Harrisburg Entertainment Attorney

            The role of entertainment attorneys varies depending upon the region in which they operate. It is something of a given that every area has its’ own unique population with their own specific approach to the entertainment industry. This means that every area has specific issues to face that are primarily applicable to the individual region.

            Developing an understanding of the unique business atmosphere in the Harrisburg area involved a certain amount of research as well as a conversation with attorney Todd J. Shill of Rhoads & Sinon LLP. Mister Shill is a dedicated entertainment attorney in the Harrisburg area who is actively engaged in the local creative community.

            While the entertainment industry offers a wide range of potential jobs the two main areas of focus in Harrisburg are writers and musicians. Both fields require the assistance of an entertainment attorney for contract review and negotiation, establishing and protecting copyrights, and agent or management agreements.

            Additionally, writers often need help in the sale of optioning of their material. And, musicians frequently need help with licensing agreements, unpaid royalty collection, and merchandising arrangements within record deals.

            Many of these issues can also be translated into aspects of the local film and television production community. The creation of such projects inevitably requires the addition of the previously mentioned two professions. However, full-scale productions also require a large number of additional people with a variety of skills and abilities.

            The interesting fact is that all of these additional members of the production industry who operate on the more physical aspects of a production encounter situations for which they require representation outside of matters that are commonly considered with the creative industries.

            Gaffers, grips, and production assistants who are frequently required to deal with heavy lifting can develop repetitive motion injuries such as bad knees or back problems.

            Lighting directors, carpenters, and set designers often have to work on ladders or scaffolding at great heights where they face the chance of falling and suffering severe injury.

            One of the most important reasons for a producer from any variation of the creative fields to hire an entertainment attorney is to ensure that all legal requirements are met and the needed insurance is in place in order to protect the crew should they be hurt and the production company should it face the possibility of litigation over an accident or an attempt to issue a work-man’s compensation claim based on a pre-existing condition from another production job.

            With these issues in mind it can be seen that a competent and successful entertainment attorney is one of the most important people to have on the staff of any production company.

The Occasional Bastard

            The Federal Communications Commission is frequently viewed as a dark and ominous government agency bent on using its power and resources to restrain free speech and strip away the average person’s rights under the First Amendment. This view is reinforced by the large number of legal cases  they have been involved in, and the number of times that advocacy groups have questioned their adherence to the First Amendment. 

            Public opinion is further swayed by cases such as the FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. in which the FCC levied fines against Fox over the fact that two celebrities used vulgar language during two separate awards shows a year apart. The idea that the FCC was pushing the limits of its control over free speech became so culturally relevant that the court case was covered in publications as divers as The Washington Post, The Christian Post, and The Huffington Post. The overwhelming public opinion was that the FCC was crossing the line. However, the court upheld the position of the FCC in the case.

            The view that the FCC is constantly pushing the limits of its authority is generally heralded by references to the case of the FCC v. Pacifica Foundation in which a radio station was charged for broadcasting the George Carlin routine “Filthy Words” during daytime hours. The case established the precedent that the FCC can control language as it relates to public decency.

            Any time an organization successfully fights the FCC they are viewed as heros. This is especially true in the case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC. The issue of this case revolved around the FCC “equal time rule”, which stated that in order to maintain a fair and balanced source of information for viewers it was required that equal time be given to both sides of any issue being publicly discussed. The final court ruling determined that this violated free speech. Since that date broadcasters have been permitted to air one-sided stories without giving consideration to opposing points of view.

            Red Lion is generally considered a hero of the First Amendment and is held in high esteem for their victory over the FCC. But, it should also be noted that they opened the door for a situation in which a small group of broadcast company owners are now able to decide what views are shared with the public, and act as their own independent board of censorship in order to suppress any opinions that they disagree with.

            The point where the FCCs villainy really comes into question is with cases such as Verizon v. FCC  and Comcast Corporation v. FCC. Both of these cases are directly related to the concept of Net Neutrality and the Open Internet policy enforced by the FCC.

            The issue in both of these cases was that the FCC stated in no uncertain terms that everyone had equal rights to digital distribution. The companies charged that they should be allowed to delete the websites of their competitors, or at least slow down their connection speeds. Their actual stated reason was that they would be able to make more money. In these cases the FCC went head to head with major corporations in order to maintain the freedom of speech and the free flow of information.

            There is an old saying that you can’t make all of the people happy all of the time. No matter what policies the FCC enforces there will always be people who call them bastards for doing it. However, the fight to defend the First Amendment has a lot of grey area. It is a never-ending fight to defend our rights. And, if we hope to maintain the free flow of information, it is going to take the occasional bastard who isn’t afraid to stand up to the corporations and the wealthy elite in order to get the job done. That is why we need the FCC to fight for us. That is why we need them to be our "occasional bastard".