Contract Girls

[Harry Hardon]

"5 EXCLUSIVITY: The Performer shall not for the duration of this Agreement plus 1 further year provide to any person other than the Company the Performer's services in respect of films and/or photographic productions and/or internet and/or newspaper or magazine or other publishable materials and/or dancing and/or any other public appearances whether for free or for payment without the prior written permission of the Company."

Taking this contract to the nth degree, no models who are contracted with Bluebird Films can go out to a club or bar on a Saturday night as they are under contract to not dance and possibly appear on a website or on camera.

Numerous night club promoters use sites such as Sintillate or Facebook to promote their night club events and include photographs of pretty girls - to get us guys to attend and spend money.

Also, this clause says nothing about strength of photos - again numerous models have Myspace and Facebook profiles, will BB take on these websites which are "free" because the model is posting pictures of him or herself enjoying themselves.

Given the draconian nature of this contract, I would expect a decent brief could argue this is an unfair restraint of trade as has happened in the past in numerous other industries.

At the end of the day, I expect an out of court settlement will suffice though as it's all about the money..

I would like BB to give us some examples which have actually gone to court and they have won in the UK not just sending a letter from "our lawyer" to intimidate small producers.

HH
I think BB should give specific examples

[Keiranlee]

Now that is a daft reply....

[David Johnson]

Hi Hiwatt,
To repeat nowhere in this thread do you give an example of someone who has had a case brought against them successfully by Bluebird in a UK court of law without any out of court settlement etc.

If you have, then copy and paste it in reply to this thread. If you haven't - oh dear, oh dear!

The bottom line is that you may have satisfied your objective in bringing your seemingly unsupportable legal views to the attention of others (unsupportable because you have no examples of Bluebird enforcing this in the UK in a court of law) but you have also scored a masterly own goal for Bluebird from a pr point of view.

Keep on digging Hiwatt, before someone at Bluebird cops on and tells you that this approach is becoming somewhat counter-productive.

In the meantime, if you get stuck, I will give you the number of the Derbyshire cave rescue team to pul you out. You will have to dust off the dirt from your pinstripes yourself though.

Great stuff. Keep it up
David

[paul jones]

Delta - take advice. The exclusivity clause is very wide, quite possibly far too wide.

In a court my understanding is that it will stand or fall in entirety - so:-

a) BB know it will fail. In which case expect them to either BS all the way to court while they rewrite for new girls. OR they'll want to negotiate and only restrict that which they really want to defend. E.g write a letter that restricts to BG.

b) BB are unsure how it will stand up, and will try to defend or negotiate.

c) It is actually legit.

If a good lawyer says it's (a) then it's worth fighting*, (or, to be precise, get your lawyer to write a letter stating so, that way you can take jobs and IF BB take action, make them think twice. The producer becomes much more in the clear because you have given them a defence - they have a resonable belief that no contract exists!). All the other stuff about torts etc only applies if the contract itself stands up in law.

* You probably don't want to start legal action (costs money), just have the ammo for when BB start it on you.

[Harry Hardon]

Keiren,

Merely taking the clause to the nth degree to show how it could be enforced and as a result of this whether it can be enforced.

HH

[Harry Hardon]

Actually just thought of a some better examples of this clause and how it could affect a model's social life :-

Scenario 1. A CG goes to a recording of a television show for one of the main terrestial non-porn channels. As a result of attending this recording as themselves, the CG is filmed in the audience and as a result, is shown in television. The television company were unaware this person was a CG

Scenario 2. A CG goes to a concert for a leading International superstar. This concert is to be filmed for resale over the Christmas period. The CG is filmed dancing to the songs and because the CG is very attractive, the editor leaves the CG in the final cut.


Under the clause stated, Bluebird could seek compensation for the model appearing "for free" upon another television network or a record label as Clause 5 says nothing appearing the capacity of a model.

Now there's a legal fight : Bluebird Vs The BBC / ITV / EMI, etc...

Yes - it sounds daft but I'm taking the clause to it's logical conclusion which any lawyer could do if they so desire...

HH

[paul jones]

Quick follow up:-

Restraint Clauses - courts are tough on lawyer/lawyer contracts, but when ordinary people sign them they are willing to ask the question "would the person have signed it if they fully understood". In this case it's "work a year, don't work a year", a tough sell.

Also, interesting to see that HiWatt has posted that it's a BG restriction only, (which might well stand up), but the wording doesn't say that. The wording pretty much kills a models entire income, and that makes it iffy.

But I am not a lawyer, so CG, seek advice.

Brave producers could do ditto - if the restraint clause is not valid, no torts exist.

My take - I'd bet a decent bottle of Scotch that if push comes to shove, (they attack for breach, and get a stiff lawyers letter back), BB would negotiate, though they might never actually change the wording.

But they have no reason to do anything unless it becomes clear that a dispute will reach court.

[paul jones]

http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/ro ... 0Trade.htm

Enjoy.

Esp any CG girls or producers who want a fight.

If the restraint clause falls, BB can't action against anyone.

[roccoandjanet]

Um...this act was updated in 2003 to include businesseshiwatt wrote:

> Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 does not apply to business
> contracts.