Best Hollywood Set Locations Represent A Trade Secret?
from the yeah,-good-luck-with-that dept
THResq has a post about a lawsuit involving two companies who are focused on the business of finding the right set location for Hollywood films and movies. Apparently, it's a huge business. Universal Locations is upset that two of its employees went to a competitor called Site to Site Locations, and so they're suing, saying that the employees took trade secrets with them. The thing is, it appears that Universal Locations is trying to get past longstanding and well-established California laws barring non-compete agreements, because the state, reasonably, finds it ridiculous that you could ever be barred from making a living because you're too good at your job. Claiming "trade secrets" seems like an attempt to avoid that, but hopefully the court knocks that down pretty quickly by arguing against a ruling that would take away the ability of these two individuals to work in their field of expertise. Of course, it should come as no surprise that it's some movie industry companies making this argument. In a world where IP is highly overrated, no wonder they would think that they could effectively put DRM on former employees to keep them from competing in the same field.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: hollywood, locations, noncompetes, sets, trade secrets
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Why not trade secret?
It doesn't prevent anybody else from independently finding the same sites and building their own catalog, of course.
It seems somewhat analogous to a customer list.
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why not trade secret?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why not trade secret?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why not trade secret?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why not trade secret?
Maybe you've built up relationships with the locals and so have a list of good tradesmen, caterers, the best roads for accessing the site, where to park, how to get permits, local casting agents, equipment rental, etc., etc., etc.
Yes, that is all stuff that can certainly be developed/discovered independently. BUT, until it is, there is a colorable argument that this represents a trade secret. Like a customer list.
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why not trade secret?
This reminds me of the Microsoft/Google case. Although here the executive was going from Washington state (where, presumably the non-compete agreement was made) to California (non-competes "unenforcable"). The lawsuit was settled out-of-court.
But this case "between two companies in Hollywood", however, seems more cut-and-dried.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why not trade secret?
> that hasn't been used before. Directors probably
> don't want people to go, "hey, I've seen that
> place before
Not necessarily. There are places that are used so much, it's actually amusing when they pop up yet again. Vazquez Rocks is probably the most famous example. You may never have heard of the place, but I'll bet you recognize it when you see pictures of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vazquez_Rocks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why not trade secret?
We call that one "Shatner Rock" in our house. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why not trade secret?
I don't advocate that this sort of thing gets any ADDITIONAL protection from trade secret law - merely pointing out that it's just as eligible for such protection as any other business information.
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1.) A tax credit for work performed within the state for television or motion picture. Do they have discounts for the out-of-state crew for filming within their state (i.e. sales tax reimbursement, or discounted lodging for the crew)
2.) What does it look like for 24 hour talent? For example, let's say I'm shooting a mocumentary and need someone who looks like Maznick but doesn't wear a brown coat. How big is the state talent pool? How long will it take to obtain them? Is it cheaper to get Mazzy on a plane? What if I just want his dog on a boat? Does the State have well trained dogs and other props that look like Mike available?
These are serious questions which can be answered by calling around or just looking on wikipedia
As long as Hollywood acts like it's the only place in town, it'll forget about what it lost to Toronto and other states.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, those locations that are more in the public eye are going to be harder to keep a secret, but the fact that tax dollars are somehow associated with it wouldn't be dispositive, IMHO.
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
See:
http://w3.uchastings.edu/patent_01/Handouts/California%20Uniform%20Trade%20Se crets%20Act.pdf
If, as the article states, it is true that the database for such locations was downloaded during the defendants' tenure with the plaintiff company, the defendants may very well have not only absconded with the plaintiff's purported trade secrets, but they may very well have violated fiduciary duties owned by them while they remained in the plaintiff's employ.
Non-compete agreements have long been deemed unenforceable in California as contrary to public policy, but the calculus does change when trade secrets are involved. In such situationsit is not unheard of to impose certain time constraints such that the likehood of using the former employer's trade secrets has attenuated.
In all candor, however, I have never drafted nor seen a provision in any employee agreement concerning the purported royalty requirement should a specific item(s) contained in an alleged trade secret database be used after an employee had left one company and become employed by its competitor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Other options
1.) A tax credit for work performed within the state for television or motion picture. Do they have discounts for the out-of-state crew for filming within their state (i.e. sales tax reimbursement, or discounted lodging for the crew)
2.) What does it look like for 24 hour talent? For example, let's say I'm shooting a mocumentary and need someone who looks like Maznick but doesn't wear a brown coat. How big is the state talent pool? How long will it take to obtain them? Is it cheaper to get Mazzy on a plane? What if I just want his dog on a boat? Does the State have well trained dogs and other props that look like Mike available?
These are serious questions which can be answered by calling around or just looking on wikipedia
As long as Hollywood acts like it's the only place in town, it'll forget about what it lost to Toronto and other states.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Other options
1.) A tax credit for work performed within the state for television or motion picture. Do they have discounts for the out-of-state crew for filming within their state (i.e. sales tax reimbursement, or discounted lodging for the crew)
2.) What does the talent market look like? For example, let's say I'm shooting a mocumentary and need someone who looks like Maznick but doesn't wear a brown coat. How big is the state talent pool? How long will it take to obtain them? Is it cheaper to get Mazzy on a plane? What if I just want his dog on a boat? Does the State have well trained dogs and other props that look like Mike available? These are very serious questions that should be researched.
If you're not very talented director, you can look up some answers on wikipedia.
But don't forget, it's a focused effort to create art, and *not protections* that made cities such as Toronto what it is today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]