Draft February 7, 2013

Hollywood Deals: Soft Contracts for Hard Markets

Jonathan M. Barnett*

Hollywood film studios, talent and other deal participants regularly commit to big-budget film
projects on the basis of unsigned “deal memos” or draft agreements whose legal enforceability is
uncertain. These “soft contracts” constitute a hybrid instrument that addresses a challenging
transactional environment where neither formal contract nor reputation effects adequately
protect parties against the holdup risk and project risk inherent to a film project. Uncertainly
enforceable contracts supply an implicit termination and renegotiation option that provides some
protection against project risk while maintaining a threat of legal liability that provides some
protection against holdup risk. Historical evidence suggests that soft contracts substitute for the
vertically integrated structures that allocated these risks in the “studio system” era. The
prevalence of soft contracting in Hollywood and other markets suggests an efficiency rationale
for the historical relaxation of formation requirements in contract law.

* Professor, Gould School of Law, University of Southern California. I am grateful for valuable suggestions
from Mark Weinstein and other participants at the USC Law School Faculty Workshop and the 2012 Annual
Conference of the International Society for New Institutional Economics, as well as conversations and
interviews with industry executives, producers, accountants and attorneys. I especially thank David Fierson of
Alcon Entertainment for bringing this paper’s subject to my attention and Jonathan Handel for extensive
discussions. For excellent research assistance, I thank Dmitri Gabrielov, Michael Hartman, Blake Horn,
Minku Kang, Omar Nourreldin,Vanessa Roman, and Lewis Stevenson. Comments are welcome at
[email protected].
 Draft February 7, 2013

“Moviemakers do lunch, not contracts” – Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski (Effects
Assoc., Inc. v. Cohen (908 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1990))

“Aren’t you people ever going to come in front of me with a signed contract?” 1

The Hollywood film industry2 regularly enters into significant commitments

under various species of incomplete agreements: oral communications, deal memoranda,
or draft agreements that are revised throughout a production and often remain unsigned.
These “unsigned deals” are supported by an uncertain threat of legal enforcement coupled
with some prospect of reputational liability. Hollywood’s loose transactional practices
challenge conventional expectations that an enforceable contract is a precondition for any
significant financial undertaking. Business lawyers usually make special efforts to
protect clients (and themselves) by avoiding the predicament of being potentially, but not
certainly, subject to legal liability. Hollywood contracting departs radically from this
prudent approach.
Existing explanations tend to attribute Hollywood’s contracting practices to the
proclivities of actors and other talent who have little appreciation of legal matters. But
these explanations are incompatible with the competitive repeat-play environment
populated by the sophisticated intermediaries who negotiate and execute transactions on
behalf of talent and their business counterparties in Hollywood. Consistent with this
environment, I account for Hollywood’s contracting practices as a tailored response to
two types of risks that are particularly salient in the film industry (and, generally, any
creative goods market). These are: (i) the project risk arising from uncertainty as to the
project’s likelihood of success or failure (the latter being the typical result); and (ii) the
holdup risk arising from the irrecoverable and sequential character of investments in a
film project. Transacting parties negotiate the degree of contractual formality as an
implicit term that proxies for the explicit allocation of those risks in an environment
characterized by high specification and enforcement costs, which reduces the efficacy of
formal contract, and unreliable reputation effects, which demands some recourse to

1
Statement reportedly made by presiding judge to Warner Brothers’ counsel in litigation involving
alleged breach of oral contract by Rodney Dangerfield (Schleimer 1998).
2
By “Hollywood”, I refer throughout to the film (and, where specified, the television) industry
based in Southern California, including the major film studios and the network of smaller entities that
transact with the studios.

2
 Draft February 7, 2013

formal contract.3 Each risk category “pulls on” contractual formality—which I assume
correlates positively with contractual enforceability—in opposite directions. Increasing
contractual formality reduces holdup risk by supplying legal sanctions to deter
opportunistic termination and renegotiation. Reducing contractual formality reduces
project risk by supplying an implicit termination and renegotiation option in response to
adverse information concerning the expected outcome. The result is what I call the “soft
contract”: a mix of legal and reputational governance situated between the standard
alternatives of short-term contracting governed solely or primarily by law and repeat-play
relationships governed solely or primarily by reputation.4
I focus on a segment of the film industry where unsigned deals are especially
prevalent: transactions between studios or other production entities5 and higher-value
talent (mostly, actors6 and directors), commonly known as “stars”. It might be wondered
why studios and stars do not use a simpler mechanism to protect against these risks. The
studio could bind talent to a long-term employment contract and shift all transactions
from the “market” to the “firm”. That would constrain the holdup behavior to which the
studio is exposed in single-project transactions with high-value talent and would enable
the studio, a risk-neutral and well-diversified entity, to efficiently insure talent, a risk-
averse and non-diversified individual, against the risk of failure on any individual project.
Hollywood mostly operated under this arrangement during the classical studio system
that prevailed from the 1920s until its dissolution in the late 1940s and the music industry

3
In a related contribution, Gil (2011) argues that distributors and exhibitors in the Spanish film
industry endogenously select the level of contractual formalization, including a hybrid contract consisting
of a formal agreement modified by an informal commitment to renegotiate, in order to elicit new
information to make ex post efficient adjustments. My argument differs in two respects: (i) I derive
formalization choices from a tradeoff between holdup risk and project risk; and (ii) I contemplate that
parties may select from a full range of formalization possibilities (and an associated range of likelihoods of
enforceability).
4
The concept of “soft contracts” draws on two foundational papers: (i) Goldberg (1976), who
analyzed the use of flexible contractual terms to structure the process of adjusting terms in response to new
information, and (ii) Klein (1996), who analyzed the interaction of reputational and legal enforcement in
constraining holdup behavior. Bozovic and Hadfield (2011) and Gilson, Sabel, and Scott (2010) address
these issues in the context of innovation markets.
5
As used herein, “studio” refers to either the small group of “major” studios that have a full range
of financing, distribution and production capacities or the larger group of independent production
companies that (i) only have production capacities and must seek distribution and financing elsewhere or
(ii) have some but limited in-house distribution and financing capacities (a “mini major” studio). Where
necessary, I distinguish between these specific types of entities.
6
Throughout I use the term “actor” to refer to both male and female performers.

3
 Draft February 7, 2013

continues to use a variant of this system. The dismantling of the studio system, and its
replacement by a disaggregated network of studios, talent agencies and independent
production companies, exposed the studio to increased holdup risk and talent to increased
project risk and necessitated an alternative transactional arrangement by which to secure
commitments in a fluid environment. The result is, in part, the transactional hybrid
represented by the soft contract.
Elucidating the economic logic behind Hollywood’s contracting practices yields
three contributions in increasing order of generality. First, this paper contributes to the
economic analysis of contracts in the film industry. Existing scholarship has analyzed
exhibition contracts (Gil 2011; De Vany and Walls 1996) and profit-sharing provisions in
talent contracts (Weinstein 1998; Chisholm 1997; Goldberg 1997). But there is little
scholarly treatment of other features of talent contracts or the interaction between talent
contracts and organizational structure. 7 Second, while scholars have derived contractual
and organizational structures from either holdup or uncertainty alone, this paper derives
those structures from a combined holdup and uncertainty problem.8 Third, and most
generally, this paper identifies how parties negotiate over contractual formality as a
“meta term” that allocates risk in environments where neither contract nor reputation nor
vertical integration provides an adequate governance structure. This framework
anticipates how parties negotiate levels of formalization as a mechanism by which to
tailor risk-allocations with respect to different counterparties, assets, and deal terms at the
lowest transaction cost.
Organization is as follows. In Part I, I describe the key economic costs and risks
of a film project. In Part II, I present data on the characteristics, incidence and
enforceability of soft contracts in Hollywood, based on formal law, field interviews, and
data collected from judicial opinions and the trade press from the early 20th century
through the present. In Part III, I provide an analytical framework that identifies the
circumstances in which soft contracting represents an efficient transactional option and
then apply that model to Hollywood contracting practices. In Part IV, I discuss how soft

7
There is a small descriptive literature in specialized law reviews and practitioner journals on
unsigned deals in the film industry. See Bogart (2004); McLaughlin (2001); Smith (2003); Bardach (1993);
Kari (1993).
8
I am aware of one prior contribution that derives transactional structures from a combined
uncertainty and holdup problem (Hanson 1995).

4
 Draft February 7, 2013

contracting may have displaced vertical integration as a risk-allocation mechanism in

Hollywood film production. In Part V, I discuss normative implications.

PART I: HOLLYWOOD ECONOMICS

Four features of the Hollywood film industry are especially salient from an
economic perspective: (i) the extreme risk of a film project; (ii) the longevity and
dominance of a small group of major studios; (iii) the persistence of the star vehicle in the
labor market for acting and directorial talent; and (iv) the complex set of multiple inputs
required to assemble and deliver a film to market.

A. Why Only Fools Invest in Movies

1. Extreme Uncertainty; Skewed Returns.

Any movie is akin to a gamble with long odds: a few hits succeed spectacularly
while the remainder consists of flops that generate meager or no profits. The disparity in
outcomes is dramatic. From 1984 through 1996 (for the U.S. and Canadian markets),
only 22% of releases were profitable; among the minority of profitable movies, 35%
earned 80% of total profits; and, in the aggregate, 6.3% of all movies earned 80% of total
profits (De Vany and Walls 2009).9 No known metric exists by which to predict the
likelihood of success or failure of a given film (De Vany 2004). This is sometimes
known as the “nobody knows” property.10

2. High Stakes.
A substantial investment is typically at stake. As of 2007, the Motion Picture
Association of America reported that a major studio film had an average production and
distribution cost11 of $106.7 million (Motion Picture Association of America 2008). The

9
More recent evidence finds even more extreme outcomes: Standard & Poor’s (2007) reports that
approximately one in ten releases cover production costs.
10
The phrase is derived from a statement by screenwriter William Goldwyn: “Nobody knows
anything –Not one person in the entire motion picture industry knows for a certainty what’s going to work”
(Goldman 1983, p. 39).
11
In industry terminology, this refers to both the “negative cost” (the cost of production) and “prints
and ads” (aka “P&A”), which includes primarily the costs of advertising and making prints for theatrical
exhibition.

5
 Draft February 7, 2013

largest blockbuster films have production and distribution budgets as high as $300
million (for example, John Carter and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End, major
feature films released in 2012).

3. Irrecoverable Investments.
A film project proceeds along an extended timeline starting with idea conception
and running through release at the box office.12 At various points on the timeline, parties
must make “specific” investments—that is, investments that have a lower value in any
alternative use—prior to having any reliable information as to the likely commercial
outcome. Absent reputational or legal constraints, these specific investments inherently
trigger exposure to holdup behavior by counterparties.

4. Multiple Inputs.
A film project combines goods and services supplied by hundreds or even
thousands of different entities and individuals. The core inputs include: (i) financing; (ii)
production; (iii) talent; (iv) craft and other technical personnel; (v) distribution; (vi)
theatrical exhibition; and (vii) post-release distribution (e.g., home video, internet,
television). These inputs can be sourced either internally within a single firm or
externally through the market. In Hollywood’s current industrial structure, external
market-based sourcing predominates and is universally the case with respect to talent.
This structure is depicted graphically below.

12
Estimates vary: 12-to-18 months after a film is “greenlit” (that is, definitively approved) for
production (Ferrari and Rudd 2006, p.15); or 12-to-24 months from development (Cones 1997, p.141).
Note that development time can last far longer for projects that are “placed on hold”. I thank Jonathan
Handel for bringing this to my attention.

6
 Draft February 7, 2013

Financing Production Entity (studio “Above-the-Line” talent

Entities (studio, or independent) (actors, writers,
lenders, directors)
investors)
“Below-the-Line” talent
= external Distribution Entity (studio) (craft and other
supply personnel)

= internal
supply Post-theatrical
Theatrical Exhibition
distribution

Figure I: Transactional Structure of a Film Project

B. Why Studios Exist: The Inevitability of Scale

Since the start of Hollywood, a small group of major studios have held roughly
consistent market shares. In 2011, the six major studios (Sony Pictures, 20th Century
Fox, Walt Disney, Paramount, Warner Bros. and Universal) accounted for 81.2% of gross
domestic box office revenues (Subers 2012); in 1939, five major studios and three
smaller studios released 85% of the feature films released that year (Huetting 1944, p.
87). The scale and scope of the Hollywood studio facilitate funding the costs, and
mitigating the risks, of film production. A Hollywood studio does not primarily “make
movies”; rather, it is primarily a vehicle for coordinating the inputs required to assemble
a film project and financing, promoting and distributing films produced by internal
production divisions and independent production entities. By holding a diversified
portfolio of projects and maintaining a library of past successes, the studio can generate a
sufficient number of “hits” and revenue streams to make up for losses on the far greater
number of “flops”. Today all the major studios are subsidiaries of media or industrial
conglomerates (or, in the case of Disney, is a media and entertainment conglomerate)13,
which can use an additional pool of products and services, including a rich library of
television programs, music and other creative properties, to further diversify project-
specific risk. For the same reason, even critically successful independent production

13
Current ownership structures are as follows: Sony Pictures is controlled by Sony; Universal is
controlled by Comcast and General Electric; Paramount is controlled by Viacom; Fox is controlled by
News Corp.; Warner Bros. is controlled by Time Warner.

7
 Draft February 7, 2013

companies face chronic financial difficulties and often declare insolvency or are acquired
by a major studio (Selz et al. 2009, §§1:8; 2:3; Boyle 2004, p. 176).

C. Star Power
The star vehicle has been a consistent feature of the movie industry over virtually
its entire history (Kindem 1982, p. 79). This feature can be derived from two sources: (i)
high-quality, low-cost reproduction technologies create “winner-take-all” effects that
disproportionately drive market rents to the most highly-valued performers (Rosen 1981);
and (ii) consumers mitigate consumption risk by using a star as an imperfect indicator of
movie quality, which drives producers, distributors, and financiers to use that same
variable as a proxy for a film’s likelihood of success.14 Both factors explain why major
feature films typically cannot be financed without a “bankable” star cast or director and
why industry participants closely follow rankings of star value.15 Actors and directors in
the upper echelon of those rankings represent a scarce asset for which studios compete
vigorously while all others are virtually a commodity good. For 2010, the Bureau of
Labor Statistics estimates that, of the nearly 100,000 members of the Screen Actors Guild
(the actors’ union), only about 50 earned extraordinarily high incomes, while most others
earned meager salaries and were unemployed for long periods of time (U.S. Department
of Labor 2009). Other evidence confirms this extreme skew in talent’s fortunes. For the
period 1993-95, only 58 directors directed more than one feature film released by a major
studio and only three persons directed at least three such films (Zuckerman 2004); for
that same period, 79.5% of all actors who acted in any film only acted in one film
(Zuckerman 2004); and, for the period 1995-2001, only 30 actors appeared in two or

14
The extent to which the presence of a star improves the likelihood of a successful release remains
unresolved. Using a sample of 2000 films released from 1984 to 1996, De Vany (2004, §§ 4.3.2, 4.5.1,
4.5.2) finds that, on average, a star significantly increases a movie’s higher least revenue (that is, a star
constrains the lower tail portion of the revenue distribution) and slightly increases a movie’s chance of
making a profit, in each case relative to a movie without a star. This is consistent with findings that actors
positively impact opening performance (Elberse 2007, p.120), as well as popular observations in
Hollywood that “stars help the movie to open”.
15
Recently released rankings include: the “Ulmer Scale”, a list of the industry’s top 1400 actors
ranked by “bankability” (defined as the ability to raise “100% or majority financing” for a movie) (Ulmer
2010); the Internet Movie Database’s “StarMeter” list (based on the search behavior of users of the
“IMDb.com” website, a leading online source of information in the film industry) (IMDb.com 2012a);
Esquire’s “Box Office Power” list (based on box office revenues, as weighted by various criteria) (Shepatin
2008); and Forbes’ “Star Currency” list (based on industry survey) (Forbes 2012).

8
 Draft February 7, 2013

more hit films (defined as a film that grossed $100 million or more) (De Vany 2004, §
11.6).

PART II: HOLLYWOOD CONTRACTING

Scholars have observed (and business lawyers would not be surprised to learn) that
parties use strategic ambiguity in drafting contracts (Choi & Triantis 2010, Geis 2007).
Other scholars have identified settings in which parties appear to deliberately use legally
unenforceable documentation (Charny 1990; Boot, Greenbaum, and Thakor 1993; Scott
2003; Mann 2000; Macaulay 1963) or in which parties enter into preliminary agreements
that set forth some, but not all, of the terms of a proposed transaction (Schwartz & Scott
2007; Ben-Shahar 2004). But scholars have not observed that parties sometimes use
strategic ambiguity with respect to the existence of a contract itself.16 Standard business
law practice takes every measure to avoid this predicament.17 Certainly, operating in a
gray area of potentially enforceable agreements would appear to be imprudent for both
client and attorney. Yet Hollywood appears to feel otherwise.

A. Conventional Contracting
The timeline of a conventional transaction is depicted below. First, after some initial
discussion, the parties enter into a preliminary agreement, often called a “memorandum
of understanding” or “letter of intent”, which describes the basic terms of the proposed
transaction and usually states that the document is non-binding.18 Negotiation of detailed
terms and legal and financial diligence then proceed simultaneously. If those processes
advance, the parties negotiate, draft and execute a package of final agreements and
proceed to closing of the deal (in a discrete transaction) or other forms of performance (in
a “relationship” transaction). In this case, there is a clear demarcation between the
negotiation period, in which there is no risk of contractual liability, and the performance
period, in which contractual liability clearly operates. Once the deal is executed, parties
16
The possibility that parties may deliberately choose ambiguous levels of legal enforceability is
mentioned in passing in Scott (2003 n.172).
17
Personal experience as a corporate attorney. Perillo (1994, p. 287) agrees: “[w]ithin the common
law system, most legal professionals staunchly cling to the supreme value of certainty of result”).
18
Exceptions to the “no liability” disclaimers are sometimes made with respect to confidentiality
provisions or, in an acquisition transaction, “no shop” provisions barring the target firm from seeking bids
from other acquirors. For further discussion, see Lake and Draetta (1994, pp. 15-16).

9
 Draft February 7, 2013

commence performance under the assurance that all subsequent investments are governed
by contractual terms that can be enforced in court.

No deal
Negotiation Negotiation

Letter of intent with non- Agreement Closing

binding disclaimer signed (performance)

Figure II: The Conventional Deal

B. Hollywood Contracting

1. The Contracting Problem

The multiple inputs, severe uncertainty and extended timing of a film project give rise
to a chicken-and-egg problem. The studio or outside investor is not willing to commit
until the star is signed up, the star is not willing to commit until the investor is signed up,
and the distributor is not willing to commit until both the star and investor are signed up,
and so on . . .19 To address this problem, Hollywood has developed a rich menu of time-
limited option contracts that finely condition performance obligations on the occurrence
of specified triggering events (for a full review, see Moore 2011). In certain projects (or,
more precisely, certain elements of a film project), Hollywood deviates from these
conventional risk-shifting mechanisms. Rather than conditioning performance on
execution of a contract, or staging performance on the basis of conditions precedent, it
adopts a cruder device: studio and talent commence performance under imperfectly
specified obligations set forth in an imprecise mix of oral communications, email
exchanges, and unsigned written instruments. In these “unsigned deals”, the point at
which legal liability commences (or ends) is never entirely clear.

19
Brouwer & Wright (1990, p.50) note that studios are wary of committing to a movie until the
talent package has been fully assembled; Cleve (2000, p.108) notes that producers avoid entering into
contracts that “lock them into fixed starting dates” for as long as possible.

10
 Draft February 7, 2013

2. The Unsigned Deal

The typical sequence of an “unsigned deal” transaction between a studio and a star
actor is depicted below. A Daily Variety article nicely summarizes this sequence: (i) an
oral agreement is made by an actor’s agent or attorney with the studio; (ii) a deal memo is
exchanged; (iii) “reams of paperwork” (meaning, draft longform agreements) are
exchanged outlining the major points; and, in a rare case, (iv) a “longform agreement is
signed by both sides” (Daily Variety 1997). As shown, prior to the start of shooting
(what entertainment lawyers call “principal photography”), studios generally insist that
talent execute a “certificate of engagement” assigning to the studio all intellectual
property rights in talent’s contribution to the project (Studio Counsel Interviews II, III;
Entertainment Attorney Interviews I, III, IV; Studio Executive Interview). Thereafter
three possible outcomes may then result: (i) the contract is executed during shooting
(Studio Counsel Interview III; Studio Executive Interview); (ii) the contract is executed
after shooting has been completed (Moore 2011, pp. viii, 17; Litwak 1994, p.161;
Dossick 1999; Cleve 2000, p.109; Entertainment Attorney Interview I; Studio Executive
Interview); or (iii) the contract is continuously negotiated (a so-called “creeping contract”
(Dossick 1999)) but is never executed and remains in draft form (Studio Counsel
Interview I; Mini Major Studio Counsel Interview; Studio Executive Interview;
Entertainment Attorney Interview IV).

Agreement signed during

Negotiation shooting
Negotiation
Agreement signed after
shooting
Principal
photography Agreement never signed
“Deal Memo” (or other (performance)
short-form document)
Certificate of engagement

Figure III: The “Unsigned Deal”

11
 Draft February 7, 2013

3. Evidence
To understand more precisely the extent to which soft contracting practices are used
in the film industry, I surveyed the practitioner and business literature, reviewed the
digital archives of Variety, one of the industry’s two leading trade journals, conducted a
comprehensive survey of “unsigned deal” litigation, and conducted interviews with
different types of legal and business practitioners in the field.20 Much of the trade and
practitioner commentary and most interviewees stated that unsigned deals are widespread
throughout the industry, including deals between studios and individual producers
(Bogart 2004, p.360; Rapportoni (1991); Entertainment Attorney Interview III)21;
independent production companies and studio-distributors (Cones 1997, p. 35;
Entertainment Attorney Interview II); independent production companies and foreign
distributors (Coudert Brothers LLP 1998); talent and agents (Entertainment Attorney
Interview I); and talent and managers (Cestero 2010). In a brief filed by Warner Bros. in
a federal appeals court litigation, the studio asserted that “many business deals are never
formalized” in the entertainment industry and it is “standard” for parties to commence
performance without a formalized contract (Warner Bros. 2012, pp. 3, 28-29). Consistent
with that assertion, a court once observed: “Motion picture development and production
operates in a unique business universe . . . Multi-million dollar film projects are
developed and completed (or cancelled) on the basis of loose, artistic understandings
without written, signed contracts” (Stuart 1982).
The bulk of the evidence suggests that unsigned instruments are used most regularly
with respect to the creative elements of a film project while conventional signed
instruments are used with respect to the financing and other non-creative elements of a
film project.22 On the “creative side”, trade commentary and interviewee reports confirm
that unsigned deals are used most consistently in the case of studio/talent transactions

20
Interviewees included: (i) three senior law firm partners and a senior law firm counsel with
entertainment law practices; (ii) three current or former in-house counsel at two major Hollywood studios;
and (iii) a “business affairs” executive at another major Hollywood studio and a business affairs executive
at a major independent studio. For a full list of all interviews, see “References—Interviews”.
21
In my research of the Variety archives, this seems to be a frequent source of contract formation
disputes.
22
Conversation with former chief executive officer of a major motion picture studio, Nov. 20, 2012,
Los Angeles (stating that contracts in film are “never” signed, except for distribution, financing, and other
“operational” agreements, and that entire transactions are executed on the basis of deal memos or sequence
of letters exchanged among attorneys).

12
 Draft February 7, 2013

(Entertainment Attorney Interview II; Mini-Major Studio Counsel Interview; Studio

Counsel Interview II) and, in particular, in deals involving higher-value talent—that is,
stars (Studio Counsel Interviews I, III; Studio Executive Interview; Kravit, p197).23 For
that reason, I focus on that particular transactional category in the remainder of my
analysis.
Evidence produced in litigations indicates that leading actors and directors regularly
commit to, and often complete, a movie without having entered into a signed contract. 24
Consistent with that evidence, interviewees reported that studio/star transactions are often
or sometimes not memorialized in fully-negotiated long-form documentation and, for part
or all of the transactional timeline, proceed on the basis of some combination of oral
commitments, short deal memos (Entertainment Attorney Interview II; Bogart 2004,
p.363), draft long-form agreements (Studio Executive Interview), or email exchanges or
other informal communication (Mini-Major Studio Counsel Interview; Studio Counsel
Interviews II, III; Entertainment Attorney Interviews II, IV).25 In-house counsel reported
that the studio will typically “green light” (that is, finally approve) a project based on
incompletely specified communications with talent attorneys and a mutual understanding
to subsequently negotiate and draft a fully executed long-form agreement (Studio
Counsel Interview III). An executive reported that the studio sometimes commences
shooting without a signed agreement but is careful to identify in its comments to
outstanding long-form drafts the points that it considers to be unresolved (Studio
Executive Interview). In other cases, studio lawyers send a “reliance letter” indicating

23
In Daily Variety (1997), the author notes that entertainment lawyers reported that “contracts with
major stars are never signed”.
24
In an unsigned deal litigation between RKO Studios (then a major studio) and an actress, a witness
for the studio, a studio executive, reported that “the industry deals largely in oral deals” and that contracts
are usually signed after a film is completed or, in rarer cases, never signed at all (Daily Variety 1952b). In
a litigation between Kim Basinger (then a star actress) and an independent production company, the court
found that she had acted in all but two of her previous nine films without a signed contract (in Basinger v.
Main Line Productions, 1994 WL 814244 [Cal.App. 2 Dist. 1994]). The court observed that “film industry
contracts are frequently oral agreements based on unsigned ‘deal memos.’” See id. In a litigation between
Francis Ford Coppola and Warner Bros., the court found that Coppola, a world-famous director, had not
entered into a signed contract in directing two previous films for the studio (in Coppola v. Warner Bros.,
Appellate No. B126903 [Mar. 26, 2001][unpublished decision]).
25
For further discussion, see Litwak (1994), pp. 160-61; Biederman et al. §2.4. Another interviewee
described the process in more detail. The talent attorney initially agrees on a deal with the studio’s
“business affairs” department, which sends a “deal memo” to the agent (but does not ask for a signature)
and to the studio’s legal affairs department, which is then instructed to “work out” a long-form agreement
with the talent’s attorney (Entertainment Attorney Interview I).

13
 Draft February 7, 2013

that an agreement had been reached based on the last negotiation draft (and that the
negotiator’s client is relying on that belief), which may in turn prompt a “counter-reliance
letter” from the talent’s attorney (Dossick 1999; Major Studio Counsel Interview III;
Entertainment Attorney Interview I). In the case of a successful release, these dueling
drafts can even play a role in post-production accounting disputes over contingent
compensation (known in the industry as “participation rights”) provisions—in fact, some
Los Angeles auditing firms specialize in this practice.26

C. Are Soft Contracts Enforceable?

Do Hollywood’s soft contracts give rise to a meaningful threat of legal liability?
The short answer: yes. As a matter of California and New York law (the two most
relevant jurisdictions), unsigned deals give rise to some prospect of contractual or other
liability. As compared to a fully specified and executed long-form document, however,
these forms of agreement impose liability with reduced certainty.

1. Indefiniteness Doctrine
Contractual enforceability requires satisfaction of two elements: (i) the exchange
of consideration; and (ii) mutual agreement on sufficiently definite terms. The second
element is at issue in the soft contracting context. Historically courts have required
mutual agreement over all essential terms. On that basis, courts sometimes declined to
enforce “agreements to agree” or other preliminary or incompletely specified agreements
(Farnsworth 1987, pp. 220-21). Current law is more equivocal. Courts are sometimes
willing to “fill in gaps” based on a reasonableness criterion, which restores contractual
completeness and can then support the standard award of expectation damages. Far less
frequently, courts may imply an agreement to negotiate in good faith27 or, even if
mutuality is not satisfied, may award reduced damages on equitable grounds such as
promissory estoppel or unjust enrichment. Sophisticated parties can eliminate exposure
26
Discussion with accountant specializing in the entertainment industry, Los Angeles, September
2011. The absence of a signed agreement sometimes leads to litigation concerning the calculation of “net
profit” compensation. See Hermits Glen Prods. v. 20th Century Fox, L.A. Sup. Ct. Case No. BC 147241
(Mar. 29, 1996) (writer/producer of film White Men Can’t Jump sued studio over alleged breach of oral
agreement that he would receive a percentage of the gross receipts).
27
For the leading case, see Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n of Am. v. Tribune Co. (670 F. Supp. 491
[S.D.N.Y. 1987]).

14
 Draft February 7, 2013

to these volatile sources of precontractual and extracontractual liability by stating up-

front that any preliminary communications are non-binding. This simple prophylactic is
standard practice in other business settings (Lake and Draetta 1994, pp. 192-93; Johnston
1999, pp. 404, 478) and proves effective when tested in litigation.28 But this simple
precaution is not commonly undertaken in studio/talent transactions. Effectively,
entertainment lawyers choose not to opt out of a regime that can impose liability by the
unpredictable fiat of a judge or jury.

2. Writing Requirement
As a matter of common law, oral agreements are enforceable so long as the
consideration and mutuality requirements are satisfied. State and federal statutes of
frauds sometimes impose an additional writing requirement. In California and New
York, any contract that cannot be performed within one year of its “making” must be in
writing and executed by the party against whom enforcement is sought (Calif. Civ. Code,
§ 1624(a)(1); N.Y. Gen. Obligations Law, § 5-701). A writing is useful to a studio-
plaintiff under California law, which provides that negative injunctive relief is only
available in the case of personal services contracts that meet the writing requirement
(Calif. Civ. Code § 3423). Federal law also provides that any exclusive transfer of a
copyright interest must be in writing to be valid (17 U.S.C. § 204(a)).29

3. Evidence: Enforcing Soft Contracts

It now remains to consider the extent to which soft contracts in the entertainment
industry are likely to give rise to legal liability as an effective matter. This is a critical
point. Without some reasonable anticipation of being held enforceable, soft contracts

28
For examples, see: Rennick HHC v. Care Inc. (9th Cir. [1996]) (declining to enforce a “handshake”
deal because other written communications included disclaimers of any legal liability prior to execution of
a final written agreement); R.D. Group, Inc. v. Horn & Hardart, Co. (751 F.2d 69, 74 [1984]) (refusing to
enforce an agreement that included all material terms, because it stated that the parties did not intend any
legal liability until the execution of a complete written agreement).
29
Given that requirement, it might be wondered why studios or other production companies would
ever agree to undertake a project on an unsigned basis, which would expose the studio to “legal holdup” by
talent that asserted a copyright interest in some portion of a film release. The answer is that they don’t. As
shown in Figure III above, typically the studio obtains a certificate of engagement from an actor or director
(known as a certificate of authorship in the case of a screenwriter) even if the longform agreement remains
unsigned.

15
 Draft February 7, 2013

would exert no deterrent force, would hold no settlement value for a potential plaintiff,
and would largely overlap with certainly unenforceable reputational agreements.
Without some reasonable anticipation of not being held enforceable, soft contracts would
largely overlap with certainly enforceable formal agreements.

a. Litigation Behavior
It is difficult to assess precisely the extent to which studios and talent seek to
enforce soft contracts, either formally or informally. To gain some limited insight into
litigation behavior, I30 surveyed the archives of Variety and (as described in greater detail
below) the Westlaw and Lexis case law databases for reports of contract formation
disputes between a studio (including an independent production entity) and talent
(meaning, an actor, director or writer).31 For the entire period starting with the inception
of the Hollywood film industry through the present, a total of 67 reported “unsigned
deal” disputes were identified. All but two arose after the end of the studio system
(provisionally dated for this purpose as of 1947) and, for the period from 1947 through
December 2012, there is on average slightly more than one reported talent/studio lawsuit
per year of this type. While both the total number of informal disputes and the total
number of actual and proposed film projects is unknown, it can be safely asserted that
studio or talent bear some legal exposure as a result of terminating involvement in a
project with respect to which the parties had expressed a sufficiently firm commitment.

b.1. Case Law Survey -- Sample; Methodology.

I used the Lexis-Nexis and Westlaw case law databases to identify all reported
decisions for the entire period from the date of each database’s inception32 through
December 2012 in all federal courts and all New York or California state courts that
involve disputes concerning the enforceability of oral agreements, deal memoranda, or

30
I and research assistants identified all relevant cases or press reports following my instruction. I
then reviewed the identified cases and reports to confirm relevance.
31
For this purpose, I targeted disputes over the existence of a legally binding agreement between
studio and talent, but excluding disputes over binding agreement with respect to a particular term of an
agreement that the parties otherwise recognized as having been duly formed.
32
As a practical matter, the search could obviously only have located cases since the start of the
commercial film industry in the United States. The first commercial motion picture exhibition in the
United States took place in 1894.

16
 Draft February 7, 2013

other incompletely specified agreements relating to a film or television project.33

Additionally, I identified all reported decisions involving the same fact pattern for the 32-
year period from January 1980 through December 2012 in state courts other than New
York and California. 34 Appendix A provides a complete list of all identified cases, a
summary of relevant facts and holdings, and database scope.

b.2. Case Law Survey -- Results

Not surprisingly, a fully-litigated case in this context is an infrequent occurrence:
only 37 decisions were identified for the entire period through December 2012 (all but
two cases having occurred since 1947, which coincides approximately with the end of the
“studio system”). Of the 37 cases, the courts declined to enforce the claimed contract in
27 cases – that is, almost 73% of the time. Assuming that (i) more fully specified or
more completely executed agreements are enforceable at a substantially higher likelihood
(that is, substantially greater than 27% of the time), and (ii) less fully specified or less
completely executed agreements are enforceable at a substantially lower likelihood (that
is, substantially smaller than 27% of the time), then a soft contract represents a
meaningful transactional alternative between the options of a purely formal or purely

33
I included cases relating to the television industry in this survey on the assumption that judicial
rulings concerning unsigned deals in television would influence expectations of parties transacting with
respect to a film project. Note that I excluded cases involving “idea submission” disputes, usually
involving claims by a writer or producer that a network, studio or other production company used an idea
“pitched” to the network or studio.
34
It would be useful to learn whether any such disputes are resolved by arbitration (the typical
dispute-resolution procedure in Hollywood). I am doubtful, however, whether this would shed significant
additional information. First, my trade press review only identified a single reported contract formation
dispute between studio and talent that was resolved by arbitration (App. A). Second, it is not clear that
arbitration is typically available in contract formation disputes between studio/talent. The “Basic
Agreement”, which governs relationships between talent and any production entity that is a signatory to the
collective bargaining agreement with the Screen Actors’ Guild (“SAG”, now known as “SAG-AFTRA”),
subjects all disputes between those parties to mandatory arbitration and, in the case of performers who earn
below a certain amount, identifies criteria by which to determine when a performer is deemed to be
“definitely engaged” with a production. These largely follow the mutual assent requirements of the
common law of contract except that the Agreement does provide that a performer is engaged if a producer
delivers an unsigned contract to the performer and the performer executes it and returns it by the next
business day (Producer-Screen Actors Guild Agreement 2005, Minimum Freelance Contract, Sch. B.,
Section 6.A). In the case of a document that is signed by neither party, it is not clear that this Agreement
would apply and, with respect to performers earning larger amounts, there is no provision that addresses
contract formation.

17
 Draft February 7, 2013

informal contract.35 While the small sample size limits the ability to draw any definitive
conclusions, it is supportive of the view that soft contracts offer a meaningful but
insecure source of legal liability. The distribution of outcomes, and underlying grounds,
are summarized below.

Table I: Final Judicial Determinations Involving “Contract Formation” Issues in

Film and Television Projects

Grounds for Non-Enforcement

Outcome Total Oral State Federal Indefinite-
Agmt statute of statute of ness
Only frauds frauds

Enforce 10 8
Not Enforce 27 11 3 7 13

b.3. Case Law Survey -- Evaluation

Since at least the late 1940s, California courts have held that legal enforcement
can—but will not certainly be—triggered by the typical Hollywood contracting sequence:
“Handshake, Start Production and (Maybe) Work Out the Details Later”. In a 1948
decision involving an alleged oral agreement between a director and a studio, a California
court observed that the fact that a “formal written agreement to the same effect is to be
prepared and signed does not alter the binding validity of the oral agreement” (in
Columbia Pictures Corp. v. De Toth (87 Cal. App. 2d 620, 629 [1948]). This principle
sometimes prevails. In a 1994 decision involving Kim Basinger (then considered star
talent) and an independent studio, a jury found that Basinger had entered into a binding
personal services contract based on oral conversations, an unsigned deal memo and five
drafts of a long-form agreement (Basinger v. Main Line Productions, 1994 WL 814244
[Cal.App. 2 Dist. 1994]). However, entering into a fully executed and highly specified
long-form agreement would support greater enforceability relative to any oral or written

35
This assumes that plaintiffs’ success rates with respect to “contract formation” issues in breach-of-
contract litigation involving fully-executed agreements are significantly greater than 27%. That seems a
reasonable assumption in any well-functioning system of private law.

18
 Draft February 7, 2013

agreement that is unexecuted or exhibits a lower degree of specificity. That assertion is

supported by the case law survey described above: in more than 70% of the sample of
identified cases, courts declined to enforce insufficiently formalized agreements. A
recent example is provided by a 1998 litigation between the director, Francis Ford
Coppola, and Warner Bros., in which the court refused to recognize a purported
agreement involving employment as a director in a proposed film project (Coppola et al.
v. Warner Bros., Inc. (L.A. Sup. Ct., Case No. BC 135198 [1998])). Parties that elect to
participate in transactions under incompletely specified agreements operate in a “no
man’s land” that is neither fully within nor fully outside contract law. In a business
where nobody knows if a film will succeed (and most ultimately do not), it is often the
case that nobody knows if a particular transaction is being undertaken pursuant to a
legally enforceable contract.

III. AN ECONOMIC ACCOUNT

In this Part, I provide an economic rationale why studio and talent sometimes prefer
ambiguously enforceable over certainly unenforceable or certainly enforceable
agreements when entering into a film project. Soft contracting practices are a prudent
response to a challenging environment characterized by three major features: (i) high
holdup risk and project risk, (ii) high specification and enforcement costs, which reduce
the efficacy of formal contract; and (iii) positive but weak reputational constraints, which
demand some recourse to formal contract. To construct this argument, I proceed in three
stages: (i) I describe and critique existing explanations for Hollywood’s use of soft
contracts; (ii) I develop an analytical framework that identifies the transactional
parameters under which parties will rationally elect soft contracting over hard
contracting; and (iii) I apply that model to Hollywood’s soft contracting practices.

A. Existing Explanations
Existing explanations for Hollywood’s soft contracting practices include: (i)
ignorance or recklessness; (ii) timing pressures to commit rapidly to a transaction; and
(iii) reputational pressures. Ignorance or recklessness is implausible: both studios and
talent are represented by experienced agents, lawyers and other advisors who operate in a

19
 Draft February 7, 2013

competitive market. Timing explanations are unpersuasive for several reasons: (i)
sophisticated law firms routinely prepare complex agreements for high-stakes
transactions in other fields in a matter of days36; (ii) entertainment lawyers draft and
negotiate highly specified contracts to govern financing and other transactions; (iii)
entertainment lawyers have access to contract templates that often do not require
considerable modification (Entertainment Attorney Interview I); and (iv) timing
considerations would not bar converting unsigned deals into executed long-form
documents during the course of production. Reputational factors, however, have
considerable merit in a relationship-based industry such as Hollywood. This is the
explanation provided for the use of legally unenforceable contracts observed in other
settings (Charny 1990; Boot, Greenbaum, and Thakor 1993; Mann 2000; Scott 2003;
Macaulay 1964) and will play an important role in the ensuing analysis. But an entirely
reputation-based explanation falsely anticipates that Hollywood would avoid the expense
of contractual documentation altogether or, as is done in more conventional business
settings, incur the small cost of crafting a disclaimer to avoid exposure to legal liability.
A mixed explanation that integrates the deterrent force of both legal and reputational
sanctions is therefore required.

B. Theory: The Rationality of Soft Contracts

1. Contract Risks
Any interparty transaction that does not occur simultaneously, has an uncertain
outcome, and involves transaction-specific investments operates under two fundamental
risks: project risk and holdup risk. Both risks are well-known. Project risk37 refers to
the risk that a transaction will result in an outcome that is inferior as compared to other
possible uses of a party’s resources during the relevant time period. Holdup risk refers to
a party’s ability to expropriate the value of nonsalvageable investments—that is,
investments having no or lesser value in another use—made by another party in a joint
project. Once one party has made an irrecoverable sunk investment, the non-investing

36
Based on author’s experience as a corporate lawyer.
37
Other equivalent terms are investment risk, natural risk, or environmental risk.

20
 Draft February 7, 2013

party can hold up the investing party by refusing to perform, subject to renegotiation that
adjusts terms to the advantage of the non-investing party. The investing party will accede
to any demand that leaves it better off relative to discontinuance of the project.

2. The Conventional Solution: Hard Contracts

Any formal contract provides some aggregate level of protection against project
risk and holdup risk. Critically, those two risk categories demand drafting solutions that
run in opposite directions: minimizing project risk usually demands more contractual
flexibility; minimizing holdup risk usually demands less.38 Flexible excuse provisions
(for example, the walkaway right in an acquisition transaction, cost escalator clauses in
long-term supply contracts or force majeure provisions) protect against project risk by
providing opportunities to adjust, terminate or renegotiate contractual obligations in
response to information concerning the expected value of the existing project as
compared to alternative opportunities. This can be illustrated by omission: in the well-
known case of Alaska Packers Ass’n v. Domenico (117 F.99) (9th Cir. 1902), the contract
failed to protect the plaintiffs-fishermen from an effective reduction in compensation due
to an unexpected degradation in the quality of the fishing equipment. Conversely, rigid
obligational provisions (for example, disclaimers of any impossibility defense or fixed-
price formulas) protect against holdup risk by making it difficult to reopen agreed-upon
terms in response to changed circumstances—in the best (but unobtainable) case, a
provision that preemptively forbids modifications to the original contract.39 It is
precisely for that reason that the Alaska Packers court, following the common law
“preexisting duty” rule, declined to uphold the plaintiffs’ claim under a modified contract
agreed-upon in the absence of additional consideration being paid to the employer, which
had made a large specific investment in a vessel and processing facility for the season.
In an ideal world of zero forecasting and specification costs, transacting parties
use formal contract to efficiently allocate project risk and holdup risk through some

38
For a similar assumption, see Athias and Saussier (2010); Masten and Crocker (1991). Note that
the use of formal contract as a device to address holdup risk has been empirically established. For
example, Lyons (1994) finds that contractors are more likely to enter into formal contracts, rather than
informal agreements, where there are significant relationship-specific investments.
39
This is an unobtainable objective because even a provision banning modification can itself be
waived by the contracting parties.

21
 Draft February 7, 2013

agreed-upon combination of excuse and obligational provisions. “Tighter” contracts in

which obligational provisions predominate protect parties against holdup risk at the price
of increased exposure to project risk; “looser” contracts in which excuse provisions
predominate protect parties against project risk at the price of increased exposure to
holdup risk. In a real world of positive forecasting and specification costs, any actual
contract is prone to exhibit excessive or insufficient rigidity relative to the hypothetical
efficient contract design. In particular, two design errors can be expected to occur. First,
the parties may enter into an excessively rigid contract that overprotects against holdup
risk, and underprotects against project risk, by failing to provide a sufficiently generous
termination right or some other mechanism for adjusting terms in light of changed
circumstances.40 Second, the parties may enter into an excessively flexible contract that
underprotects against holdup risk, and overprotects against project risk, by providing an
overly generous termination right that shifts the costs of unforeseen contingencies to one
party in a manner inconsistent with initial expectations.
Even implausibly assuming that parties could avoid these design errors, enforcement
obstacles inherently limit the practical force of any formal contract. There are three
well-known reasons. First, litigation costs often compel parties to rationally decline to
take action against a counterparty that breaches a legally binding contract. By
anticipation, contracting parties that are immune to reputation effects regularly withhold
performance in exchange for increased payment or other terms. Second, judicial error
induces any breaching party to seek to avoid liability by using legal strategies that can
induce misunderstanding or delay by the adjudicating party. These obfuscatory strategies
are particularly effective in transactions involving performance actions (such as “best
efforts”) or subjective metrics (“material adverse effects”) that are not susceptible to fact-

40
It might be objected that even the most rigid contracts cannot block mutually efficient adjustments
in response to changed circumstances since parties will rationally ignore existing terms in order to extract
mutual gains from renegotiating an existing agreement in favor of a more efficient arrangement—which
will either reprice the project (if the project will then still result in a mutual net gain) or terminate it (if the
project will always result in a mutual net loss). Nonetheless there remains a meaningful difference between
informal contracts and non-renegotiation-proof formal contracts. The reason is that renegotiation of any
certainly enforceable contract will inherently operate to the advantage of the party that is “accidentally”
favored by circumstances with a stronger negotiating position (Gilson, Sabel and Scott 2010). Moreover,
any such efficient ex post adjustment may be blocked by transaction costs (in particular, the costs of
bargaining over the distribution of any savings generated by a proposed adjustment), informational
asymmetries, strategic behavior, precedential considerations, agency costs, or other bargaining obstacles.
For further discussion, see Scott (1987), pp. 2010, 2019-2021, 2044-45.

22
 Draft February 7, 2013

based verification. Third, even assuming zero litigation costs, the non-breaching party
will still be unable to obtain full expectation damages if it cannot adequately demonstrate
lost profits, in which case damages will be limited to verifiable out-of-pocket reliance
costs or, even in the latter case, if the breaching party has no attachable assets. In all
these cases, a legally binding contract fails to exert the deterrent force that would
otherwise be expected in a world of frictionless dispute resolution.

3. The Unconventional Solution: Soft Contracts

Formal contract does not provide an entirely adequate solution to the holdup risk and
project risk inherent to any non-simultaneous transaction involving specific investments
and uncertain outcomes. Sophisticated repeat-players anticipate these deficiencies and
assess the relative cost and utility of alternative transactional instruments. Soft
contracting provides an intermediate solution that, under certain conditions, achieves a
superior expected outcome relative to a highly-formalized and fully enforceable “hard”
contract, which would rely entirely on contract law to govern parties’ behavior, or an
entirely unformalized and fully unenforceable “social” contract, which would rely
entirely on reputational forces to do so.

a. Contractual Formality as Risk Management

Legal and economic scholars, as well as contract law jurisprudence, divide
promissory expressions into those that are enforceable in contract and those that are not.
As a practical matter, however, contractual enforceability is more precisely viewed in
continuous terms as a probabilistic outcome the likelihood of which is a positive function
of contractual formality.41 Formally, this can be rendered as follows: E = f(F), where E
denotes the likelihood of being held enforceable in court (0 ≤ E ≤ 1), and F denotes the
level of formalization (0 ≤ F ≤ 1). Transacting parties select the value of F (and hence,
E) by investing more or less effort in formalization. Retaining a Wall Street law firm to
draft and negotiate a detailed acquisition agreement requires hundreds of expensive

41
Enforceability also requires the exchange of “consideration”. This is not much of an omission:
nominal values, or even nominal recitals of consideration, are usually considered sufficient to satisfy this
requirement. For a review of the state of the law, see 1464-Eight, Ltd. & Millis Mgmt. Corp. v. Gail Ann
Joppich (S. Ct. Tex. 2004).

23
 Draft February 7, 2013

attorney-hours, easily translating into tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal

fees but securing for the client an instrument with a high level of enforceability;
scribbling on a napkin in a Beverly Hills restaurant is virtually costless but results in a
low to moderate level of enforceability.

1
E

0 1
x* x F
Figure IV: Formalization and Enforceability

Let’s suppose that (i) x represents the level of formalization at which there is
complete certainty that a court will enforce the contract (E = 1), and (ii) at any point
below x, there is complete certainty that a court will not enforce the contract (E = 0). If
that were the case (as is conventionally assumed), then formalization effort would follow
the step function depicted by the dashed line in the Figure above: where F < x, all
formalization efforts are wasted since the likelihood of enforcement is zero; where F > x,
all further formalization efforts are wasted since there are no marginal gains in the
likelihood of enforcement. But this binary construction does not track contracting
practices in business environments like Hollywood where parties regularly select low to
moderate values of F. The continuous function shown above reflects this practice.
Provided there is some positive likelihood that courts will enforce contracts where F < x
(a reasonable assumption under current contract law), transacting parties will rationally
select values well below x (for example, F = x* as shown above) if the cost of an
incremental increase in formalization beyond that point would exceed the incremental
benefit in the form of increased enforceability. In any particular transaction, parties may
elect to invest greater resources and enter into a “high-F” commitment (denoted by x)

24
 Draft February 7, 2013

having a high degree of legal enforceability; or invest fewer resources and enter into a
“low-F” commitment (denoted by x*) having a low degree of legal enforceability.
This calculus is well-known in the economic analysis of contract interpretation,
which asserts that parties will rationally underinvest in specification efforts in order to
economize on the sum of specification costs ex ante plus dispute-resolution costs ex post
(Posner 2005). I take the marginalist approach to contractual specification to its logical
extreme. Parties may radically underinvest in specification efforts in order to endanger
contract formation and thereby generate an implicit termination option that is
exercisable at a certain cost. Exercise of the termination option is achieved by
withdrawing (or announcing withdrawal) from the project. Upon withdrawal, the
exercising party expects to pay an exercise price as follows: p = d + l, where d denotes
the expected damages award (or settlement payment in lieu of damages) and l denotes the
expected litigation and other dispute-resolution costs.42 The level of formalization
operates as a meta-term that calibrates the exercise price owing in the event of
termination: everything else being equal, low-F contracts (which have a low probability
of being enforced) result in lower damages and higher litigation costs on an expected
basis while high-F contracts have the opposite effect.43 To illustrate, suppose an actor
has made a “low-F” commitment to appear in a particular film: that is, he has entered into
an uncertainly enforceable commitment that implies a positive but discounted penalty in
case of termination.44 The absence of an entirely reliable legal instrument to secure that
commitment provides the actor with an implicit termination right that will be exercised
whenever the actor believes that gm > p, where gm denotes the actor’s expected marginal
net gains on an alternative project.45 At the same time, the presence of even an insecure

42
I am intentionally ignoring the reputational cost of exercising the implicit termination right. Later
I build reputation effects into the analysis.
43
At high levels of formalization, non-breaching parties are more likely to sue and can expect to
incur lower costs in demonstrating contract formation, which means that breaching parties expect to pay
higher amounts in order to avoid or halt litigation with a settlement payout. Conversely, at low levels of
formalization, breaching parties expect to incur lower expected monetary penalties (which approach zero in
the case of a purely informal commitment) and higher costs in demonstrating contract formation, which
means that breaching parties expect to pay lower amounts in order to avoid or halt litigation with a
settlement payout.
44
For convenience, the following discussion analyzes the performance/breach decision from the
perspective of talent. The same framework could be applied from the perspective of the studio.
45
More formally, gm = g2 – g1, where g1= the expected net gains on the existing project, and g2 = the
expected net gains on an alternative project.

25
 Draft February 7, 2013

legal instrument generates positive values for d and l, which together constitute the
expected exercise price, p, that induces talent to perform even within a certain range of
circumstances in which he anticipates marginal net gains by moving to an alternative
opportunity (that is, where gm > 0 but gm < p).
From the talent’s perspective, we can anticipate three outcomes under a soft
contract, as shown graphically below:

(i) Voluntary performance (gm < 0): Talent anticipates a net gain under the contract
and performs irrespective of any expected legal penalty.

(ii) Involuntary performance (0 < gm < gm*): Talent anticipates a net loss under the
contract but performs due to the expected damages payment and legal costs.

(iii) Termination (0 < gm > gm*): Talent anticipates a net loss and terminates to
capture incremental gains on an outside opportunity, even after taking into
account the expected damages payment and legal costs.

There is a fourth outcome, which will be common in practice. In lieu of terminating

participation in the project, the talent may extract a continuation payoff from the studio
equal to the difference between the contract price and the outside “market” price, less the
exercise price that the talent would otherwise expect to pay to terminate (i.e., the talent is
paid a settlement amount equal to gm – p).46 Effectively, the talent commits to perform
except in the case of sufficiently high-value outside opportunities, in which case the
talent will either (i) withhold performance, incur dispute-resolution costs and pay a
settlement amount to the studio, and then capture the gains on the outside opportunity47,
or (ii) continue performance and receive a continuation payoff that covers its opportunity
cost from foregoing the outside opportunity less the savings on dispute-resolution costs

46
The studio will make that payment so long as it is less than (i) the expected cost the studio will
incur in locating a substitute for the star or canceling the project plus (ii) the expected amount recoverable
from the star in the event of litigation (net of legal fees). Given that the costs of locating substitutes for
higher-value talent are likely to be high, and the collectible net damages in the event of litigation against an
individual star are likely to be low, it can be expected that the star’s termination option will routinely
operate as a renegotiation option. This appears to be the case.
47
Note that, in practice, the talent’s new employer will often pay the “settlement” amount by
“buying out” the talent’s contract.

26
 Draft February 7, 2013

and damages payments. In both cases the talent is put in the same position and enjoys a
net gain equal to gm – p.

p*

- +
Voluntary performance gm* Termination gm
0
Involuntary
performance

Figure V: Outcomes under a Soft Contract

The mix of performance and termination (or renegotiated performance) outcomes

implied by a soft contract determines transacting parties’ exposure to the holdup risk and
project risk attendant to the relevant project. Each party’s exposure to those risks is a
function of the value of gm*, which is in turn a function of the value of p*, which is in
part a function of the value of F. Everything else being equal, higher F values increase
the exercise price, which “pushes out” the point at which a party can elect to terminate,
which inflates project risk but reduces holdup risk; lower F values “pull in” that point,
which has the opposite effect.48 The critical observation is that minimizing each type of
risk demands different levels of contractual enforceability and therefore different levels
of contractual formality—precisely the same relationship observed initially between
those same risk categories and the level of rigidity in a formal contract. A hard contract
allocates risk explicitly through a mix of excuse and obligational provisions, which
demands a large investment in specification costs subject to a high likelihood of

48
The same change in risk allocation could be achieved by holding constant the level of
formalization but adjusting the damages award appropriately (subject in practice to any limitations imposed
by the common law doctrine of “penalty damages”). But I am simply attempting to show that a soft
contract can achieve different risk allocations solely by adjusting the level of legal enforceability. As I
later observe, that argument places in question why parties ever incur the additional costs required to
produce a highly formalized contract. On that point, see supra note __.

27
 Draft February 7, 2013

forecasting error. A soft contract allocates risk implicitly by selecting a reduced level of
formalization, which demands a small investment in specification costs without a
necessarily proportionate increase in transactional uncertainty. Holdup risk declines as F
increases, since non-breaching parties can more credibly threaten suit (and hence, can
more credibly demand damages) against an opportunistic counterparty. But increasing F
increases project risk: each party expects to incur a greater cost if it withdraws in
response to adverse information concerning the expected project outcome. Project risk
declines as F declines, since a party can exit from a losing transaction—or demand a
continuation payoff to reflect a valuable outside option—with reduced risk that the
counterparty will bring suit, will do so successfully, or will be able to credibly demand
damages as a result of any claimed breach.49 But there is a price for increased flexibility:
as F decreases, holdup risk increases. Just as parties allocate holdup risk and project risk
explicitly through negotiations over price and non-price terms, parties allocate those same
risk categories implicitly through negotiations over the level of contractual formality.

b. Reputation Effects
A complete analysis of soft contracting must incorporate the role of reputational
penalties. Those penalties comprise part of the exercise price expected to be incurred by
any repeat-play party that elects to exercise the termination option. Whereas legal
penalties impose immediate out-of-pocket costs in the form of a damages or settlement
payment plus legal fees, reputational penalties result in prospective costs in the form of
reduced future revenues given the credibility discount to be suffered in future
transactions. For repeat-play parties, the prospect of future revenue losses protect against
downward and upward shifts in the exercise price due upon termination, which would
otherwise result in underenforcement and overenforcement, respectively, relative to the
implicitly agreed-upon risk allocation.

49
For a similar view, see Klein (1996, pp. 448-49), who notes that parties can more cheaply opt out
of a non-formalized contractual understanding “if market conditions deviate substantially from
expectations.”

28
 Draft February 7, 2013

(1) Underenforcement
As compared to a more fully formalized hard contract, a soft contract imposes an
important risk: without a clear documentary point of reference, opportunistic or
uninformed parties can misuse the termination option embedded in a soft contract by
withdrawing in a manner inconsistent with the implicitly agreed-upon risk allocation.
This would be equivalent to a party withdrawing from the project in cases not involving
sufficiently high-value outside opportunities—that is, a case where gm < gm*. In a world
with zero dispute-resolution costs and no judicial error, that underenforcement
contingency would never materialize. Legal penalties would be applied costlessly and,
by anticipation, no party would exercise the termination option in a manner inconsistent
with the agreed-upon risk allocation. In the real world, however, parties may
“irrationally” breach, either due to lack of information, mistake or opportunism, requiring
the counterparty to incur litigation or other dispute-resolution costs to preserve the
agreed-upon risk allocation. In cases where provable and collectible damages are not
sufficient to warrant incurring litigation costs, or in cases where incurring those costs
confers positive externalities on other similarly situated parties, non-breaching parties
will tend to underenforce. Over time, rational underenforcement would reduce the
effective exercise price expected to be paid upon termination, resulting in an excessively
flexible contract that overexposes a party to holdup risk. By anticipation, this would
compel parties to incur additional specification costs to secure the agreed-upon risk
allocation or to secure compensation for bearing any additional hold-up risk.
Reputational liability mitigates this risk by increasing the exercise price due upon
termination and protecting against downward shifts in the threshold termination point at
which a party rationally withdraws from the project.

(2) Overenforcement
As compared to a zero-F “social” contract, a soft contract imposes another
important risk: opportunistic or uninformed non-terminating parties can take legal action
to contest exercise of the termination option or resist settlements to preempt or resolve
any such legal action, even if the option is being exercised in a manner that is consistent

29
 Draft February 7, 2013

with the agreed-upon risk allocation.50 This would be equivalent to a party being forced
to incur dispute-resolution costs and damages payments that, by anticipation, discourage
it from withdrawing from the project in cases involving sufficiently high-value outside
opportunities—that is, a case where gm ≥ gm*. The result is an excessively rigid contract
that overexposes a terminating party to project risk ex post (or more precisely, exposes
that party to project risk that was not reflected in the original deal terms). By
anticipation, that would compel parties to incur greater specification costs ex ante to
secure the agreed-upon risk allocation or to secure compensation for bearing any
additional project risk. Reputational penalties against non-terminating parties inflate the
cost of using legal action to “aggressively” contest exercise of the termination option or
to demand “exorbitant” settlement payoffs in cases where that option is being exercised
in a manner consistent with the agreed-upon risk allocation. Reputational liability
protects against upward shifts in the threshold termination point at which a party may
terminate involvement in a joint project.

c. Anticipating Formalization Levels

The foregoing line of argument explains why parties would rationally enter into
underformalized soft contracts: (i) compared to a hard contract, the enforcement result is
functionally equivalent on an expected basis at a significant transaction-cost savings, and
(ii) compared to a purely social contract, the enforcement result is functionally superior
on an expected basis in the absence of sufficiently powerful reputational constraints. But
that argument is vulnerable because it proves too much. Namely: it has now placed in
doubt why parties would ever “wastefully” enter into highly formalized agreements, as is
typical practice in conventional business environments. Viewing contract formality as a
deal term that proxies for legal enforceability, which in turn proxies for substantive risk-
allocation, provides the basis for a framework that can explain why, and anticipate when,
parties select higher and lower levels of contractual formalization. Parties’ selected level
of contractual “hardness” or “softness” in any particular case can be derived from a
combination of (i) specification costs and enforcement costs, on the one hand, and (ii)

50
Klein (1996) discusses how contractual specification exposes transacting parties to strategic
behavior by counterparties, who may seek to enforce the literal terms of a contract in a manner that deviates
substantively from the parties’ agreed-upon risk allocation.

30
 Draft February 7, 2013

reputational capital and transactional knowledge (by which I mean familiarity with
industry norms), on the other. Explicit termination options are most likely to be used
when (i) specification costs and enforcement costs are sufficiently low; or (ii)
counterparties do not have sufficient reputational capital and transactional knowledge to
pledge against nonperformance.51 Implicit termination options are most likely to be used
when those values are inverted: enforcement and specification costs are high and parties
hold rich observable stocks of reputational capital and transactional knowledge.
As shown below, we can use these factors to sketch a rough prediction of parties’
preferred levels of contractual formalization: (i) parties will tend to select “harder” (high-
F) contracts in environments characterized by one-shot players and transactions that can
be specified and enforced at low cost; (ii) parties will tend to select “softer” (low-F)
contracts in environments characterized by repeat play and transactions that can only be
specified and enforced at high cost; and (iii) parties will dispense with formal contract
and rely solely on “social” (zero-F) contracts in environments where reputational forces
are especially strong and specification costs are especially high. All other transactional
environments yield ambiguous formalization preferences because these two factors “pull
on” contractual formality in different directions.

51
The second circumstance partially collapses into the first: in transactions involving parties with a
rich stock of observable reputational capital and transactional knowledge, parties can economize on
specification costs by substituting reputational bonding for legal constraints; the opposite effect holds true
in transactions involving one-shot, uninformed or otherwise non-credible parties.

31
 Draft February 7, 2013

Social contracts
(“zero F”)
Soft
Contracts
Specification/ (“low F”)
Enforcement Costs
Hard contracts
(“high F)

Reputation/Knowledge

Figure VI: Formalization Preferences

D. Application: Soft Contracts in Hollywood

We are now in a position to account for the differentiated landscape of “harder” and
“softer” contractual instruments, and the interaction of formal and reputation-based
contracting, across the universe of Hollywood transactions.

1. Contract Risks
Any film project operates under project risk and holdup risk. But those risks are not
allocated equally among studio and talent. Project risk tends to burden talent most
heavily while holdup risk tends to burden the studio most heavily.

a. Project Risk
Project risk in a film production takes two forms: (i) reputational loss and out-of-
pocket financial loss in the event of project failure and (ii) opportunity costs in the form
of forfeited revenues or reputational gain on another project that enjoys a superior
commercial or critical outcome. In absolute dollar-value terms, an integrated studio has
the greatest investment at stake; however, in relative terms, individual talent and, to a
lesser extent, an independent production company, have a far greater proportion of their
resources invested in a single production and, most importantly, have a far greater
undiversified investment in any individual project. Talent’s major asset is reputational

32
 Draft February 7, 2013

capital or what is called “bankability”: that is, the perceived ability to improve the
likelihood of box-office success. Successful releases add to talent’s reputational capital,
which translates into the ability to demand higher compensation (what the industry calls a
“quote”) on future projects; unsuccessful releases detract from it, which reduces talent’s
market value and the compensation that talent can demand in subsequent projects (Litwak
2009, pp.211-12).52 As an individual, talent cannot diversify investments of his or her
reputational capital to hedge against the risk of failure on any individual project and there
is no outside market for insuring against that risk. Moreover, any actor constitutes a
finitely-lived asset with an accelerated depreciation schedule: an actor tends to have a
short window in which to monetize his or her perceived value53 and a single flop may
cause irrevocable injury to career prospects. By contrast, an integrated major studio—
and, indirectly, its conglomerate parent—is an infinitely-lived entity that can hedge
against project risk by holding a portfolio of projects that are in various stages of
development and often financed by outside investors (Boyle 2001).

b. Holdup Risk

In the studio/talent relationship, the studio is especially exposed to holdup by higher-

value portions of the talent pool. The reason is two-fold: (i) a star is a difficult-to-replace
asset, due both to the scarcity of high-value talent and the necessity of reshooting in the
event a star withdraws from a film; and (ii) the studio makes a disproportionate sunk
investment in a film project. Aside from the opportunity cost of an actor’s time dedicated
to a specific project, an actor’s reputational capital is not specific to any particular film
project and can be easily redeployed elsewhere (and even the opportunity cost can be
avoided if the actor’s agent can locate an alternative project for the same time-window);
by contrast, the studio makes irrecoverable investments in inputs assembled specifically
for a particular project. In particular, the studio’s holdup risk increases sharply at two
critical points on the production timeline.

52
Note that actors’ compensation is widely known in Hollywood as a result of information-sharing
among agents and executives at competing studios (Brouwer & Wright (1990, p.61)).
53
For historical evidence showing that actors’ earning potential peaks at a relatively early age, see
Bakker (2005, pp. 67-68).

33
 Draft February 7, 2013

Stage I Stage II Stage III

Talent “commits” Financing or other large Shooting starts Release

dollar-value commitment

Figure VII: Production Timeline

(1) Pre-Production
The studio is exposed to holdup risk as soon as it enters into agreements with
outside investors to finance a particular film or makes some other large irrecoverable
expenditure on a film. Outside financing is sometimes used by a major studio and is
always required in the case of a “mini-major” studio or other independent production
company. In the event the star withdraws from the film, the studio may have breached a
representation made to outside financiers concerning the use of a particular star (Studio
Counsel Interview III) and the financiers may then be able to withdraw their commitment
(or fulfill their commitment subject to renegotiated terms).54 Absent concerns of
reputational or legal liability, a star’s attorney can rationally demand a renegotiation
premium just short of the increased cost of capital that would be borne by producers in
the event the star withdrew from the project. Illustrating this risk, talent attorneys
sometimes resist execution of a long-form agreement in order to preserve leverage on
negotiating open deal points (Daily Variety 1997) and even explicitly recommend that
clients seek to avoid liability by asserting that no contract ever existed and “being
uncooperative” in order to “renegotiate the terms that really concern you” (Ardi and
Lobel 1986). In some cases, talent has used the non-existence of a certainly binding
contract “to shop the deal” to other interested studios, thereby precipitating a “bidding
war” that enables talent to capture a larger share of the project’s expected value.55

54
In a well-known litigation involving Kim Basinger and an independent production company, the
latter argued that the actress’ departure from the film caused the company to lose some of its outside
financing commitments (Basinger v. Main Line Productions, 1994 WL 814244 [Cal.App. 2 Dist. 1994]).
55
This was the fate of Warner Bros. in a purported agreement with Francis Ford Coppola, who used
the lack of a fully-executed long-form agreement to argue in a lawsuit (successfully) that he was free to
“shop” to other studios a project originally developed in partnership with Warner Bros (in Coppola et al. v.
Warner Bros., Inc. (L.A. Sup. Ct. Case No. BC 135198 [1998]). In that case, Warner Bros. executives
testified having great difficulty in obtaining written confirmations of oral commitments from talent
attorneys (Schleimer 2001).

34
 Draft February 7, 2013

(2) Production
Once production56 starts, the talent’s holdup leverage increases dramatically. The
studio has now made a difficult-to-reverse investment in selected talent and other inputs
required for a film production. Even the slightest delay in production translates
immediately into significant costs (in some cases, daily production costs can total several
hundreds of thousands of dollars (Bunting 2007)) and endangers completion given the
fact that the cast has typically committed to perform only during a limited period.
Exploiting this fact, talent attorneys reportedly demand more perquisites, creative control
and other improved secondary terms during this period (Entertainment Attorney
Interviews I, II, III; Studio Executive Interview).57 For the same reason, stars who appear
in a hit film or television series sometimes threaten not to return for a sequel or additional
season without an additional retention payment (Studio Counsel Interview I).58 Absent
concerns of reputational or legal liability, the star can demand a renegotiation premium
equal to the increased costs associated with retaining substitute talent and reshooting the
film.

2. Conventional Solutions
The conventional mechanisms of reputation and contract provide substantial but
incomplete protection against holdup risk and project risk.

a. Reputation
It is sometimes asserted that contracts have limited relevance in Hollywood
because the studios and talent are subject to reputational sanctions for deviating from

56
By “production”, I am referring to the start of what is known as “principal photography” (also
known as “shooting”).
57
The value of typical “perks” can add up to several hundreds of thousands of dollars. For further
details from an actual film budget, see Bunting (2007).
58
Examples abound. In a dispute between Universal Pictures and Michael Oliver, a 10-year old
actor in the movie series, “Problem Child”, the child actor’s guardian renegotiated his salary shortly prior
to the shooting of the sequel, Problem Child II. Universal later refused to pay the additional amount on the
ground that it had agreed to the increased compensation “under duress” given its investment in production
and other expenses. See Diana Haithman, Problem Child Part III – The Courtroom, L.A. Times, Apr. 23,
1992. Interestingly, the broadcast television networks were reportedly exposed to the same type of
behavior during the period in which the FCC’s “Fin-Syn” (financial interest and syndication) rules
compelled the networks to purchase all shows from outside providers, who therefore commanded
negotiating leverage with respect to continuations of a “hit” show (Studio Counsel Interview I).

35
 Draft February 7, 2013

prior commitments. But a reputation-based explanation must assume that talent’s or the
studio’s commitment is self-enforcing even in the absence of contractual liability. That
requires assuming that no party will ever walk away from a film project because doing so
would curtail the talent’s expected profits on all future projects or, in the case of a studio,
would harm its ability to recruit the highest-value talent for future productions. Such
optimism would be naïve. Hollywood is not usually depicted as a paragon of good-faith
behavior (if anything, some would say quite the opposite!). The Hollywood trade press
regularly reports cases of apparent opportunism: studios substitute even star actors during
development contrary to prior commitments59, producers delay moving forward with a
project but keep actors indefinitely “on call”60, actors withdraw from projects shortly
prior to the commencement of shooting, and studios occasionally terminate actors or
directors even after shooting has commenced.61 This mixed performance may reflect the
fact that Hollywood exhibits some, but not all, of the characteristics of the small-knit (and
usually ethnically homogenous) environments in which reputation-based transacting has
been most convincingly documented.62 Hollywood is at best a relatively small world
populated by firms and individuals that do business with each other repeatedly: six major
studios, three major talent agencies, a handful of “mini major” studios, a larger number of
independent production companies, a small group of high-value talent, and a much larger
group of lower-value talent consisting of tens of thousands of actors. Moreover,
membership in these constituencies can be unstable. While studios and talent agencies
have a long life, independent production companies, individual producers, and actors may
often have short careers (Litwak 1994, pp. 228-29). Hence no transacting party can
safely assume that any given counterparty is a repeat player with a rational interest in
preserving reputational capital. Even repeat players may rationally deviate from a history
of good-faith behavior to avoid an extremely large one-time loss or to capture an

59
For a review of incidents involving Robin Williams, John Cusack and other famous actors, see
Child (2008).
60
This type of behavior prompted a lawsuit by Sharon Stone (a star actress) against producers in
connection with the film, Basic Instinct 2. Due to allegedly missed opportunities attributable to delays in
production, she claimed $100 million in damages. The suit was settled out of court (IMDB.com 2012b). .
61
This action precipitated litigation by Raquel Welch (a star actress) against MGM for allegedly
wrongful termination from the film, “Cannery Row”, ultimately resulting in a $10 million damages award
against the studio for damage to the actress’ reputation (in Welch v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Film Co., 254
Cal. Rptr. 645 [Cal. App. 2d 1989]).
62
For well-known examples, see Greif (1993); Bernstein (1992).

36
 Draft February 7, 2013

exceptionally large one-time gain. Since an exceptional hit is an infrequent occurrence

and an exceptional loss is a frequent occurrence in the film industry, the temptation to
abandon a losing project in favor of a more promising project may overcome reputational
considerations. While reputation exerts some disciplining force, it does not provide a
complete governance solution.

b. Contract
Like any contracting environment, talent and the studio face significant
specification and forecasting costs, which likely results in chronic design errors. Even
implausibly assuming that studio and talent representatives can overcome or mitigate
these transacting obstacles, those parties will still face significant enforcement obstacles.
First, it is sometimes difficult to show breach; for example, actors who are dissatisfied
with existing contract terms are known for suffering from the “blue flu” or “phoning in” a
performance (that is, underperform on set) until a resolution is reached (Entertainment
Attorney Interview I). Even assuming breach can be shown, the plaintiff-studio in
particular still faces numerous obstacles: (i) given the uncertainty of a film project, it may
be difficult for the studio or talent to show expectation damages63; (ii) the studio cannot
obtain a remedy of specific performance to compel talent to perform64; (iii) the studio
cannot seize and liquidate the talent’s “human collateral” 65; and (iv) under California
law, the studio can only obtain a negative injunction to bar talent from working for
another production during the contract term if the actor’s services are deemed to be of a
“unique” character (Calif. Civ. Code § 3423).66 Additionally, for both studio and talent,

63
See, e.g., Skirball v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. (134 Cal. App. 2d 843 [1955]), in which the court
found a breach of an oral agreement to acquire literary property from a producer and retain a producer’s
services to make a motion picture but refused to award the agreed-upon contingent compensation due to the
lack of certainty as to the film revenues, and instead awarded fixed compensation plus the reasonable value
of the literary property.
64
Calif. Civ. Code §3423 prohibits specific enforcement of a personal services or employment
contract.
65
The lack of any seizable collateral may be a fundamental distinguishing characteristic of a
talent/studio transaction as compared to other innovation contexts—for example, a venture capital firm’s
investment in a start-up, which is in part supported by the investor’s ability to seize the start-up’s
intellectual and physical property in the event of default. That may explain why soft contracts are used in
the entertainment context while hard contracts appear to predominate in other innovation contexts.
66
There are additional obstacles to enforcing a contract against talent: (i) talent can raise litigation
costs by claiming that his or her manager or agent did not have the authority to bind the actor (a California
court denied a breach of contract claim against actress Pamela Anderson in part on this ground, when she

37
 Draft February 7, 2013

initiating formal legal action can impose significant reputation costs: (i) in the case of the
studio, it can suffer a large cost due to disclosures of talent’s compensation or other
sensitive information in the course of discovery or trial67 or reputational injury in the
labor market; and (ii) in the case of talent, he or she can suffer a career-ending
reputational injury to the extent that all future employers decline to offer job
opportunities given demonstrated litigiousness. To be sure, the threat of contractual
liability for breach poses an in terrorem effect that may exert some deterrent force (in
part due to the significant cost of defending against even a meritless claim); however, it is
far from a complete solution to counterparty opportunism.

3. Unconventional Solution: Soft Contracts

It would be incorrect to say that Hollywood relies solely or principally on soft
contracting as the standard mode of doing business. Rather, Hollywood relies on a mix
of soft and hard contracting forms to govern relationships among the multiple parties that
supply inputs to any film project. These differences can be explained as a function of the
same risk allocation that is typically used to account for differences in substantive terms
in a fully formalized contract. Transacting parties select different formalization levels—
specifically, select different points between purely informal and purely formal
contracting—to achieve different risk allocations at the lowest transaction cost. The
formalization level selected in any particular case reflects parties’ relative valuations of
project risk and holdup risk, as adjusted by two factors: (i) the specification and
enforcement costs required to formally reflect and implement any agreed-upon risk
allocation; and (ii) the parties’ observed reputational capital and transactional knowledge.

allegedly violated a commitment to appear in a film, in Private Movie Co., Inc. v. Pamela Anderson,(L.A.
Sup. Ct. Case. No. BC 136805 [1995])); and (ii) if, as is typical, a star actor contracts with the studio
through a “loan-out corporation”, the actor can increase litigation costs by compelling the studio to petition
the court to pierce the corporate veil. Studios attempt to preclude this strategy by demanding that talent
produce an “inducement letter” whereby the employee covenants to satisfy the loan-out corporation’s
obligations. However, this is not always successful. See, for example, Great Entertainment Merchandise,
Inv. v. VN Merchandising, Inc. (1996 WL 355377 [S.D.N.Y. 1996]), in which the court found that the
defendant performer was not liable for certain monetary obligations of the loan-out corporation to the
plaintiff because the inducement letter only required that he meet his concert performance obligations;
Main Line Pictures, Inc. v. Basinger (No. B077509, 1994 WL 81244 [Cal.App. 2 Dist. 1994]), in which the
appellate court found that the trial judge had committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury that
liability could only be imposed on the defendant actress if she were found to be the “alter ego” of the loan-
out corporation that had purportedly entered into an agreement with the production company.
67
This factor often causes studios to settle quickly (Beck 1988).

38
 Draft February 7, 2013

Parties may place different values on those risks, and may anticipate different costs or
observe different levels of reputational capital, in different transactions or when dealing
with different counterparties, or, within the same transaction, at different points in the
production timeline or with respect to different deal terms. Holding constant all other
contractual terms, the selected level of formalization reflects a continuous negotiation
over the relative exposure of each party to each type of risk at any given point in the
transaction timeline and with respect to each deal term.

a. Formalization Differences Across Transaction Types and Counterparties

Interviewee reports and trade commentary reveal a few basic patterns in Hollywood’s
choice of soft and hard contracting instruments. In the case of transactions involving
outside investors and lower-value talent, Hollywood appears to prefer hard contracts
following conventional business practice. In those cases, the counterparty may lack
sufficient reputational capital (or sufficient repeat-play incentives to acquire reputational
capital) or transactional knowledge: lower-value talent may be a newcomer to the
industry and the investor may be a one-shot player who may misconstrue the implicit
termination and renegotiation option embedded in a soft contract. In the case of star and
other higher-value talent, some studios are willing to move forward on an unsigned deal
basis.68 That is consistent with theoretical expectations: both the studio and the star hold
rich stocks of reputational capital and transactional knowledge and it is difficult to
specify all contingencies using verifiable criteria. For both the studio and the star,
reputational constraints substitute for investments in increased formalization, allowing
68
The major studios have more and less tolerant “unsigned deal” policies. Interviewees reported
that two of the six major studios require execution of a long-form agreement as a precondition for
commencing shooting, one of the major studios has a reputation for being the most tolerant in allowing
production to move forward with star talent on an unsigned basis, and the remaining three studios permit
unsigned deals with star talent in certain circumstances (Studio Executive Interview; Studio Counsel
Interviews I and II; Mini-Major Studio Counsel Interview; Entertainment Attorney Interview I). There are
sometimes internal differences within a studio in the characterization of the studio’s “unsigned deal
policy”. “Official” policies at two studios exclude “unsigned deals” or limit them to an extremely narrow
range of cases or short time period (Studio Counsel Interview I, III) while reports from other in-house
counsel and law-firm practitioners indicate that those studios enter into unsigned deals with high-value and
some medium-value talent for the entire course of production (Entertainment Attorney Interview I, II;
Mini-Major Studio Counsel Interview; Studio Counsel Interview II). While studios may sometimes be
willing in practice to enter into agreements with the most highly-valued talent at low levels of formality, an
official policy that excludes any such practice protects the studio’s negotiating position with lower-value
talent that lacks sufficient reputational capital.

39
 Draft February 7, 2013

the parties to economize on specification costs and achieve an equivalent risk allocation
at a transaction-cost savings. Let’s look more closely at the manner in which reputation
effects support soft contracts.

(1) Reputation Effect I: Against Underenforcement

After the studio has commenced shooting, any high-value talent in a lead role should
rationally hold up the studio for additional compensation in an amount almost equal to
the studio’s entire expected profit on the film. In practice, nothing close to this extreme
form of holdup behavior is observed. Talent attorneys sometimes renegotiate perquisites
and creative control following production but refrain from renegotiating “money items”
(Entertainment Attorney Interview II, Studio Executive Interview) or terms relating to the
fixed compensation (Entertainment Attorney Interview III). 69 This self-restraint limits
the studio’s holdup exposure and enables the parties to enter into the project at a low
level of formalization. Reputational capital and transactional knowledge enables high-
value talent (and talent’s representative) to commit against abusing the termination and
renegotiation option embedded in a soft contract. Absent the star’s reputational bond,
the studio would fear that talent would act opportunistically or mistakenly, which would
shift downward the threshold level of opportunity costs at which a party will rationally
elect to terminate, and compel the parties to contract under a higher level of
formalization. Consistent with this assertion, both the trade press and interviewees
consistently reported that studios generally only are willing to enter into unsigned deals
with the highest-value portions of the talent population (Studio Counsel Interviews I, II;
Studio Executive Interview).70

69
Note that there is, however, renegotiation of “money terms” in the (unlikely) event of a successful
film, which often gives rise to a formalized auditing procedure concerning interpretation of the “profit
participation” provisions of the agreement between studio and talent. These disputes are commonly
resolved by auditing firms or arbitrators that operate subject to industry custom (Studio Executive
Interview).
70
One interviewee described the “unsigned deal” policy at a major studio that differentiated
explicitly among talent of various caliber: (i) the lowest-value talent were required to be “signed up” prior
to production; (ii) higher-value talent could commence production without a signed-up deal but were
expected to enter into a signed agreement during production; and (iii) the highest-value talent could
commence production without a signed-up deal and were never expected to enter into a signed agreement
(Studio Executive Interview). Another interviewee described an alternative protocol at a “mini-major”
studio that relies on external financing: (i) the highest-value talent were required to sign because they were
designated “essential elements” for purposes of the external financing but (ii) slightly lower-value talent

40
 Draft February 7, 2013

(2) Reputation Effect II: Against Overenforcement

Stars’ loose attachment to a film project in an unsigned deal inherently gives rise to
incidents in which a star abandons a project shortly prior to production. The usual
defense is that “no deal” had been reached or that the studio had breached one of its own
material commitments. 71 Given that the star’s “commitment” often rests on a level of
documentation that could give rise to a serious legal claim, it might be thought that
studios would vigilantly bring suit against talent for breach of contract. In practice, that
is rare. Studios do not usually bring legal action against talent who terminates
participation in a film project (Entertainment Attorney Interview III), as illustrated by
reported cases where stars withdrew from a film shortly prior to shooting but the studio
took no legal action against them (Brennan and Boyer 1994). Even in cases where a
lawsuit is initiated or threatened, the survey of the trade press indicates, and interviewees
reported (Studio Executive Interview), that the parties often resolve the matter by
agreement and put an end to the dispute (see App. A). Consistent with this view, there are
few major studios that appear as parties in the list of “unsigned deal” cases litigated in
court or reported in the trade press (Apps. A, B).72 Those non-litigious tendencies are
consistent with a reputational regime that penalizes parties that resist “reasonable”
terminations that are consistent with the parties’ agreed-upon risk allocation. Doing
otherwise would result in undertermination by talent, which would shift upward the
threshold opportunity costs at which a party may breach consistent with the parties’
implicit agreed risk-allocation, and compel the parties to contract under a higher level of
formalization.

could successfully avoid having to sign because they were not so designated (Entertainment Attorney
Interview I).
71
In a recent litigation involving the singer Beyonce and a video production company, the singer
claimed that her withdrawal from the production was justified because the production company had
allegedly failed to meet certain financing requirements that were a condition to her continued participation
(Gardner 2011).
72
The only recent exception to this tendency is the well-known litigation between Warner Bros. and
Francis Ford Coppolla regarding the Pinocchio film project. See App. B. Interestingly, one trade
commentator has suggested that the unusually aggressive litigation response to Kim Basinger’s withdrawal
from a film (in the well-known litigation, Basinger v. Main Line Productions, 1994 WL 814244 [Cal.App.
2 Dist. 1994])) was undertaken because the counterparty was a small production company experiencing
financial difficulties (Kari 1993), which corresponds to an “end-game” scenario where a party loses its
rational incentive to preserve long-term reputational gains by avoiding litigation.

41
 Draft February 7, 2013

b. Formalization Differences Across Time

Formalization preferences can be expected to change as a function of time—or, more
specifically, as a function of a party’s sunk investments in the joint project. Consistent
with that intuition, hard contracting tends to displace “softer” forms of contracting
throughout the course of a film project as one or both of the parties’ sunk investment
increases. The Figure below depicts the changing formalization preferences of the studio
and a star during the course of a production. The studio has a preference for increased
formalization as the film approaches and enters production, which reflects its greater
exposure to holdup risk and lesser exposure to project risk. The star continues to prefer
low formalization, which reflects the fact the star’s inverted levels of exposure to those
risk categories. The ultimate formalization level (F*) reflects a negotiation between the
studio and talent and is determined in large part by the studio’s valuation of talent’s
reputational capital, which can be pledged as “collateral” against holdup behavior and
other forms of opportunism in lieu of formal constraints.73

73
Interviewees sometimes attributed the prevalence of unsigned deals among stars to the latter’s
bargaining leverage over the studio (Studio Counsel Interview III). While that is an intuitive explanation, it
is difficult to reconcile with fully rational contracting behavior by sophisticated agents: “compelling” the
studio to operate at a low level of formalization would not make the star any better off since the studio
would adjust the other contractual terms accordingly to reflect its greater anticipated exposure to holdup
risk. It is therefore more coherent to say that the studio agrees to a low level of formalization with a star
because the latter can pledge its reputational capital against future holdup behavior, thereby limiting the
studio’s holdup risk at a transaction-cost savings relative to a more fully formalized contracting instrument.
On the complexities of integrating bargaining power into rational contracting models, see Choi & Triantis
(2012).

42
 Draft February 7, 2013

F Studio

F*

Talent (Star)

0
Stage I: Stage II: Stage III:
Studio starts Studio obtains Shooting Time
development financing or makes starts
other commitment

Figure VIII: Formalization Preferences Across Time

Stage I: Development. Both studio and talent place a high value on being able to
withdraw in the event unfavorable information is received, place a low value on
contractual protection against holdup given limited sunk investment, and therefore agree
on a low level of contractual formality in the form of an oral agreement or unsigned deal
memo with poorly specified terms. For both the studio and star, it enables each party the
flexibility to terminate involvement in the project at a reduced risk of legal liability (a not
infrequent occurrence at this early stage). At a transaction-cost savings, this is equivalent
to writing a fully formalized contract with a high degree of flexibility—e.g., a broadly-
defined walkaway right and a low breakup fee in an acquisition transaction. Even if
greater transactional certainty could be achieved through a more formalized contract, an
“unsigned deal” may represent a rational underinvestment in specification costs (and, for
the studio, avoids paying the option fee that would be due in a fully-formalized
contract74) given the fact that most film projects are shelved or abandoned in the

74
For example: (i) a studio or production company pays an option fee to a writer for the right to the
writer’s screenplay for a limited period; or (ii) a television network (or, in some cases, a talent agency) pays
a “holding” fee to a performer in exchange for which the performer agrees not to work for another agency
or network for a certain period of time.

43
 Draft February 7, 2013

development stage, in which case all sunk legal and other out-of-pocket investments
would be forfeited (Entertainment Attorney Interview I).75

Stage II: Pre-Production. The studio places increased value on contractual

formality to secure its “talent package”, especially if outside financing or other large
expenditures or commitments are predicated on the presence of that element. However,
high-value talent often prefers contractual informality in order to maintain its termination
and renegotiation option going forward.76 Even in high-value talent/studio transactions,
studios insist that talent execute a “certificate of engagement”, which assigns to the studio
all of talent’s intellectual property rights in the film production and thereby protects the
studio against the most salient holdup threat at a nominal specification cost.77 With
respect to all other deal terms, the studio may feel comfortable proceeding at a reduced
level of formalization given the star’s large stock of reputational capital, which reduces
the studio’s expected holdup risk, and the specification and other costs that would have to
be incurred to reach a fully signed-up deal. A signed-up deal does not come for free:
studios that insist on an executed long-form agreement, and thereby largely eliminate
holdup risk, are compelled to make concessions on large dollar-value items to do so
(Studio Counsel Interview III). For that reason, a studio executive reported that it was
often “not worth it” to insist on a fully signed-up deal with a major star prior to
production (Studio Executive Interview). Put differently: the studio implicitly consents
ex ante to a reasonably defined set of “hold up” demands that the star will make ex post,
which it anticipates will save on total transaction costs and, as the same interviewee
reported, can enable the studio to “outbid” a competitor for the star’s services.

75
See Caves (2003, p.113) (citing studio executive stating that the studio receives 10,000 treatments
and pitches yearly, puts 70 to 100 projects into development, and makes only 12 films); Goldwyn (1983, p.
92) (noting that a studio announced that it had 183 projects in development and asserting that, of those
projects, “maybe ten, at the outside, will ever happen”).
76
This strategy will not always be preferred by higher-value talent and, even more often, will not be
preferred by lower-value talent who may prefer a higher level of formalization in order to protect against
holdup behavior by the studio. This can be achieved by the “pay or play” clause, whereby the studio
guarantees payment of a certain amount to talent irrespective of whether or not talent’s services are actually
used. This consideration may explain why even stars sometimes insist on a signed agreement when
performing for an independent production entity, which lacks the reputational capital of a studio to pledge
against future opportunism (Studio Executive Interview). Note that “pay or play” agreements often provide
only limited security because they are usually conditioned on a “final approved bonded budget”, which will
never arise in the case of a film that is not made (Moore 2000, p. 179).
77
See supra note __.

44
 Draft February 7, 2013

Stage III: Production. The studio now places a high value on contractual
formality since it has made a large sunk investment in talent and other assets. But high-
value talent may continue to prefer contractual informality in order to preserve the ability
to negotiate continuation payoffs from the studio as production proceeds and the studio’s
specific commitments accelerate even further. The very reason why the studio generally
prefers an executed agreement prior to the start of shooting induces high-value talent to
resist executing any such agreement. Doing so would forfeit renegotiation opportunities
once production commences while delivering little value in the form of protection against
opportunism by the studio, which has few holdup opportunities and no credible
termination threat given the limited pool of substitute talent. Implicit continuation
payoffs are a regular feature of talent/studio relationships governed by soft contracts:
studios provide stars with “perks”, creative control and other benefits that are negotiated
in the course of production (Entertainment Attorney Interviews I and II). For that reason,
star actor Charlton Heston boasted that he had never started production on a film with a
signed completed contract (Heston 1993)—meaning, he always had sufficient market
value and reputational capital in order to preserve his renegotiation option and had little
reason to fear being held up by the studio.

III. Why Not Integration?

Sequential investment, severe uncertainty, high specification costs, and mild
reputation effects are hardly unique to the movie industry. Those contracting conditions
are often resolved through a simpler alternative to soft contracting: namely, vertical
integration that eliminates arm’s-length transactions altogether. That well-known
solution follows a basic principle of transaction-cost economics: when it is too costly to
use contractual mechanisms in order to protect transacting parties from holdup risk, one
party may acquire the other party and replace contract with the hierarchical fiat of an
employment relationship.78 Vertical integration also provides a solution to project risk:
the studio, which is the more efficient risk bearer, can insure talent against the risk of any
individual project failure by diversifying that risk across a portfolio of projects.

78
For the canonical sources, see Williamson (1975); Klein, Crawford, and Alchian (1978).

45
 Draft February 7, 2013

This is not a hypothetical option. In the decade between 1910 and 1920, silent-movie
stars enjoyed bargaining power that translated into escalating salaries79 and creative
control. This process culminated in 1919 with the formation of the United Artists studio
by Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford and other star actors and directors (Kindem 1982).
The “studio system” that subsequently dominated Hollywood during the 1920s and
flourished until the late 1940s limited these stars’ rent-seeking opportunities by
integrating backwards into the talent pool. Studios signed talent to multi-year or multi-
picture contracts of varying lengths, with the most secure being a multi-year (usually
seven-year) contract that guaranteed fixed compensation during the contract term, subject
to the studio’s option to renew the contract at an escalating salary at 6-month or 12-
month intervals (Kindem 1982, p. 84). To discourage talent from acting uncooperatively,
any actor who refused to perform in a particular project would be “suspended” and the
missed time added to the term of the contract (Schatz 2010). The latter clause was
effectively a pre-agreed negative injunction designed to mitigate the holdup threat that
persists in even the most highly formalized contractual relationship.
The studio system is often if not usually described as a naked exercise of bargaining
leverage by the studios in order to “exploit” actors and other talent. It certainly
represented a transfer of rents from stars to studios, who largely suppressed per-project
bidding for talent’s services that would have taken place in an open market.80 But the
studio system arguably represents an efficient solution to (i) holdup risk—to which the
studio is disproportionately exposed throughout much of the production timeline; and (ii)
project risk—to which talent is disproportionately exposed due to his or her limited
diversification capacities. The transactional security of a long-term employment
arrangement protected the studio against opportunistic renegotiation by a star during
production81 and allowed the studio to reallocate talent to other projects within the
studio’s portfolio at a nominal transaction cost. In return, talent received up to seven
years of income that was shielded from the vagaries of any individual movie’s
commercial performance, thereby protecting the actor from the project risk associated

79
See Bakker (2005), p. 59, who cites evidence that, in 1915 and 1916, 75% of the average budget
of a studio film starring Mary Pickford, then one of the leading female stars, was constituted by her salary.
80
More precisely, the studios conducted per-project bidding by “loaning out” contract actors to other
major studios but retaining all rents accrued as a result.
81
For a similar observation, see Chisholm (1993).

46
 Draft February 7, 2013

with any individual production, which was shifted to the studio (clearly the efficient risk
bearer).82 Put differently: talent purchased protection from the downside risk of project
failure in exchange for forfeiting any claim on upside gain in the case of project success
(and, implicitly, forfeiting holdup opportunities to extract additional compensation during
the course of production and the remaining term of the employment contract).
It is by now well-documented that this description is too simple: some of the highest-
value stars either entered into profit-sharing contracts with the studios (Weinstein 1998,
pp. 88-89) or engaged in uncooperative behavior to extract improved terms83 and, in
anticipation of both outcomes, studios sometimes voluntarily increased stars’
compensation even prior to the mandatory escalation provided by the renewal option.84
From a contract theory perspective, this type of behavior is unsurprising: given that the
studio bore positive litigation (and presumably, reputational) costs, a high-value actor
could induce renegotiation simply by withholding performance or otherwise acting
uncooperatively. This finding does not rebut the interpretation of the studio system as an
efficient substitution of long-term contracting for spot market contracting. As more
nuanced understandings of the firm/market dichotomy recognize, holdup risk persists to
some extent even within the confines of the integrated firm (Freeland 2000). For actors
situated at the very highest end of the talent distribution, the studio system may have
represented a bad deal: it offered protection against project risk at an exorbitant cost—
namely, the inability to capture any upside through profit participation rights or to trigger
open bidding for a star’s services on each individual project.85 Assuming a star has

82
For similar views, see Zuckerman (2004). It might be wondered whether the studio contract really
offered talent any security given that it provided for a one-way renewal option exercisable at six and
twelve-month intervals by the studio. While that certainly limits the extent to which the studio system
protected the actor against income variance, even the shortest period (six months) exceeds the typical
duration of a per-project movie contract (typically, a few months). Historical commentary indicates that
even some headline actors expressly elected long-term contracts over freelance work precisely in order to
achieve income security (Kemper 11).
83
Some of the most famous stars used this strategy, including James Cagney (Schatz 2010, pp. 138-
39), and Bette Davis (Schatz 2010, pp. 218-220). In other cases, actors bought out their contracts in order
to sign with another studio (who paid the buyout fee) (Shipman 1993, pp. 130-36).
84
These increases were often tied together with entry into a new long-term contract, thereby
providing the studio with access to the actor’s reputational capital for a longer period of time but at a split
more advantageous to the actor (Zuckerman 2004).
85
The gains available to stars who broke their contracts with the studios were substantial. When
employed on a long-term basis by Warner Bros., Bette Davis received $143,000 a year, or about $30,000
per film; when Warner Bros. “loaned her out” to MGM, it charged a fee of $385,000 (Albert 1999). The
spread between those figures represents the rent captured by Warner Bros. under the studio system.

47
 Draft February 7, 2013

accumulated some financial reserves and expects a steady flow of employment

opportunities, he or she demands less insurance against income loss and is willing to
exchange some exposure to project downside (through a reduced guaranteed salary
component) in exchange for more exposure to project upside (through some form of
revenue or profit participation).
Given that the studio system appears to provide an effective and simple mechanism
for alleviating holdup risk (borne mostly by the studio) and project risk (borne mostly by
talent), it might be thought that soft contracting is a second-best alternative as a result of
some legal obstacle to engaging actors in long-term employment contracts. But there is
no legal bar to the use of long-term contracts by the film industry. The landmark
decision by the California Supreme Court, De Havilland v. Warner Bros. Pictures (67
Cal. App.2d 255 [1944]), prohibited only the use of suspension clauses, on the ground
that these clauses could extend an employment contract indefinitely, but not the use of
long-term contracts generally. The statutory provision applied in the De Havilland
decision to invalidate suspension clauses explicitly allows long-term service contracts up
to a maximum of seven years (and without any time limitation in the case of recording
contracts) (Calif. Labor Code § 2855). California law also specifically provides for
injunctive relief to stop breach of a (written and signed) personal services contract
relating to services of a sufficiently “unique” character (Calif. Civ. Code § 3423).86
Consistent with that language, the studios continued to make some use of long-term
contracts for more popular stars into the 1950s and 1960s (Kindem 1982, p. 80),
television producers regularly bind talent to long-term contracts, and record labels have
consistently used long-term contracts, sometimes supplemented by suspension clauses
(Selz et al. 2009 §6:3). If a Hollywood studio wished to do so today, it could revive the
studio system under California law subject only to the statutory limit of seven years (or it
could enter into contracts under the laws of New York or another state that does not

86
Interestingly, the California legislature adopted this special exception to the previous blanket
prohibition on injunctive relief at the same time that it extended the previous limit on the term of personal
services contracts (1919). These changes supplied the legal infrastructure for the studio system: long-term
employment contracts supported by the threat of negative injunctive relief against breaching parties.

48
 Draft February 7, 2013

impose any term limit87, an opportunity sometimes exploited by the record industry
(Weinstein 1995)).
Economically inclined historians agree on a simple reason why the studio system
disappeared (on the upstream talent side): it became too expensive (Schatz 2010; Caves
2002, pp. 94-95). The advent of television, which converted movie-going from a near-
daily to a weekly or monthly activity (Stuart 1982), dramatically reduced the volume of
product demanded by the market, making it unprofitable for the studio to bear the
overhead cost associated with retaining a standing pool of creative and technical
personnel (Schatz 2010).88 Within a few years, the major studios substantially
dismantled their formerly integrated structures based on long-term employment contracts
(Stuart 1982, p. 294).89 The transactional price for the dismantling of the studio system
was steep: studios and talent were now compelled to operate outside the shelter of the
firm in an environment characterized by high specification costs and holdup risk
throughout the production timeline. For all but the higher reaches of the talent
distribution, there was another price: the dismantling of the studio system exposes talent
to project risk in any individual film and a lower level of income security.
Standard transaction-cost economics would anticipate that the decline of
integrated structures (analogous to the “firm”) in Hollywood would give way to the spot
contracting mechanisms of the “market”. This is only partially true. In the wake of the
studio system’s demise, Hollywood appears to have adopted a mix of hard and soft
contracting mechanisms that do not fit neatly under the “market” rubric. Historical
evidence suggests that the soft contract takes on greater prominence in Hollywood
roughly coincidentally with the decline of the studio system. The surveys of reported

87
California law appears generally to honor the choice of foreign law in employment contracts,
subject to the state’s policy against enforcing non-compete provisions. See, for example, Sarmiento v.
BMG Entertainment (C.D. Cal. 2003), upholding choice of New York law in contract between a California
composer and music director; Hopkinson v. Lotus Development (N.D. Cal. June 21, 1995), upholding
choice of Massachusetts law in an employment contract; Flake v. Medline Industries (E.D. Cal. 1995) (June
22, 2011), upholding choice of Illinois law to govern an employment contract.
88
At the same time, the consent decrees issued in the 1948 Paramount litigation (United States v.
Paramount Pictures, Inc. et al., (334 U.S. 131 [1948])) compelled the studios to divest ownership of
theatres and limited the studios’ contractual freedom in licensing packages of films to exhibitors, which
exposed studios to greater risk that they would be unable to find exhibitors for a release (Stuart 1982, p.
260).
89
Other commentators date the demise of the studio system to the World War II period. Gomery
(1986, pp. 9-10) observes that, as of 1945, only 261 of the 1054 members of the Screen Actors Guild who
“received feature billing . . . were under exclusive contract to a major studio”.

49
 Draft February 7, 2013

litigation and case law described earlier found only one court decision, and one other
reported dispute, relating to contract formation in connection with a film project prior to
1947—precisely the time at which the studio system began to unravel under the external
cost pressures and legal interventions described above.90 Moreover, those two disputes
arose in the early 1920s, right at the inception of the studio system era. As the studio
system begins to unravel in the late 1940s, reported litigation involving contract
formation issues in studio/talent relationships emerges with greater frequency and
continues through the present day (App. A). While merely suggestive, the historical
incidence of “contract formation” litigation is consistent with an organizational narrative
where informal contracting, and attendant holdup problems, appear just prior to the start
of the studio system, which then seeks to resolve those contracting difficulties through
the simple solution of vertical integration; conversely, as the studio system unravels,
those same problems reappear.
These shifts in transactional form do not appear to be accidental and lend support
to a proposition that deserves further empirical inquiry. If the demise of the studio
system inflated the holdup risk and project risk to which studio and talent were exposed
in any individual film project, then studio and talent—or more specifically, the repeat-
play representatives of studio and talent—may have responded by adopting an
intermediate transactional arrangement that lies between the dichotomous alternatives of
firm and market. Since the demise of the studio system, Hollywood has evolved a
transactional model in studio/star relationships (and, in more irregular fashion, in other
settings) that falls somewhere in between the triplet constituted by three canonical
transactional forms: (i) long-term formal contracting; (ii) repeated informal contracting
driven solely or primarily by reputation; and (iii) short-term formal contracting.
Exploiting the two vectors of duration and formality, these transactional options, and the
Hollywood alternative, can be depicted as shown below. The old studio system primarily
operated in region I: long-term formal contracting, interrupted by periodic renegotiations

90
A California state court litigation in 1936 involved the famous movie actor, James Cagney,
concerning an oral agreement with respect to the number of films in which Cagney had agreed to perform
(Daily Variety 1936). However, this dispute (and other disputes at the time between studios and major
stars) did not contest the existence of a legally binding agreement between talent and the studio, as
distinguished from disputes over the interpretation of specific terms or whether specific terms had been
breached.

50
 Draft February 7, 2013

in the case of the highest-value stars. The unraveling of that system appears to have
pushed transactions between studios and the general class of input providers into two
transactional alternatives. Transactions between a studio and non-creative input
providers (and lower-value creative input providers) tend to operate in region II: short-
term formal contracting. Transactions between a studio and high-value creative input
providers (as well as some other parties) tend to operate in region III: a boundary zone
characterized by substantially incomplete formal instruments supported by repeat-play
reputational constraints (which are reflected by a medium-term durational vector).

Formality Legend

II I I: The “Studio System”:

All Input Providers

II: Post-Studio System: Non-

Creative Input Providers and
III Lower-Value Talent

III: Post-Studio System:

High-Value Talent; Others

Duration

Figure IX: A Transactional Typology of Film Production

IV. Normative Implications

I began by treating Hollywood’s predilection for soft contracting as an anomaly.
But if the proposed economic rationale for Hollywood’s relaxed contacting practices is
correct, then those practices may not be a non sequitur. Any industry that shares the
characteristics of the film industry—severe uncertainty, high holdup risk, high
specification and enforcement costs, and positive but limited reputation effects—are
hospitable environments for soft contracting instruments, at least where vertical
integration is a more costly transactional option. That presumptively includes creative
markets that typically exhibit similar informational constraints, risk characteristics and
sequential investment structures (Caves 2002). The use of open-ended precontractual
agreements reportedly characterizes some technology transfer, project finance, and

51
 Draft February 7, 2013

infrastructure projects, in which complexity, uncertainty and multiple parties necessitate

prolonged negotiating periods concurrently with performance in lieu of the discrete
offer/acceptance sequence contemplated by classical contract law (Lake and Draetta
1994, p.54). Soft contracting instruments with ambiguous enforceability even appear in
conventional business environments: merchants exchange letters of credit with
documentary defects (Mann 2000); merchants enter into requirements contracts with
dubious enforceability (Macaulay 1963); rail-freight carriers and shippers use informal
and legally unenforceable contracts to implicitly alter regulatory constraints (Palay 1985);
parent firms sometimes issue “comfort letters” or “keepwell agreements” in support of
the financial obligations of a subsidiary (DBRS 2010); and underwriters commonly issue
“best efforts” commitment letters to an issuer in connection with an initial public offering
(Lake and Draetta 1994, pp.14-15). In refusing to enforce an unsigned LLC agreement
under the statute of frauds, the Delaware Chancery Court observed that private equity
funds sometimes use oral agreements and “roughly-outlined unsigned arrangements or
draft agreements” in lieu of definitive LLC agreements.91
The surprising prevalence of soft contracting practices raises normative
implications for the formation requirements that contract law imposes to demarcate
legally enforceable and unenforceable categories of promissory communications.
Contrary to the formalism of classical contract law, modern courts tend to take a more
fluid approach that in some cases imposes liability with respect to incompletely specified
agreements that would not survive a strict application of the mutuality requirement.92
Some portions of the business community have resisted this trend. Evidence on choice of
law and forum clauses indicates that public corporations tend to prefer the formalist
approach typically attributed to the contract law of New York and Delaware, as
distinguished from the contextualist tendencies ascribed to states like California
(Eisenberg & Miller 2009). Also, business lawyers typically recreate a formalist regime
by inserting boilerplate that negates all implied and oral terms outside the “four corners”

91
Olson v. Halversen, C.A. No. 1884-VCL, 2008 WL 4661831 (Del. Ch. Oct. 22, 2008), affirmed
986 A.2d 1150 (Del. Ch. Ct. 2009).
92
For example, the UCC loosely defines a legally enforceable contract as “the bargain of the parties .
. . as found in their language or by implication from other circumstances including course of dealing or
usage of trade or course of performance.” UCC § 1-201(3).

52
 Draft February 7, 2013

of the contract.93 Other evidence has shown that certain industry groups adopt dispute-
resolution systems specifically to avoid the UCC’s contextualist approach and the
associated risk of judicial preemption of agreed-upon terms (Bernstein 2000). But that
formalist preference is not true of all markets. As documented throughout, entertainment
attorneys make few if any efforts to recreate a formalist regime through contractual
design. To my knowledge, neither the film industry nor the entertainment bar has taken
action to evade or protest the contextualist proclivities of California courts (except to the
extent that the state court system has been displaced by the industry-run arbitration
system operated through the collective bargaining agreements between the actors’ and
writers’ guilds and the studios). That contrasts with the vigorous protests by the New
York legal community in response to the 1987 decision of Pennzoil v. Texaco, in which a
Texas court interpreted New York law to imply that a multi-billion-dollar acquisition
agreement had been reached based on a letter of intent.94
If Hollywood wished, it could largely abandon California contract law for the law
of a more formalist jurisdiction. California courts tend to honor the choice of other
states’ laws to govern employment contracts (except, in some cases, with respect to non-
compete clauses)95 and have done so without comment in the entertainment setting.96
Record labels sometimes take advantage of this opportunity and select New York law in
order to evade California law’s restriction on personal service contracts to a maximum of
seven years (Weinstein 1995). The fact that Hollywood has not done the same suggests
that California’s soft version of contract law is efficient for the motion picture industry
relative to all available alternatives.97 The reason may lie in Hollywood’s preference for

93
Personal experience as a corporate lawyer. For a similar view, see Schwartz & Scott (2003).
94
Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil, Co., 729 S.W.2d 768, 795 (Tex. App. 1987).
95
For a statement of California’s tolerant position on this point, see Nedloyd Lines B.V. v. Superior
Court (3 Cal. 4th 459, 470 (1992)) (holding that a “valid choice of law clause . . . encompasses all causes of
action arising from or related to the agreement”). For applications of this principle in the employment
context, see Sarmiento v. BMG Entertainment (C.D. Cal. 2003) (upholding choice of New York law in
contract between a California composer and music director); Hopkinson v. Lotus Development (N.D. Cal.
June 21, 1995) (upholding choice of Massachusetts law in an employment contract); Flake v. Medline
Industries (E.D. Cal. 1995) (June 22, 2011) (upholding choice of Illinois law to govern an employment
contract). For the most recent pronouncement by the California Supreme Court on the nonenforceability of
noncompete clauses, see Raymond Edwards II v. Arthur Andersen LLP (Cal. 2008).
96
See, e.g., Welles v. Turner Entertainment Company, 488 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2007).
97
There are two other nonexcludable possibilities: (i) California is not as anti-formalist in practice as
is commonly believed (or New York law is not as formalist in practice as is commonly believed); or (ii)

53
 Draft February 7, 2013

soft contracting instruments in certain cases. If soft contracting relies on a zone of

ambiguity in which legal enforceability is not entirely clear, then soft contract law—
meaning, adjudicative approaches that obfuscate the boundary between sufficiently and
insufficiently formalized agreements—are a required precondition for those practices to
emerge and persist.98 Increases in required levels of contractual formality would
constrain or eliminate that zone of ambiguity and compel parties to operate under either
certainly enforceable agreements (above the formalization threshold) or certainly
unenforceable agreements (below the threshold). The result may be an efficiency loss:
no transaction can be entered into at all or can only be entered into at a higher cost. That
may explain why, in response to the Delaware Chancery Court’s decision mentioned
above, private equity funds successfully lobbied the Delaware legislature to reverse the
court’s ruling by providing that the statute of frauds does not apply to those agreements
(77 Del. Laws ch. 287 [June 10, 2010]).99
To illustrate this argument, let’s run a brief thought experiment. Suppose California
increased its formalization threshold: for example, courts would be prohibited from
enforcing any agreement absent execution of a notarized agreement initialed by both
parties with representation by a licensed attorney. That type of requirement eliminates all
ambiguity over the availability of legal recourse in the event of breach but, for the same
reason, may distort parties’ efficient choice of contracting form or even frustrate certain
transactions altogether. Ambiguous enforceability enables parties to operate in a “low-F”
contracting zone that supplies some protection against both counterparty opportunism
(which demands some threat of legal liability) and project risk (which demands some
constraint on legal liability). Upward adjustments in the formality threshold would
eliminate or curtail that ambiguous zone by clarifying that even low-F contracts imply
zero legal risk. That would compel parties to elect among three transactional alternatives:
(i) untailored “high-F” contracts that provide strong protection against hold-up risk but

Hollywood has adapted to a second-best legal infrastructure and switching costs preclude operating under
the law of alternative contract-law regimes.
98
Geis (2006) makes a related argument with respect to parties’ use of strategic ambiguity in the
drafting of contracts, which he attributes to parties’ rational gamble on judicial interpretation of the relevant
terms ex post given the inability to reach agreement on the meaning of those terms ex ante. That strategy
depends on courts’ willingness to uphold and fill in gaps in contracts that suffer from indefiniteness (rather
than deeming them to be presumptively invalid).
99
See Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP (2008).

54
 Draft February 7, 2013

no protection against project risk, (ii) tailored “high-F” contracts that provide a mix of
protection against hold-up risk and project risk but require a substantial investment in
specification costs, and (iii) contracts at all lower values of F that provide strong
protection against project risk but, given the absence of legal enforceability, no protection
against hold-up risk. Given that parties are already electing to operate in a zone of
ambiguous legal enforceability—that is, the partially formalized documentation of an
“unsigned deal”—and could substitute toward high-F or zero-F instruments if so desired,
eliminating that zone by raising the formality threshold for contract enforceability to only
encompass high-F contracts necessarily compels parties to adopt less efficient
transactional forms. In the extreme case, transactions will be entirely blocked: tailored
high-F contracts are too costly to negotiate, untailored high-F contracts save on
negotiation costs but impose excessive project risk, and zero-F contracts save on
negotiation costs but, given the lack of enforceability, impose excessive holdup risk.

Conclusion
Hollywood contracting provides the most salient illustration of a typical mode of
ambiguous commitment situated between the alternatives of reputation and contract. The
persistent use of soft contracting in Hollywood and elsewhere suggests that it promotes
an efficient purpose. In certain transactional settings, ambiguous contracts implement an
efficient allocation of holdup risk and project risk in an environment where any
alternative governance structure, ranging from formal contract to reputation to vertical
integration, cannot achieve a superior expected outcome net of transaction costs.
Hollywood dealmakers are neither reckless nor imprudent. Rather, their transactional
choices reflect an assessment of the marginal net value of increased specification effort in
an environment in which formal contract has limited but positive efficacy, reputation
effects are powerful but unreliable, and integration is no longer economically feasible.
The result is the soft contract: a hybrid instrument that lies between the formal world of
single-shot contractors protected by law and informal communities of repeat players
constrained by reputation.

55
 Draft February 7, 2013

Appendix A: Reported contract formation disputes involving

talent and studio or other production entity (through year-end 2012)100

Legend:
T = talent; S = studio (or other production entity or individual producer)
O = oral; W = written

Year Parties (T/S) Film (Actual or Type Party in Outcome

Proposed) of Alleged
Agmt Breach

1923 A. Jolson/D.W. Griffith His Darker Self O T Enforced

1924 D. Collins/Bennett et al. Queen of the Flat Top O S Unknown
1947 Johnston/20th C. Fox The Clock Struck O S Enforced
Twelve
1948 De Toth/ Columbia Pictures N/a (long-term contract) O T Enforced
1949 Mason/Rose N/a (series of movies)101 W S Not enforced
1950 N. Algren/Roberts Prods. Inc. The Man with the O T Unknown
Golden Arm
1950 B. Davis/Ramon Romero Mrs. Lincoln O T Unknown
1952 Werker/M. Briskin, Morjay Prods.et Cry Tough O/W S Unknown
al.
1952 Unidentified actress/RKO Not specified O S Unknown
1955 Skirball/RKO Appointment in Samarra O S Enforced
1955 H. Lloyd/California Pictures Corp. Mad Wednesday O S Remanded
1956 B. Donlevy/Carthy Prods. King of Hearts O T Unknown
1956 S. Hayden/Warner Bros. Tension at Table Rock O S Unknown
1957 C. Heston/Warner Bros. Darby’s Rangers Unkno S Settled
wn
1958 K. Briggs/MGM et al. High School Confidential O S Unknown
1958 Holden/Paramount The Horse Soldiers O T Not enforced
1959 K. Frings/United Artists et al. Two for the Seesaw O S Unknown
1959 Carter/Milestone Operation Mad Ball W S Not enforced
1960 R. Parrish/Omat Prods. Brotherhood of Evil O S Unknown
1961 J. Landis/J. Gentile Tragedy in a Small Town O S Unknown102
1963 B. Breen/S.Goldwyn Porgy & Bess O T Not enforced
1963 C. Odets/MGM The Actor O S Unknown
1964 A. Quinn/United Artists The Magnificent Seven O S Not enforced
1964 Boyd/T. Mann, Benton Film Prods. The Unknown Battle O S Unknown
1965 D. Murphy/ G. Conway et al. This Hero Breed O T Unknown

100
All disputes identified through the Lexis-Nexis and Westlaw databases, the Variety digital
archives and the trade press. All disputes involve filing of lawsuit except in two cases as indicated. Any
dispute for which the outcome is indicated as “enforced” or “not enforced” indicates that a court or jury
reached a final determination, in which case the dispute is also referenced in App. B. Sources for all other
items can be found under “References—General and Trade Press Sources”. The search was restricted to
contract formation disputes involving talent (writer, director or actor) and a studio (including any type of
production company or individual producer). I excluded: (i) talent/studio disputes involving claimed
contracts relating to a particular term of an agreement but without raising any doubt as to talent’s or
studio’s commitment to perform; and (ii) “idea submission” disputes involving allegations by a writer or
producer that a studio or other production entity misappropriated an “idea” pitched to the studio or
production entity. For brevity, not all parties’ names are always listed.
101
Joint venture to form production company.
102
WGA arbitration.

56
 Draft February 7, 2013

Year Parties (T/S) Film (Actual or Type Party in Outcome

Proposed) of Alleged
Agmt Breach

1968 F. Dunaway/O. Preminger Hurry Sundown O T Settled

1968 P. Lawford/Embassy Pictures and Something Beginning O T Unknown
Paramount with M
1968 E. Taylor, R. Burton/J. Blaustein Taming of the Shrew O T Dismissed
1969 E. Silverstein/Warner Bros. Nobody Loves a O S Unknown
Drunken Indian
1971 M. von Sydow, L. Ullman/MGM Man’s Fate O S Unknown
1972 J. Palance/S. Peckinpah et al. The Getaway O T Unknown
1973 N. Montex/20th Century Fox Che O S Dismissed
1976 F. Dolan/Columbia Ann Carver’s Profession O S Unknown
1984 M. Steenburg/MGM Roadshow O S Settled
1986 F. De Felitta/Polygram Sea Trial O S Unknown
1987 R. Dangerfield/Warner Bros. Caddyshack II O S Settled
1988 B. Lancaster/Columbia The Old Gringo O; W S Unknown
1989 A. Pacino/E. Kastner, Cinema Corp. Carlito’s Way O T Unknown
1989 B. De Palma, O. Litto/Orion Dressed to Kill O S Unknown
Pictures
1989 Pickney/Valente-Kritzer Callenetics O S Not enforced
1991 E. Lloyd/Orion Pictures Mermaids O S Settled
1991 Garcia Marquez/Roth Love in the Time of W T Not enforced
Cholera
1992 J. Mattson/De Laurentis Productions Milk Money O T Unknown
1992 H. King/Inspiration Pictures Romola O S Settled103
1992 R. Mulcahy/Davis-Panzer Prods. Highlander III O T Unknown
1993 Konigsberg/Rice The Mummy O T Not enforced
1993 K. Basinger/Main Line Boxing Helena O T Enforced
1993 A. Bening/Samuel Goldwyn Co. The Playboys O T Settled
1993 J. Milius/Price Entertainment Texas Rangers O S Unknown
1993 W. Goldberg/T Rex Prod. Co. T. Rex O T Settled
1995 P. Anderson/Private Movie Co. Hello, She Lied O T Not enforced
1997 J. Travolta/Mandalay Entertainment The Double O T Settled
1997 J. Foster/Polygram The Game O S Unknown
1997 F. Dunaway/L. Persky Master Class O S Settled
1998 M. Myers/Universal Dieter O T Settled
1998 F.F. Coppola/Warner Bros. Pinocchio O; W T Not enforced
2000 Rappaport/Buske Fabulously Fit and O S Not enforced
Famous
2001 S. Stone/unnamed production co. Basic Instinct 2 O S Suit
withdrawn
2002 T. Kaye/Flashwork Prods. Victim of Deceit O T Dismissed
2002 Lombardo/Mauriello Mother and Child W S Enforced
2003 Rai/Unidentified studio The Rising O T Settled104
2003 D.Lane/Intermedia Films Me Again W S Settled
2007 B. Pitt/Universal State of Play O S Settled105

103
Settlement is assumed based on information that plaintiff-director (who claimed breach by studio)
directed the film. See www.imdb.com/title/tt0015289/
104
No lawsuit filed; hence, I assume a settlement.
105
No lawsuit filed. Parties resolved dispute once acceptable replacement for Pitt was found (Baz
2009).

57
 Draft February 7, 2013

Year Parties (T/S) Film (Actual or Type Party in Outcome

Proposed) of Alleged
Agmt Breach

2007 J. Goodman/Constantin Films Pope Joan O T Settled

2008 Hansen/Geisler Desperadoes W S Not enforced
2009 Shade/Gorman American Heroes W S Not enforced
2010 Fiat Risus (R. Williams)/Gold Circle Cop Out (formerly titled W T Not enforced
Films A Couple of Dicks)
2012 Fraser/Moyer et al. Not specified W S Pending

58
 Draft February 7, 2013

Appendix B: Published or other reported judicial decisions involving contract

formation disputes in film and television projects106

Legend:
O = oral agreement
W = written agreement (deal memos, letter agreements, unsigned long-form agreements; faxes)
Def. = definite (certainty, agreement on all material terms)
Indef. = indefinite (uncertainty, lack of agreement on essential terms, vagueness)

Case (Year) Type of Parties; Transaction Enforced? Grounds Governing

Agmnt Law107

D.W. Griffith Co. v. Jolson O Studio/actor Y Def. NY

(1923, probably New York
state court) (N.Y. Times 1924)

Johnston v. Twentieth Century O Writer/studio (use of Y Def. CA

Fox Film Corp., 82 Cal. App. book title in movie)
2d 796 (Cal. Ct. App. 1947)

Columbia Pictures Corp. v. de O Studio/director Y Def. CA

Toth, 87 Cal.App.2d 620, 624
(Cal. Ct. App. 1948)

Mason v. Rose, 176 F.2d 486 W Actor/studio (joint N Indef. England/

(2nd Cir. 1949) venture to form movie CA
production company)

Skirball v. RKO Radio O Producer/studio Y Def. CA

Pictures, 134 Cal. App. 2d
843 (Cal. Ct. App. 1955)

Paramount Pictures Corp. v. O Studio/actor N108 No CA

Holden, 166 F.Supp. 684 injunctive
(C.D. Cal. 1958) relief for
oral
contracts.

106
Databases (Lexis-Nexis): “All Federal, New York, and California (from start of databases
coverage through June 30, 2011); “All Federal and State except for New York and California (January 1,
1980-June 30, 2011)”. Note that these databases generally do not cover state trial courts, which usually
issue unpublished or otherwise unreported opinions. Search terms identified fully litigated cases that (i)
primarily involved a film or television production and (ii) addressed the enforceability of an oral or written
agreement (excluding cases that addressed only the enforceability of a particular term in an otherwise
enforceable oral or written agreement and cases that involved “idea submission” scenarios). Some
unpublished but fully litigated cases were added that were identified through supplemental searches in
Westlaw or other sources.
107
Governing law refers to state law as selected in a claimed written contract, state law as designated
by the court in the case of a claimed oral contract or claimed written contract that does not specify
governing law; and federal law in the case of a claimed violation of Section 204(a) of the Copyright Act.
108
The court declined to rule on the existence of a binding contract (which was remanded to the
lower court), but also declined to issue an injunction against the actor working for another employer during
the contract term due to the absence of a written agreement. I therefore treat this outcome as the functional
equivalent of the court having declined to enforce the claimed contract.

59
 Draft February 7, 2013

Case (Year) Type of Parties; Transaction Enforced? Grounds Governing

Agmnt Law

Carter v. Milestone, 170 Cal. W Writer/producer N Indef. CA

App. 2d 189 (1959)

Breen v. Samuel Goldwyn Co. O Director/producer N Not stated CA

(1963) (Times Daily 1963)

Anthony Quinn v. United O Actor; studio N Indef. CA

Artists et al. (Santa Monica
Superior Court, 1964) (Daily
Variety 1964)

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. O Studio/actor (TV pilot Y No statute NY

Scheider, 43 A.D. 2d 922 with option to produce of frauds
(N.Y. App. 1974) TV series) violation.

Sawyer v. Sickinger, 47 O Producer/producer N Statute of NY

A.D.2d 291 (N.Y. App. 1975) (option to acquire rights frauds
to direct film)

Jillcy Film Enterprises, Inc. v. W; O Producer/network N Statute of NY

Home Box Office, Inc., 593 F. frauds;
Supp. 515 (1984) indef.

Winston v. Mediafare W; O Agent/producer N No intent NY

Entertainment Corp., 777 F.2d (finder’s fee for sale of to be
78 (2nd Cir. 1985) movie rights) bound.

Valente-Kritzer Video v. O Producer/writer (right to N Statute of Fed.; CA

Pinckney, 881 F.2d 772 (9th sell movie rights to frauds
Cir. 1989) studio)

Effects Ass’n, Inc. v. Cohen, O Video effects Y Implied Fed.

908 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1990) firm/producer nonexclus
ive license

Roth v. Garcia Marquez, W Producer/writer (sale of N Indef; CA

942 F.2d 617 (9th Cir. Cal. option to develop film) agreement
1991) to agree

Geoquest v. Embassy Home O Producer/videocassette N Def. Illinois

Entertainment, 229 Ill. App. distributor
3d 41 (1992)
Konigsberg Int’l v. Rice, 16 O Producer/writer N Statute of Fed.
F.3d 355 (9th Cir. 1993) frauds

Main Line v. Basinger, 1994 O; W Studio/actor Y Def. CA

WL 814244 (Cal.App 1994)

Trimark Pictures, Inc. v. W Producer/distributor N Statute of Fed.

August Entertainment, Inc., frauds
No. B089266 (Cal. App. 1996)

60
 Draft February 7, 2013

Case (Year) Type of Parties Enforced? Grounds Governing

Agmnt Law

Private Movie Co., Inc. v. O Studio/actor N Indef. CA

Pamela Anderson, L.A.
Sup. Ct. Case. No. BC
136805 (Oct. 10, 1995)

Coppola et al. v. Warner O; W Director/studio N Indef., CA; Fed.

Bros., Inc., L.A. Sup. Ct. statute of
Case No. BC 135198 (July frauds
12, 1998)

Radio TV Espanola S.A. v. W Broadcast network/ N Statute of Fed.

New World Entm’t, Ltd., production company frauds
183 F.3d 922 (9th Cir.
1999)

Rappaport v. Buske, 2000 O Actor/producer N Indef.; lack NY

WL 1224828 (S.D.N.Y. of intent to
Aug. 29, 2000) be bound.

Lombardo v. Mauriello, W Writer/producer Y Def. Mass.

2002 Mass. Super. LEXIS
399 (2002)

Zenga v. Brillstein-Grey O Producer/studio N Indef. CA

Ent’t, 2003 Cal. App.
Unpub. LEXIS 10427
(2003)

Baer v. Chase, 392 F.3d O Producer/consultant (TV N Indef. NJ

609 (3d Cir. 2004) series)

Portman v. Zoetrope, W Producer/producer N Indef. CA

Corp., 2005 Cal. App.
Unpub. LEXIS 4093
(2005)

In re My Left Hook, LLC; W Production N Indef. CA

Lemon v. Lapin, 403 F.3d company/financiers
1041 (9th Cir. 2005)

Lyrick Studios, Inc. v. Big W Studio- N Statute of Fed.

Idea Prod., 420 F.3d 388 distributor/production frauds
(5th Cir. 2005) company

Network Enters. v. APBA O; W Cable network/producer Y Intent to be NY

Offshore Prods., 427 F. (broadcast of sports event) (agreement bound
Supp. 2d 463 (S.D.N.Y. to negotiate
2005) in good
faith)

61
 Draft February 7, 2013

Case (Year) Type of Parties; Transaction Enforced? Grounds Governing

Agmnt Law

Hansen v. Geisler, 2008 W Writer/producer N No NY

NY Slip Op. 33266U (S. consideration.
Ct. N.Y., N.Y. Cty., Dec.
4, 2008)

Weinstein Co. v. O Studio/producer N Statute of Fed; NY

Smokewood Entm't Group, frauds; lack of
LLC, 664 F. Supp. 2D 332 intention to be
(S.D.N.Y 2009) bound

Shade v. Gorman, 2009 W Videographer/studio N Disclaimer of CA

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8554 intent to be
(N.D. Cal. 2009) bound

Fiat Risus v. Gold Circle W Actor (Robin N Indef. CA

Films, L.A. Superior Ct. Williams); production
(Feb. 5, 2010) company

Trademark Properties, O Creator; television Y Def. NY

Inc. v. A&E Television network
Networks, 422 Fed.Appx.
199 (4th Cir. 2011)
(unpublished)

Swan Media Group v. W Media group; actress N Indef. NY

Staub, 841 F.Supp.2d 804
(S.D.N.Y. 2012)

62
 Draft February 7, 2013

REFERENCES

Albert, Steven. 1999. Reply: Movie Stars and the Distribution of Financially Successful
Films in the Motion Picture Industry. Journal of Cultural Economics 23: 325-329.

Athias, Laurie and Stephane Saussier. 2010. Contractual Flexibility or Rigidity for
Public-Private Partnerships? Theory and Evidence from Infrastructure Concession
Contracts. EPPP Working Paper. Available at
http://www.webssa.net/files/images/Athias-Saussier-2010.pdf

Bakker, Gerben. 2005. Stars and Stories: How films became branded products. An
Economic History of Film, edited by John Sedgwick and Michael Pokorny. London:
Routledge.

Bardach, Veronique. 1993. A Proposal for the Entertainment Industry: Use of Mediation
as an Alternative to More Common Forms of Dispute Resolution. Loyola of Los Angeles
Entertainment Law Review 14:477-498.

Ben-Shahar, Omri. 2004. “Agreeing to Disagree”: Filling Gaps in Deliberately

Incomplete Contracts. Wisconsin Law Review 2004: 389-428.

Bernstein, Lisa. 1992. Opting Out of the Legal System: Extralegal Contractual Relations
in the Diamond Industry. The Journal of Legal Studies 21:115-157.

Bernstein, Lisa. 2000. Private Commercial Law in the Cotton Industry: Creating
Cooperation through Rules, Norms and Institutions. Michigan Law Review 99:1724-___.

Biederman, Donald E. et al. 2006. Entertainment Law & Business. 5th Ed.

Bogart, Michael S. 2004. The Problem with Handshakes: An Evaluation of Oral

Agreements in the United States Film Industry. Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts
28:359-377.

Boot, Arnoud W.A., Stuart I. Greenbaum, and Anjan V. Thakor. 1993. Reputation and
Discretion in Financial Contracting. The American Economic Review 83:1165-1183.

Boyle, Charles E. 2001. Hollywood and the Insurance Industry. Insurance Journal,
September 17. Available at http://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/mag-
features/2001/09/17/18502.htm

Boyle, Barbara. 2004. The Independent Spirit, in The Movie Business Book, edited by
Jason Squire. 3d ed. New York: Fireside.

Bozovic, Iva and Gillian K. Hadfield. 2012. Scaffolding: Using Formal Contracts to
Build Informal Relations to Support Innovation. Working Paper. University of Southern
California, Center for Law, Economics & Organization.

63
 Draft February 7, 2013

Brouwer, Alexandra & Thomas Lee Wright. Working in Hollywood. New York: Avon
Books. 1990.

Caves, Richard. 2002. Creative Industries: Contracts between Art and Commerce.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Charny, David. 1990. Nonlegal Sanctions in Commercial Relationships. Harvard Law

Review 104:373-467.

Chisholm, Darlene C. Asset Specificity and Long-Term Contracts: The Case of the
Motion Picture Industry. Eastern Economic Journal 19:143-155.

Choi, Albert and George Triantis. The Effect of Bargaining Power on Contract Design.
Working Paper. 2012.

Choi, Albert and George Triantis. 2010. Strategic Vagueness in Contract Design: The
Case of Corporate Acquisitions. Yale Law Journal 119: 848-924.

Cleve, Bastian. Film Production Management. Second Ed. Focal Press: Boston. 2000.

Cones, John W. 1997. The feature film distribution deal. SIU Press.

Coudert Brothers, LLP. 1998. Industry Custom & Practice: The Importance of
Arbitration Clauses in International Entertainment Contracts (1998). Available at
http://library.findlaw.com/1998/Jan/1/126624.html

Crocker, Keith J. and Masten, Scott E. 1991. Pretia ex Machina? Prices and Process in
Long Term Contracts. Journal of Law & Economics 34:64-69.

DBRS. 2010. Guarantees and Other Forms of Explicit Support. August. As of March 18,
2012: http://www.dbrs.com/research/234322/dbrs-criteria-guarantees-and-other-forms-
of-explicit-support.pdf

De Vany, Arthur and David Walls. Bose-Einstein Dynamics and Adaptive Contracting in
the Motion Picture Industry. 1996. Economic Journal. 106:1495-1513.

De Vany, Arthur. 2004. Hollywood Economics: How Extreme Uncertainty Shapes the
Film Industry. New York: Routledge.

Dossick, Harrison J. 1999. Resolving Disputes over Oral and Unsigned Film Agreements.
L.A. Lawyer. April.

Dunaway, Faye & Betsey Sharkey. 1998. Looking for Gatsby. New York: Simon &
Schuster.

64
 Draft February 7, 2013

Eisenberg, Theodore & Geoffrey P. Miller. 2009. The Flight to New York: An
Empirical Study of Choice of Law and Choice of Forum Clauses in Publicly Held
Companies’ Contracts. Cardozo Law Review. 30:1475-___.

Elberse, Anita. 2007. The Power of Stars: Do Star Actors Drive the Success of Movies?
Journal of Marketing 71:102-210.

Farnsworth, Ward. 1987. Precontractual Liability and Preliminary Negotiations: Fair

Dealing and Failed Negotiations. Columbia Law Review 87:217-294.

Ferrari, Mark J. and Andrew Rudd. 2006. Investing in Movies. Available at http://www.q-
group.org/archives_folder/pdf/Rudd.pdf

Freeland, Robert F. 2000. Creating Holdup Through Vertical Integration: Fisher Body
Revisited. Journal of Law and Economics 43:33-66.

Geis, George S. 2006. An Embedded Options Theory of Indefinite Contracts. Minnesota

Law Review 90: 1664-1719.

Gil, Ricard. 2011. The Interplay of Formal and Relational Contracts: The Case of
Movies. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization.

Gilson, Ronald J., Charles F. Sabel, and Robert E. Scott. 2010. Braiding: The Interaction
of Formal and Informal Contracting in Theory, Practice and Doctrine. Columbia Law
Review 110:1377-1447.

Goldberg, Victor P. 1976. Toward an Expanded Theory of Contract. Journal of Economic

Issues 10: 45-61.

Goldberg, Victor P. 1997. The Net Profits Puzzle. Columbia Law Review 927: 524-550.

Gomery, Douglas. 1986. The Hollywood Studio System. New York: St Martin’s Press.

Goldman, William. 1983. Adventures in the Screen Trade: A Personal View of

Hollywood and Screenwriting. New York: Warner Books.

Greif, Avner. 1993. Contract Enforceability and Economic Institutions in Early Trade:
The Maghribi Traders’ Coalition. The American Economic Review 83:525-548.

Hanson, Gordon H. 1995. Incomplete Contracts, Risk, and Ownership. International

Economic Review 36: 341-63.

Huetting, Mae D. 1944. Economic Control of the Motion Picture Industry: A Study in
Industrial Organisation. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.

65
 Draft February 7, 2013

Johnston, Jason Scott. 1999. Communication and Courtship: Cheap Talk Economics and
the Law of Contract Formation. Virginia Law Review 85: 385-501.

Kari, Douglas. 1993. Basinger in the Box: Verbal Contracts in the Film Industry.
Entertainment Law Report 15:3.

Kemper, Tom. 2009. Hidden Talent: The Emergence of Hollywood Agents. University
of California Press.

Kindem, Gorham. 1982. Hollywood’s Movie Star System: A Historical Overview. Pp.
79-93 in The American Movie Industry: The Business of Motion Pictures, edited by
Gorham Kindem. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Klein, Benjamin. 1996. Why Holdups Occur: The Self-Enforcing Range of Contractual
Relationships. Economic Inquiry 34: 444-463.

Klein, Benjamin, Robert G. Crawford, and Armen Alchian. 1978. Vertical Integration,
Appropriable Rents and the Competitive Contracting Process. Journal of Law and
Economics 21:297-326.

Kravit, Stephen M. 2004. Business Affairs. The Movie Business (3rd ed.) (ed. Jason
Squire).

Lake, Ralph B. and Ugo Draetta. 1994. Letters of Intent and Other Precontractual
Documents: Comparative Analysis and Forms. 2d ed. Salem, N.H.: Butterworths.

Litwak, Mark. 1994. Reel Power: The Struggle for Influence and Success in the New
Hollywood.

Litwak, Mark. 2009. Dealmaking in the Film and Television Industry: From Negotiation
to Final Contracts. 3d ed. Los Angeles: Silman-James Press.

Lyons, Bruce R. 1994. Contracts and Specific Investment: An Empirical Test of

Transaction Cost Theory. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy. 3:257-58.

Macaulay, Stewart. 1963. Non-Contractual Relations in Business: A Preliminary Study.

American Sociological Review 28:55-69.

Mann, Ronald. 2000. The Role of Letters of Credit in Payment Transactions. Michigan
Law Review 98:2494-2536.

McLaughlin, Gary M. 2001. Oral Contracts in the Entertainment Industry. Virginia

Sports and Entertainment Law Journal 1:101-134.

Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP. 2008. Private Equity Group Client Alert:
Delaware Court Rules LLC Operating Agreements are Subject to Statute of Frauds.

66
 Draft February 7, 2013

November 10. Available at

http://www.milbank.com/images/content/7/9/794/111008_Olson_v_Halvorsen.pdf

Moore, Schuyler M. 2011. The Biz: the basic business, legal and financial aspects of the
film industry. Los Angeles: Silman-James Press. 4th ed.

Palay, Thomas M. 1985. Avoiding Regulatory Constraints: Contracting Safeguards and

the Role of Informal Agreements. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization. 1:155-
175.

Perillo, Joseph M. 1994. UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts:

The Black Letter Text and a Review. Fordham Law Review 63:281-316.

Posner, Richard A. 2005. The Law and Economics of Contract Interpretation. Texas Law
Review 83:1581-1614.

Producer-Screen Actors Guild Codified Basic Agreement (as amended). 2005.

Rosen, Sherwin. 1981. The Economics of Superstars. The American Economic Review
71:845-858.

Schatz, Thomas. 2010. The Genius of the System: Hollywood Filmmaking in the Studio
Era. 1st University of Minnesota Press ed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Schleimer, Joseph D. 2001. California Court of Appeals Reverses $20,000,000 Verdict:

Understanding the Coppola v. Warner Bros. Decision. Entertainment Law and Finance
17. April.

Schleimer, Joseph D. 1998. Coppola’s Verdict’s Impact on Studio/Talent Talks,

ENTERTAINMENT L. & FIN., Vol. 14, No. 6, available at
http://www.schleimerlaw.com/ELF998.htm. Sept.

Schwartz, Alan & Robert E. Scott. 2003. Contract Theory and the Limits of Contract
Law. Yale Law Journal. 113:541-___.

Schwartz, Alan & Robert E. Scott. 2007. Precontractual Liability and Preliminary
Agreements. Harvard Law Review. 120:661-707.

Scott, Robert E. 1987. Conflict and Cooperation in Long-Term Contract. California Law
Review 75:2005-2054.

Scott, Robert E. 2003. A Theory of Self-Enforcing Indefinite Agreements. Columbia Law

Review 103: 1641-1696.

67
 Draft February 7, 2013

Selz, Thomas D., Melvin Simensky, Patricia Acton, and Robert Lind. 2006, incl. 2009
Update. Entertainment Law: Legal Concepts and Business Practices. 3d ed. Eagan, MN:
Thomson/West.

Shipman, David. 1993. The Great Movie Stars: The Golden Years. London: Warner Bros.
Books.

Smith, Rick. 2003. Here’s Why Hollywood Should Kiss the Handshake Deal Goodbye.
Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review 23:503-531.

Standard & Poor’s. 2007. S&P Industry Surveys: Movies and Home Entertainment.

Stuart, Fredric. 1982. The Effects of Television on the Motion Picture Industry: 1948-
1960, in The American Movie Industry: The Business of Motion Pictures, edited by
Gorham Kindem. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009. Occupational Outlook

Handbook, 2010-11 Edition (Actors, Producers and Directors).

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and DC Comics, Principal and Response Brief of Cross-
Appellants and Appellees Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and DC Comics, Filed in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. March 23, 2012.

Weinstein, Mark. 1998. Profit-Sharing Contracts in Hollywood: Evolution and Analysis.

The Journal of Legal Studies 27:67-112.

Weinstein, Stuart. 1995. Seven Year Law Benefits California Artists. Billboard, June 3.

Williamson, Oliver. 1975. Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications.
New York: Free Press.

Zuckerman, Ezra. 2004. Do Firms and Markets Look Different? Repeat Collaboration in
the Motion Picture Industry, 1935-1995. Working Paper. MIT Sloan School of
Management, Cambridge, MA.

General and Trade Press Sources

Archerd, Amy. 1997. Just for Variety. Daily Variety, October 31.

AFP. 2007. Brad Pitt Pulls Out of Universal film, risking lawsuit. November 23.
Available at http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gaYyQiSxEydhsK9JX7It9uEmAAgw

Ardi, Dennis and Meredith Lobel. 1986. How to Break a Contract. Daily Variety,
November 7.

68
 Draft February 7, 2013

Bamigboye, Baz. 2009. Russell Crowe in secret deal to save Brad Pitt from lawsuit.
Mail Online. April 23.

Beck, Marilyn. 1988. Dangerfield is picky about scripts for his movies. St. Petersburg
Times, September 27.

Bharataniyer, Shilpa. 2003. Thesp’s success leads to salary strife. Weekly Variety.
November 24-30.

Bing, Jonathan. 2002. Kaye’s Cautionary Tale. Daily Variety. April 2.

Brennan, Judy & Edward J. Boyer. 1994. Damages Against Kim Basinger in Film Suit
Voided. Los Angeles Times. September 23.

Bunting, Glenn F. 2007. $78 million of red ink? L.A. Times. April 15.

Cestero, Ricardo. 2010. Managers vs. Talent, or When BFFs Turn Nasty. Law Law Land,
April 28. Available at
http://www.lawlawlandblog.com/2010/04/managers_vs_talent_or_when_bff.html

Child, Ben. 2008. Robins Williams unamused by pay dispute. The Guardian. October
20.

Daily Variety. 1924. Dana Collins in Court Over Lost Picture Role. November 5.

Daily Variety. 1936. Terms of Cagney Deal Taxes Warner Memory. March 5.

Daily Variety. 1946. 20th Loses $20,000 Suit on Oral “Flat Tops” Deal.

Daily Variety. 1949. Hollywood Inside. October.

Daily Variety. 1950. Golden Arms’ Rights Subject to Suit. February 13.

Daily Variety. 1950. Ramon Romero Sues Bette Davis for 142G. January 17.

Daily Variety. 1952. RKO Letterheads Cited in Stars’ Suit. July 2.

Daily Variety. 1952. Hughes Ponders Signing Settlement or Taking Stand in Simmons
Trial. July 17.

Daily Variety. 1952. Werker Sues Mori Briskin; Charges Oral Pad Breach. October 22.

Daily Variety. 1956. Carthy Sues Donlevy. August 2.

Daily Variety. 1956. Hayden Suit Charges RKO Breached Oral Agreement; Asks 35G.
August 23.

69
 Draft February 7, 2013

Daily Variety. 1958. 17-Year-Old Girl Sues Over Metro ‘High School Confidential’.
June 26.

Daily Variety. 1959. Ketti Frings’ 75G Suit Charging Breach vs. UA, SA, Mirisch on
‘Seesaw’. September 8.

Daily Variety. 1960. Red Button Sues for 40G; 3d Claim Damages Against Ill-Fated
‘Evil’. May 12.

Daily Variety. 1961. WGA To Arbitrate ‘Small’ Plot Dispute. March 17.

Daily Variety. 1963. Attorney Jams Himself Trying It On Goldwyn in Bob Breen’s
Action. March 12.

Daily Variety. 1963. Odets Sez Deal Favoring Actor Ruined Writer’s Profit. June 5.

Daily Variety. 1964. Boyd Sues Tony Mann. April 16.

Daily Variety. 1964. Not Legally Binding: Tony Quinn Loses Action on Brynner
‘Promise’. December 2.

Daily Variety. 1965. Legal Heroics: Actors, Producer Sue Film Writer For $1254,804.
August 13.

Daily Variety. 1968. N.Y. Court Stalls Prem Injunction Against Dunaway. January 17.

Daily Variety. 1968. Lawford Sues Par, Embassy for 150G. April 23.

Daily Variety. 1968. Dismiss Blaustein Suit. November 27.

Daily Variety. 1970. Silverstein Sues Warner for 351G. September 18.

Daily Variety. 1971. Max von Sydow and Liz Ullman Sue Over ‘Man’s Fate’. October
28.

Daily Variety. 1972. Jack Palance Sues Sam Peckinpah. June 8.

Daily Variety. 1972. 20th Wins Dismissal of Nene Montez Suit. October 30.

Daily Variety. 1976. Fired Much Too Soon, Dolan Sues Columbia. June 30.

Daily Variety. 1984. Steenburg Sues MGM for 10 Mil. September 5.

Daily Variety. 1986. De Fellita Sues Polygram Over ‘Trial’ Rights. March 13.

Daily Variety. 1988. Lancaster Slaps Col With Suit For'Old Gringo' Firing. June 8.

70
 Draft February 7, 2013

Daily Variety. 1989. Kastern Sues Pacino For Contract Breach. May 12.

Daily Variety. 1992. King Can’t Cut Romola. October 8.

Daily Variety. 1992. De Laurentis Sues Scripter, Agent. November 24.

Daily Variety. 1992. Mulcahy Sued Over ‘Highlander III’. December 2.

Daily Variety. 1993. In Basinger’s Wake, Bening Settles Suit. April 5.

Daily Variety. 1997. Double trouble irks legal eagles. July 14.

Dossick, Harrison J. 1999. Resolving Disputes over Oral and Unsigned Film
Agreements. L.A. Lawyer. April.

Forbes. 2012. Star Currency List. Available at http://star-currency.forbes.com/celebrity-

list/

Gardner, Eriq. 2011. Judge: Beyonce Video Game Lawsuit Can Move Forward.
Hollywood Reporter. December 8.

Gardner, Eriq. 2012. Hollywood Docket: Brendan Fraser sues. Hollywood Reporter.
May 11.

Heston, Charlton. 1993. Of Trust, Manners and How Hollywood Works. Los Angeles
Times, April 12.

IMDb.com. 2012a. STARMeter Top 10 of 2011. Available at

http://www.imdb.com/oscars/year-in-review/starmeter-top-10-of-2011

IMDB.com. 2012b. Basic Instinct 2 (2006): Did You Know? As of March 18, 2012:
www.imdb.com/title/tt0430912/trivia

Lieberman, Jane. 1989. DePalma and Litto Testify as “Dressed” Trial Opens. Daily
Variety, November 1.

Meza, Ed. 2007. Goodman Sued After Refusing ‘Joan’ Job. Daily Variety, August 4.

New York Times. 1924. Jolson, Out of Film, Sued for $571,696. April 25.

Pristin, Terry. 1993. Whoopi Goldberg Ends Breach-of-Contract Suit. Los Angeles Times,
September 18.

Rapportoni, Linda. 1991. Former Uni ‘Deal-Maker’ Testifies in ‘Pirates’ Trial. Daily
Variety, June 6.

71
 Draft February 7, 2013

Shepatin, Matthew. 2008. Who’s the Most Bankable Star in Hollywood? Esquire, May
27. Available at http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/box-office-power-052308

Subers, Ray. 2012. Paramount Wins 2011 Studio Battle. Box Office Mojo, Jan. 11.
Available at http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3345

The Ulmer Scale. 2010. About Us. Available at

http://www.ulmerscale.com/aboutUS.html

Times Daily. 1963. Goldwyn Victor in $805,000 Contract Suit. March 26.

TMZ. 2010. Robin Williams Loses ‘A Couple of Dicks’. February 4.

Tusher, Will. 1975. Troubled Tandem Hails Warning to Balky Stars. Hollywood
Reporter. June 5.

UPI. 2004. Diane Lane settles suit with film house. May 12.

Weinstein, Stuart. 1995. Seven Year Law Benefits California Artists. BILLBOARD. June
3.

Interviews

Interview with former general counsel at major studio, Los Angeles, February 8, 2011
(“Studio Counsel Interview I”)

Interview with in-house counsel at major studio, Los Angeles, various dates in February-
December 2011 (“Studio Counsel Interview II”)

Interview with in-house counsel at major studio, Los Angeles, August 29, 2011 (“Studio
Counsel Interview III”)

Interview with general counsel at “mini major” independent studio, Los Angeles, various
dates in February-December, 2011 (“Mini-Major Counsel Interview”)

Interview with business affairs executive at a major studio, Los Angeles, August 10, 2012
(“Studio Executive Interview”)

Interview with senior attorney with entertainment practice, Los Angeles, May 31, 2011;
e-mail communication, Sept. 9, 2012 (“Entertainment Attorney Interview I”)

Interview with law firm partner with entertainment practice, Los Angeles, June 2, 2011
(“Entertainment Attorney Interview II”)

72
 Draft February 7, 2013

Interview with law firm partner with entertainment practice, Los Angeles, November 23,
2011 (“Entertainment Attorney Interview III”)

Interview with law firm partner with entertainment practice, Los Angeles, July 19, 2012
(“Entertainment Attorney Interview IV”)

73