Issue link: https://digital.copcomm.com/i/711111
55 Q3 2016 / CINEMONTAGE nominee Donald Trump would do little to expand coverage after repealing ObamaCare, and 21 million people would still lose their insurance. AFM LEFT SINGING THE BLUES OVER PARAMOUNT SUIT In mid-June, a California federal judge gave Paramount Pictures a victory in a lawsuit brought by the American Federation of Musicians (AFM) over the score to the upcoming film Same Kind of Different as Me, starring Renee Zellweger, writes Eriq Gardner in The Hollywood Reporter. The ruling matters because it explored a grey area of the law — whether studios are joint employers. In 2015, the AFM claimed that Paramount had breached the terms of its collective bargaining agreement requiring that films produced in North America be scored there. Same Kind of Different as Me was scored in Slovakia. Significantly, the parties disputed what "producer" and "employer" mean under guild agreements. Paramount denied being either and, under its theory, there was no obligation for the film to be scored in North America. In October 2014, Paramount and a single- purpose entity, SKODAM Films LLC, entered into a co-financing and distribution agreement through which Paramount would put up 40 percent of the film's budget and obtain a fractional interest in the copyright to the movie. Legally, had Paramount "produced" Same Kind of Different as Me? Paramount argued that the term "produce" meant "shot" in relation to "principal photography," while the union claimed that under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), anyone financing at least 25 percent of the film is considered a "producer." US District Judge Dolly Gee ruled against AFM's interpretation, finding it nowhere in the CBA and said that there is "no genuine dispute that the meaning of the word 'produced' in Article 3 [of the relevant CBA] is 'made' or 'shot.'" "Yet, even under Paramount's 'narrow' definition of 'produced,' the Court finds that AFM provided enough evidence to create disputed issues of fact as to whether Paramount 'made' or 'shot' Same Kind of Different as Me," wrote Judge Gee. The CBA language in question applies to those "employed by the producer," so the Court clarified who is the "employer." The judge noted that there's nothing in the CBA dealing with this in instances of plural "producers" or "co-producers." The judge added that "SKODAM Films undisputedly did the bulk of the work making or shooting the motion picture" and Paramount "cannot have breached the CBA because there is no evidence presented that it either directly or indirectly was the joint employer, much less the employer, of the myriad employees working on the production of Same Kind of Different as Me." The judge dismissed AFM's arguments having to do with Paramount's influence over the film, saying there was no evidence that the studio "had the right to control the day-to-day activities of the motion picture's cast and crew, or that it exercised more than minimal control over the film's shooting." "The AFM fundamentally disagrees with the analysis that led the district court to grant Paramount's motion and has filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals," AFM International President Ray Hair told CineMontage. COURT RULES AGAINST ILLEGAL ARBITRATION CLAUSES A federal appeals court in late May ruled that companies cannot force their employees to sign away their right to band together in legal actions, giving a major victory to American workers, write Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Noam Scheiber in The New York Times. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago struck down an arbitration clause that banned employees from joining together as a class and made workers LABOR MAT TERS