[S-99]

This is a contract my friend has that he wants inspected for loop holes or anything else crappy like that. The contract appears to get done what he wants done with no loop holes or crappiness that i could find. But, i'd like for other people to inspect. For all intents and purposes, identities and movie names have been changed for privacy concern of posting this.

Things needed to be known: "first party" is who needs a contract, and they are male. First party was the co producer of the film. First party's alias has been changed to "blablabla" (first party has a co producing alias; it's also only mentioned once so i chose a use once boring identifier).
"Second party" is the producer and copywright owner of the film, and they are female.
“Film” is the movie (which the contract later refers to the movie as film anyway, but it was still a privacy concern since the title popped up once).
The contract is between these two people who are referred to as party's.
First party is the creator of the contract, the contract can be changed at any time.

Reason for and contract coming to being: First party wanted to make a college movie. So he entered into a project with some friends. Disinterest for him first appeared when the producer (second party) needed people to sign model release forms (for the actors and other people who are seen in the film). Second party got a model release form template from a professor that they neglected to change any of the information on (second party was too lazy to customize the template for her needs). She had everyone sign this unchanged model release form template. Anybody who didn't, she went ahead and entered that model's name on the model release form template without letting them know (considered forgery?). Secondly, because it was an unchanged model release form template that was used, this model release form gives away the model rights to the college. I don't know how well that's going to work since second party owns the copywright (that's of no ones concern, she can have it all).

The film has already been completed, and second party also wants the co producer (first party) to sign a model release form. I don't know why he would need to. First party's not on camera and not an actor. First party wants this contract, since second party needs a contract from him (otherwise she'll likely put his name on a model release form template for him). First party wants no attatchment or responsibility to this movie whatsoever except for use in his personal portfolio since he helped make it (understandable since the making of the movie was ****ed along with the paper work).

Contract purpose:It doesn't matter how good or bad this movie is. First party wants no attatchment since a lot of the paper work we consider to be screwed up from the start, and because he'd rather not deal with second party in any kind of dispute over the movie (or ever deal with her again).

And finally...the contract.

Agreement made and entered into, by and between ____________ and ______________ on ________.

1. First party, also known as blablabla, hereby grants second party sole and exclusive rights to Film (hereafter referred to as the “Film”), the trailer for the Film (hereafter referred to as the “Trailer”), and the DVD of the Film (hereafter referred to as the “DVD”).
2. First party waives any claim, both present and future, to any form of compensation for the role First party played in the production of the Film, Trailer, and DVD. Furthermore, first party cedes the Film, the Trailer, the DVD, and all rights to said Film, Trailer, and DVD to second party while reserving the right to include the Film, Trailer, and DVD in his, first party’s, personal portfolio.
3. First party agrees not to submit the film to any contest, festival, or similar event without second party’s express approval. First party also agrees not to make any attempt to use the Film, Trailer, or DVD for direct personal financial gain.
4. First party agrees to indemnify second party and hold second party harmless from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, liabilities, and expenses.
5. Second party agrees to indemnify first party and hold first party harmless from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, liabilities, and expenses.
6. Second party accepts full rights to, ownership of, responsibility for, and proceeds from the Film, Trailer, and DVD.

Signature______________________  date_____
Signature_____________________   date_____
Witness__________________   _______________________         __________
                  (print)         (sign)         (date)

EDIT: This should be easier to follow now.

[achtung]

You need to take this kind of thing to a lawyer if you want sound legal standing. I don't think HLP will be of much use.

[S-99]

I'm going to do that next. For now, i'm curious what forumite review will find during the process of tearing it to pieces.

[LordMelvin]

I'd just like to point out that your phrasing seems to be a little bit nonstandard - generally persons entering into a contract are referred to as 'parties' rather than persons, especially when dealing with things like films which can be and often are produced by groups of people, rather than individuals. Here's someone reading a contract, for your phraseological edification. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzfiBMRDc5Y

Also, the first party should be expressly specified to retain rights to use the film in non-profit-oriented circumstances, I.E. a demo reel. If all you're doing is waiving a list of rights, the argument could be easily made that no retention of rights was intended. Your 'friend' may have hated the production process as much as I hated working with my Production II collaborator (because seriously, who breaks the light meter? And trying to do a dolly/crane on an unpermited run-and-gun five-second establishing shot?) but there's bound to still be good material in there, with some careful editing.

I am not a lawyer, but I did study film.

[Nuke]

i put more effort into breaking the law than i do into following it. so maybe im not the right one to ask.

[S-99]

I'd just like to point out that your phrasing seems to be a little bit nonstandard - generally persons entering into a contract are referred to as 'parties' rather than persons, especially when dealing with things like films which can be and often are produced by groups of people, rather than individuals. Here's someone reading a contract, for your phraseological edification. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzfiBMRDc5Y

Fixed in the first post. Yes it was non standard phrasing. Didn't know what to use at the time for identifiers other than something really generic i could come up with for the sole purpose of privacy since the contract is only between two people. Going to watch youtube video next.

Also, the first party should be expressly specified to retain rights to use the film in non-profit-oriented circumstances, I.E. a demo reel. If all you're doing is waiving a list of rights, the argument could be easily made that no retention of rights was intended. Your 'friend' may have hated the production process as much as I hated working with my Production II collaborator (because seriously, who breaks the light meter? And trying to do a dolly/crane on an unpermited run-and-gun five-second establishing shot?) but there's bound to still be good material in there, with some careful editing.

I am not a lawyer, but I did study film.

In the contract first party can use it as part of his personal portfolio (so he can show off his work in the future to an employer or whatever) and pretty much do whatever he wants with it except monetary gain and any of the other things in the contract that requires second party's approval. In other words, he should be good on that as far as i know. I'll notify the co producer to your mentioning of expressly specifying retaining rights.

Thank you for your input.

Nuke, take a stab at it. I'm looking for suggestions and what people think.

[Davros]

your friend is the first party - yes ?
dont sign, I cant see any advantage for him to sign - fair use allows him to use part of it in his portfolio

[S-99]

My friend the co producer is the first party yes.
Thank you for your input also. Forgot about fair use.

[S-99]

I guess that's it for this. No one else wants to say even what they think of it. Opinions is what i was looking for.

Thanks for the input either way.

[Klaustrophobia]

Just from reading the background, it doesn't sound like a contract is needed at all.  If what he wants to do is give up his claim to the movie, all he has to do is not dispute it if it ever comes up.  A contract isn't protecting him from anything, and just limits options later on.  And yes, signing someone's name for them on a model release form IS forgery and illegal.

But I'm no lawyer.

[S-99]

Thanks, he's using the contract put shortly enough to distance himself from the movie. He worded it in a way as to appear to be giving up his rights which he wont be.

Unfortunately it's a contract, or a forged model release form for him (even though he wasn't a model on camera, and the form template she used is unchanged so it gives the university rights to the models in the movie). His producer is this ****ing dumb.

Should he neglect the contract entirely and deal with having an incorrect form that was forged?

[Klaustrophobia]

I don't get what this girl is on about with the model release forms.  It can't substitue for a contract to the rights for the movie.  It will be utterly meaningless to your friend.  And as for the forgeries, all the consequences of that would fall on her head.  If your friend believes it may come up in the future though, he should consider coming forward with it now to avoid having to battle later if she trys to deny forging things.  Again, if the goal is to never see or hear of this whole thing again, the easiest option IMO is to just say "**** it," walk away, and let the crazy lady dig her own grave.

[S-99]

I emailed him no contract or paper work for sure. And that he shouldn't worry what she does on her end when he says **** it, and leaves.

I don't get what this girl is on about with the model release forms.  It can't substitue for a contract to the rights for the movie.

She's a deceitful ***** and dumb at that. I don't think he's going to need to worry about anything going back on him considering that she forged all of the model release forms.  In retrospect, she may in the next day forge a model release form for him as somebody who doesn't even need one the moment he walks away from the whole problem.

I would say that would be a big indicator that it wasn't the co producers fault if she tries to spread the blame for any problems she causes for herself in the future. That may work so far, but there's some peace in knowing this. Personally, her bark may be worse than her bite (she sounds like a big talker).

EDIT: And of course if she does forge a model release form with his name. Then that's uncontrollable for him since that's out of everyones power to control. This is not something i would say needs to be worried about (she either does it or not).

He did send a reply:
Alright. That makes things easier. It's good to know that I'm not tied up in it.
 
I'm a little concerned that she'll try to sue me or get money from me somehow in the future because she's extremely unstable mentally. She doesn't seem bipolar, but there's definitely something wrong with her. I'm not afraid she'll win any lawsuit, but it would be a pain in the ass, and it seems like a contract may dissuade her. **** it, I guess.
 
Thanks again. I appreciate all your help with this!

He's worrying. I did my best to re-assure his worries by saying there's a bunch of proof that's she's an evil ***** and how he shouldn't let that trump his rights and fair use law. And that if he's really worrying that he or she should just sue each other now, which would be for not much of a point.

He does appreciate your guy's help too. I sent him the link to this thread so he can track progress of review as a lurker since i created this thread.

[Klaustrophobia]

Going to the school about the forged releases should put the nail in it immediately with little fuss if he wants to do that.  No more possibility of legal battle in the future.  Well I guess there's always a tiny possiblity, but at that point all you have to do is point out that she's already known to have forged documents related to the film and done deal.

[S-99]

Well I guess there's always a tiny possiblity, but at that point all you have to do is point out that she's already known to have forged documents related to the film and done deal.

Exactly what i was thinking.