted by the entertainment lawyer. These agencies decidedly will not. Rather, the actual facts and circumstances surrounding the worker’s services must give additional support to the contractual characterization of an independent contractor as opposed to an employee. Moreover, things change. The facts and circumstances of work in the latter year may differ from what the entertainment lawyer’s drafting predicted them to be in the former year’s signed contract. See, e.g.:
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99921,00.html

In other words, the hiring company in the entertainment field should, at minimum, require all its independent contractor hires to sign independent contractor agreements prepared by the company’s entertainment lawyer, that among other things expressly disclaim an employee-employer relationship. But the smart company also further monitors the factual circumstances of that work relationship post-signature, to make sure that those facts continually support the contract and the “independent contractor” vs. employee characterization. Most independent contractor relationships themselves, as well as other forms of relationships, change over time and do not remain static. The entertainment lawyer can amend the pre-existing signed contract at the client’s further request.

This article will not rehash all factors in the past IRS “checklists” here, particularly because the governmental definition of independent contractor vs. employee continues to evolve and may have changed by the time you read this article. The hiring party should update itself on the IRS and DOL “independent contractor vs. employee” definitions anyway: (1) so to be sure to consider factors applicable to its own state and jurisdiction, and (2) so as to work off of the most updated definition Obviously it is wise to consult with one’s entertainment lawyer, accountant, and payroll company – particularly the latter two - before one rolls out an entertainment company payroll plan for independent contractors, employees or otherwise. Indeed, prospective advice should be obtained before the hiring party even make the hires. But below are some of the checklist factors which as an entertainment lawyer representing the hiring party I have found to have been given some significant weight in the context of past DOL actions. Query whether or not the hiring party will be able to “flip” any of them to its own favor and advantage, if the hiring party is ever challenged on its own characterizations of workers as independent contractors as opposed to employees:

A. Nature Of Services.

The entertainment lawyer first inquires of the hiring party, “What exact services or types of services does the claimed independent contractor worker perform?” If the hiring party is held to exercise or reserve the right to exercise sufficient supervision, direction, and control over the worker’s services, an “employer-employee” relationship may be established, even if such relationship was never intended by the hiring party thinking he or she was instead hiring an independent contractor rather than an employee. To this extent, a written job description in the agreement drafted by the entertainment lawyer suggesting that the worker toils independently, may support the company’s assertion of an “independent contractor” vs. an employee-employer relationship. But the written job description must be an accurate reflection of the facts, and must stay accurate going forward in time which is even more difficult. In any event the written job description scribed by the business owner’s entertainment lawyer, is not dispositive on “independent contractor vs. employee” question. Moreover, most media and entertainment hiring parties are unwilling to relinquish supervision, direction, and control over even its independent contractor hires, as a practical matter - much less instruct their entertainment lawyer do so in writing. Therefore, this “nature of services” item is a difficult checklist factor for the hiring party to “flip” to its own advantage in favor of an independent contractor adjudication as opposed to employee determination.

B. In Business For Himself/Herself.

The entertainment lawyer next asks, if this worker that the hiring party wishes to characterize as an independent contractor as opposed to employee, in business for himself or herself. For example, does this worker run his or her own business or corporation, or work through a “loan-out” entity? Does the worker have an independent consulting business? Does the worker advertise any business, or have the trappings or indicia of any self-standing business? If the worker is in business for himself or herself – and particularly if the worker can be documented by the hiring party’s entertainment lawyer to have been such, well-prior to the making of the hire in question – then that would be a strong suggestion that the worker is an independent contractor rather than an employee. In fact, the party wanting to hire a worker can choose to limit its hires only to those contractors that are already separately incorporated or functioning through a limited liability company, which the entertainment lawyer can normally confirm on-paper through the use of public-record databases. This “business for himself/herself” item is therefore a factor that can be flipped to the hiring party’s advantage in favor of an independent contractor determination over an employee characterization, if set-up carefully in advance, and a step in which it may be critical to involve the entertainment lawyer.

C. Invoicing Or Billing For Services.

Asks the entertainment lawyer to the hiring party, “Does the claimed independent contractor worker submit a bill or invoice for services?”. Most employees don’t. Most independent contractors do – or, should. Again, this is a factor that the hiring party can flip to its advantage in favor of an independent contractor characterization as opposed to an employee determination, if assessed and set-up carefully in advance, and a step with which the entertainment lawyer can help by assisting the documentation process. The party wanting to hire a worker can choose to limit its hires only to those claimed independent contractors that furnish or are willing to furnish periodic invoices. An employee would be unlikely to do so, and unlikely to be asked to do so. This “invoicing” factor will likely not be dispositive by itself, but could be helpful to the hiring party to support an independent contractor determination over an employee ruling.

D. Where, When And How Long.

The entertainment lawyer then asks the hiring party, “Is this worker claimed to be an independent contractor rater than an employee, told where to work each day? Or, when to work each day? Or, how long or how many hours to work each day?” The entertainment lawyer observes that a worker toiling off-premises is more likely to be characterized as an “independent contractor” rather than an employee. A worker on his or her own schedule is more likely to be characterized as an “independent contractor” rather than an employee. And, a worker who chooses his or her daily hour expenditure is more likely to be characterized as an “independent contractor” rather than an employee. But again, most hiring parties are unwilling to relinquish that kind of supervision, direction, and control over their hires much less instruct their entertainment lawyer do so in writing – be they employees or even independent contractors.

E. Review Of Work.

“Regarding the worker sought to be classified as an independent contractor rather than an employee”, asks the entertainment lawyer, “is this worker’s effort subject to review by anyone – particularly annual reviews? Is the worker’s effort reviewed as ‘satisfactory’ or ‘unsatisfactory’”? The more discretion of review that the company exercises, the more likely that this worker will be characterized as an “employee” rather than an independent contractor. One presumption would be that the remedy for a bad independent contractor would be simply to terminate rather than to review, which the hiring party might do through his or her counsel, or just on his or her own. But again, most hiring parties are unwilling to relinquish that kind of supervision, direction, and control over their hires, much less instruct their entertainment lawyer do so in writing – be they employees or even independent contractors.
.
F. Refusal Of Work Assignments.

This worker that the hiring party calls an independent contractor rather than an employee – the entertainment lawyer muses - can this worker refuse work assignments? Does this worker in fact refuse any work assignments? If so, what happens as a result? Though not an absolute, a worker entitled to refuse assignments is at least somewhat more likely to be characterized as an “independent contractor” rather than an employee. But again, most hiring parties are unwilling to relinquish that kind of supervision, direction, and control over their hires, much less instruct their entertainment lawyer do so in writing – be they employees or even independent contractors.
.
G. Tools And Office Space.

As for this worker that the hiring party claims to be an independent contractor as opposed to an employee, the entertainment lawyer inquires - what equipment or other tools or objects does this worker supply or bring to the job site by himself or herself, if any? Who provides the office space, if any? The more equipment and tools that the worker brings to the work site, the more likely it is that the worker will be characterized as an “independent contractor” rather than as an employee. If, on the other hand, the company provides an office, tools and equipment, the relationship looks more like an employee-employer employment relationship. In this day and age of laptop and telecommuting, we will more frequently see hiring parties try to flip this variable to their advantage in favor of an independent contractor determination as opposed to an employee determination. And this factor will not be ignored by the governmental authorities adjudicating the issue, or entertainment lawyers drafting the prospective agreements, either.

Again, please do not rely upon the excerpted list of “independent contractor vs. employee” factors above - it is only illustrative in the context of media and entertainment company hiring patterns in the past - and different tribunals may adjudicate different results. Any determination that a hiring party in the entertainment field makes about a worker’s status should be done only upon review with one’s own entertainment lawyer, one’s tax accountant, and one’s payroll company – particularly the latter two. The most important thing to remember is that the rule of “ipse dixit” does not apply to the “independent contractor vs. employee” question. In other words, just because the hiring party calls someone an “independent contractor” as opposed to an employee, does not make them so! (“Ipse dixit” is Latin for “he himself said so”).

There are structural modifications that the hiring party can make to the hiring relationship, as well as entertainment lawyer-drafted text, that will increase its chances of successfully claiming the worker to be an independent contractor rather than an employee. But there are seldom any absolutes in this regard. Finally, keep in mind that there is a real “Catch 22” to the “independent contractor v. employee” characterization. The entertainment lawyer will advise the hiring party that the hiring party must truly be willing to part with a substantial amount of supervision, direction, and control over a worker - and must in fact do so - in exchange for the privilege of paying them like an independent contractor rather than an employee. There is only a very limited extent to which a hiring party may be able to contract around this problem.

Click the “Articles” button at:
http://www.tormey.org/art.htm
to return to the main Articles page.

My law practice as an entertainment attorney includes state and federal employment law matters relating to independent contractors and employees and other human resource matters as they arise in the fields of music, film, publishing, television, Internet, and other media and industries. If you have questions about legal issues which affect your career, and require representation, please contact me:

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq.
John J. Tormey III, PLLC
1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188
New York, NY 10128 USA
(212) 410-4142 (phone)
(212) 410-2380 (fax)
brightline@att.net
http://www.tormey.org/

Page:
Independent Contractors vs. Employees - Part II

Title Metatag:
independent contractor,entertainment lawyer,employee

Meta Description:
entertainment attorney,employee,entertainment lawyer,independent contractor,labor,withholding,recording studio,New York

Keywords:
compensation,contracts,corporations,employees,employment,entertainment attorney,entertainment lawyer,independent contractors,labor,law firm,legal services,New York lawyer,union agreements,withholdings

entertainment attorney, entertainment lawyer, independent contractors, employees, independent contractor, entertainment lawyer, employee, entertainment attorney, employee, entertainment lawyer, independent contractor, labor, withholding, recording studio, New York, compensation, contracts, corporations, employees, employment, independent contractors, labor, law firm, legal services, New York lawyer, union agreements, withholdings

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT

http://www.tormey.org/contractors2.htm