Film Television Development Deals Financing Lawyer

California Film Television Development Deals Financing Lawyer Sebastian Gibson

Film and Television Development Deals

Development money is almost certainly the hardest money for most producers to obtain, the most expensive in terms of what it will cost a producer, and the riskiest money for an investor to put toward the development of a film or TV series.  Today, as California Film Television Development Deals Financing Lawyer Sebastian Gibson will tell you, it’s even harder to come by.

The amount of development money a producer needs to raise is what a producer needs to create a professional looking package of materials, of the quality expected today in the entertainment industry, and suitable for a successful pitch of a film or television series to investors, a studio, network or streaming service in order to attract production financing. Without a great concept, the perfect pitch and professional looking materials to accompany a pitch, the project is unlikely to receive funding.

Development money pays for a screenwriter to write or rewrite a screenplay, expenses involved in seeking A-list actors to commit to the project, for a producer’s travel expenses to film markets where producers commonly seek financing from investors and pre-sales from distributors, and can also pay for location scouting and other expenses. It may be used to cover the overhead of a producer until the film project has the financing to go into pre-production.

California Film Television Development Deals Financing Lawyer Sebastian Gibson, The Right Choice for Film Producers

From Malibu to San Diego where California entertainment attorney Sebastian Gibson graduated from the University of San Diego School of Law, to his current offices in the Palm Springs area and Newport Beach to London where he has practiced law extensively, California Film Television Development Deals Financing Lawyer Sebastian Gibson is the right choice for all your entertainment film and television productions, projects in development and film and TV agreements for productions in the U.S., the UK and around the world.

With offices in the Palm Springs area where Live Nation will be opening a new arena in 2022 to Palm Desert to the eastern portion of the Coachella Valley where AEG subsidiary Goldenvoice produces the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival and the Stagecoach Music Festival, Sebastian Gibson is the Coachella Valley’s entertainment attorney and Sebastian Gibson is the southern California desert’s and Orange County entertainment law firm.

Film Television Development Deals Financing Lawyer Sebastian Gibson

The law firm of California Film Television Development Deals Financing Lawyer Sebastian Gibson not only has Southern California covered, from Palm Springs to Orange County, but we have the world covered as well from London where some of the finest films and television series continue to be produced.

For many years one of the world’s most iconic entertainment law firms for modeling and publishing, representing models and writers throughout the world, Sebastian Gibson is on track to becoming one of the world’s leading law firms for music, film, television, theater and worldwide entertainment events in addition to its expertise in the fields of modeling and publishing.

Forming The Right Type of Film and TV Production Company for Producers

All producers need to have a production entity of one form or another. The biggest reason to form a company of some type is to protect one’s assets from liability and at the same time to have a legal entity in place in order to finance films or television projects when they’re ready for development. The question thus arises, what type of entity should a producer form, and when exactly should it be formed?

The production entity can be a corporation, a limited partnership, a general partnership (a very bad idea) or a limited liability company. While there are no statistics readily available, most producers form LLCs for a number of reasons.

In a general partnership, each partner can contractually bind the partnership in dealings with third parties. The partnership not only becomes liable for the acts taken by any of the partners in connection with the partnership’s business, but each of the partners is personally liable for all the partnership debts as well.

A limited partnership has general partners who manage the partnership and are liable for its debts and limited partners who have no control or management functions and are not liable for the partnership debts.

By utilizing an LLC, a producer can protect themselves from liability while at the same time using a company format which is easily managed.

While a producer can operate as a sole proprietorship, there is no such protection other than what insurance coverage they may be able to purchase with all of the exclusions contained in the insurance policy.

General partnerships still expose a producer to liability and while limited partnerships are better if structured appropriately, they are still not as favored as an LLC. Corporations are still used by some producers and would probably rank as the second most favored entity used by producers. A C corporation can go public if so desired.

At all cost, despite filmmaking being a collaborative industry, producers should avoid entering into joint ventures or any other agreements of this type which might allow one partner the ability to stymie the other from making decisions and producing the project to completion. Like a marriage or even a law corporation, breakups happen, people pass away, get tired of the rat race, go on vacation, sometimes permanently, or get into trouble with drugs or alcohol.

While corporations or LLCs can be utilized, their protection can be pierced and the personal assets of its directors reached if the directors of the corporation or the members of the LLC fail to comply with the formalities required of them. There are less formalities with an LLC, however co-mingling personal and entity assets is one of the biggest issues looked at by attorneys seeking to pierce the corporate veil of such an entity.

Among the reasons most producers choose to form an LLC is that the underlying document of an LLC, the operating agreement, can easily be drafted to allocate voting power and management of the production company while still providing the benefits of liability protection for the producers of the film or television project. Rights of succession can also be addressed should a member pass on and the rights of co-producers can also be addressed in the event they decide they’d rather work for another production company or become less enthusiastic about the production company’s projects.

LLCs have features which make them the preferred entity within the entertainment industry. An LLC limits personal liability as effectively as a corporation. They can determine whether to be taxed as a partnership or a corporation, though be default they are treated as a partnership if there is more than one member. They can thus avoid double taxation like an S Corporation. But they are also flexible in the way they allocate gains and losses. If an LLC has only one member, they are taxed as a sole proprietor and their liability still remains protected just as if the LLC has more than one member.

Board meetings and shareholder meetings are not required to be held on an annual basis like a corporation requires, and they can thus implement decisions quickly without getting approval from a Board of Directors or shareholders. Not all the members of an LLC are required to have voting power which can also make decision making simpler. In fact the manager of an LLC need not even be a member of it.

The personal assets of individual LLC members are protected from the debts of the LLC so long as they don’t commit fraud, follow the formalities of such an entity (which are less onerous with an LLC than a corporation), pledge their personal assets to obtain financing, or co-mingle their personal assets with those of the LLC.

LLC Operating Agreements

The operating agreement, which is the real governing document of the LLC, however, needs to be drafted with special attention to the needs of the producer when its being used in an LLC for a production entity.

How the LLC will be manages must be specially addressed with any LLC, however in the case of a production company, the roles of the producer(s) and any co-producers or collaborators, their fees, voting rights, management responsibilities, and the rights and of investors and their priority to be recouped for their investment is of particular importance. How the LLC will deal with budget shortfalls preventing production or a completion of production needs to be addressed as well.

Producers are primarily interested in protecting their interests (shares in the profits from the project and the rights to the film or television series being developed and produced) and just as important to a filmmaker is that they retain the right to direct and control the actual day-to-day activities, expenditures and retain full creative control of the project, whether the project eventually gets made or not. Projects not brought to fruition the first time around can be resurrected years later when entertainment industry conditions change or audience likes may be different.

Additional documents are often drafted at the same time as the LLC is formed. The entertainment attorney may suggest drafting employment agreements of the producers and collaborators, and intellectual property agreements are often necessary to transfer the intellectual property rights to the LLC and to ensure any potential competing claims are laid to rest by others who may have been employed on a work-for-hire basis in the creative or development phases.

The obligations and rights of investors must also be addressed in the LLC operating agreement. When their money will be made available to the filmmaker, for example, is when there is “meaningful progress” as defined. This a common provision in the LLC operating agreement. Allowing investors to have a say in the project’s creative process is generally an extremely poor idea, despite many investors believing otherwise.

In the event the producers want to be able to produce multiple projects, individual LLCs should be formed as each project becomes ready for development and funding. Putting all the eggs of a producer into one LLC and funding and developing more than one at the same time in a single LLC can lead to trouble. By forming separate LLCs as each project in effect hatches and becomes ready for development, investors in a single project can also be protected without their funds being lost on other projects.

With such a business plan, one entity is utilized to keep warm a producer’s basket of projects which acquires rights to various projects. Only when a project is ready for financing, are those rights are then conveyed to a separate LLC. In this way, as one project receives more attention for development, the producer’s other projects remain separate and protected in the multi-project warming entity.

The LLC for the project being funded should be the one to sign all of the project’s agreements including those with A-list actors, a cast, the director and others. This separately formed LLC if formed to completely own the project, and to be the entity responsible to the project’s investors. Distributors wishing to ensure that all the rights to the project are secure, will look to the individual production LLC’s paperwork and not delve into the LLC simply keeping warm the producer’s other projects.

The umbrella LLC is owned and operated by the producer or, it can be owned and operated by a production team if there are more than one producer or if the team consists of, for instance a producer, director, actors, a writer, or even investors with a say in the company.

This primary LLC can be used to manage the second LLC formed when a specific project is ready for financing, development, and production of the umbrella company’s next films and TV projects until they’re ready for more serious development. Investors in a project ready for full development invest in the secondary LLC and may become members, but if they are passive investors, they are not given voting rights.

If a team owns and operates the primary LLC, they negotiate and hopefully agree to the amount each will be compensated as well as what their responsibilities will entail. As needed, new members can be added with their unique talents adding to the successful operations of the LLC.

The operating agreement of any secondary LLCs formed for specific projects should provide if the LLC will be allowed to retain earnings to be used for matters related to the specific film project while still providing the clear path to be used for recoupment and profits to be paid to the investors.

The Cost of Development Money

Financiers who are risk-happy enough to put up development money expect to recoup that money plus an additional bonus, plus a percentage of the producer’s profits. The bonus is generally paid on the first day of principal photography. The percentage of the producer’s profits is meant to be paid at a later date.

The Catch-22 of Getting Development Money for Films

Almost any entity an independent filmmaker approaches for development money is going to require that before they are willing to take such a risk, they see there is a well-written screenplay, although they may be satisfied by a treatment, a film schedule, a realistic budget created by a line producer, an A-list actor committed to the project, a distribution plan and possibly much more to show the project has the potential for the investor to recoup their development money investment.

But that’s what the development money is used for. It is to develop the project so a screenplay can be written, actors can be persuaded (and paid their fee) to commit to the project, to have a budget prepared, to obtain the rights to a book or a script, professionally prepared materials for a pitch, and all the other elements to bring a project up to the stage where it can be pitched such that studios and other investors who might be interested. So it’s a catch-22. And without development funding, a film can suffer from a poorly developed storyline.

The Cost of Obtaining Investor Money in Film Financing and The Risks Faced By Investors

Once development is complete, the pitch has been successfully made (not easy) and investment money secured (equally difficult), a film or a pilot for a TV series can go into pre-production.

While an investor takes a risk they will ever be paid back, if a film does get made, is theatrically exhibited and begins to generate receipts and income, the investor starts to accumulate their investment back along with a reasonable rate of return, though there can be long delays until that income is paid by the distributor.

However, once the investors receive their investment back, and their additional rate of return, the production company and investors typically split remaining net profits equal to the proportion of the investor’s loan to the budget and the percentage of the producer’s net profits agreed by the producer to be paid to investors. Net profits can, however, be an elusive term, to the chagrin of investors.

In order to obtain investment money, a producer must still be able to show a clear path to recoupment to investors and a realistic recoupment schedule. This is normally part of the disclosures contained in a securities offering. And while offerings must honestly divulge all the risks of investing in a film, and in particular, the film project as described in the offering, investors must be savvy enough to evaluate what is divulged in the offering.

While talent agencies will package a film project to make it more attractive to a studio or investors, they will normally do so if a producer agrees to pay them 10 to 15 percent of what the producer makes from a film. However, they will still generally not get involved in a project without a producer still having a project that can be professionally pitched to them and to get to even that stage costs money.

On the other hand, development money is generally going to require a producer to see not only that the development money investor is recouped, plus they expect to be paid a bonus, and the producer will probably have to pay the investor an additional percentage of their profits as the producer begins to recoup their costs in the project. The amounts and percentages can be higher or lower and are subject to negotiation.

California Film Television Development Deals Financing Lawyer Sebastian Gibson: Distribution As A Source of Investor Money

Distribution is one of the vehicles to getting investors recouped. The order in which the box office receipts received by the producer via the distributor are paid out and to whom, depends on the recoupment schedule needs to be planned in advance and be clearly disclosed with any risks affecting their recoupment to any investors. There should also be a well devised business plan the production company adheres to.

Pre-sales agreements are routinely sought and while the search for the right distributors can take time, with commercially viable films, agreements are made with distributors before a film is shot. The ability to obtain a pre-sales agreement is based on a number of factors which evaluate the strength of the project’s commercial marketability and today are evaluated for their sales potential in all the important territories, including all of the key overseas territories.

The determination of whether investors get the film tax credits awarded by a country or state after production is completed, or whether the production company can use the tax credits for itself is one of the negotiating points in drafting financing agreements with investors. Tax credits are extremely valuable and should be a key focus by investors.

If the order of priority of payments is determined and clearly set forth in the production company’s business plan and negotiated in advance, the producers can avoid a situation in which they’ve negotiated with key talent, A-list actors and the director, for instance, for first position, thereby leaving little or no room left at the top of the priority schedule for the investors, or for later investors.

Recoupment problems can and have occurred when a producer gives away far too much of the equity to the initial investors or other individuals involved in the creative process or during the development stage and then fails to leave enough room for others who come aboard the project later.

If the last investors are the last in line to recoup their investment funds, this can be a serious mistake as it is often the last investor who can get the project greenlighted for production. A producer who assumes earlier investment agreements can be renegotiated will soon learn his or her mistake and experience the ire of investors.

Bonus payments to A-list actors, can also affect an investor’s early path to being recouped. The film’s most important actors’ points in a project or their “back end” as these profit participation points are called, will also affect an investor’s determination whether to invest just as the amounts of bonus payments which the producer agrees to pay to A-list actors as a film reaches certain benchmarks in box office receipts.

The more primary investors, creators, collaborators, producers, writers, directors, actors, and music composers with a profit participation in the project, the worse for investors who too often arrive late at the party.

Profit participation terms can be drafted and defined in a film agreement any number of ways. There are gross participations, net participations, and variations of each. There are adjusted gross profits, modified adjusted gross profits, and the definitions of these terms and how they are written and what is contained in any riders to these definitions are the difference between an investor ever seeing any profits paid to them, or none and a resulting lawsuit for the creative accounting practices which were utilized to leave profit participants and investors grasping at straws.

A production can get recouped a substantial share of their budgets from tax credits, government subsidies, tax schemes, grants and film funds. Everyone likes tax credits and producers are wise to avoid allowing investors to take a share of them if possible.

Foreign pre-sales are another important source of revenue for independent filmmakers. Utilizing experienced domestic and foreign distribution sales agents can be critical to obtaining distribution advances which can then be utilized to finance production and convince investors to invest in a film or television project.

Pre-sales can, however, be difficult for a first-time producer to obtain. However, the more experienced a director the producer has on the project, as well as other commercial elements such as an A-list actor, the better chance a first-time or experience-limited producer will be able to obtain at least some pre-sales funding.

The size of distribution advances aren’t what they once were, however, so more and more, distribution is being fragmented among numerous distributers in the territories they specialize in, and by distribution on other carved out platforms. However, if a film has commercial aspects which are likely to bring in significant box office receipts in a country such as China, foreign pre-sales are more likely to be larger.

Development Costs and Film Investments

Among the costs which should be anticipated in the development stage of a film or TV project are the cost of acquiring any underlying rights to a book, life story or the option of a script, the cost of hiring a top screenwriter to either write or rewrite the script, hiring a line producer to prepare a realistic budget for the film based on the costs of obtaining a completed and well-written script, and hiring a casting director.

The costs can also include the producer’s overhead while performing these tasks, while meeting with talent agencies which may require a packaging fee to be paid at a later date, preparing professional looking materials to accompany the pitch at a later date to a studio, network, or a major producer, obtaining important releases, hiring key crewmembers, and obtaining commitments from A-list actors whose people can demand a non-refundable payment for an actor’s commitment to the producer’s project.

Development money can be raised in a number of ways. Occasionally, a single active investor in the project or in the production company will put up some or all of the development money. However, if an active investor puts all the development money up, they can and may very well demand a say in the creative aspects of a project, and how and on what the money is used. If that occurs, the producer’s creative freedom is reduced.

A positive to having an active investor as opposed to a passive investor though is that with an active investor, an investor financing agreement may be utilized or as an alternative, a limited liability company may be formed with an operating agreement carefully drafted, negotiated and reviewed to protect the investor’s rights.

If these risky development funds are obtained instead from a group of passive investors who will have no say in the creative process and the day-to-day activities of the production entity, their investment will require compliance and full disclosures of all the risks in accordance with the strict requirements of federal and state securities laws.

Investment vehicles for passive investors which can be used for this purpose include a limited partnership, a limited liability company or selling shares in an existing corporation. Today, however, LLCs are a preferred investment vehicle being utilized by filmmakers due to their relaxed operating requirements which corporations don’t have.

Distribution Conundrums and Negotiation Considerations That Are Faced By A California Film Television Development Deals Financing Lawyer or Producer

Should a producer hold out for the all-inclusive distribution deal or fragment distribution among numerous distributors for multiple different platforms and markets?

While domestic deals with a major distributor can include a minimum guarantee or an acquisition if the film has a lot of festival interest or elements that can make the film a commercial success, it still may not be as lucrative as dealing with numerous different distributors, each specializing in their own separate niche.

While a large distributor might offer a percentage which may at the end of negotiations be better than the higher minimum guarantee offers a producer receives from smaller distributors with less distribution channels. But obtaining payment from distributors who may be more difficult to collect from must be a consideration as well.

The revenue split is one of the two most important factors the producer will be concerned with, the other being the advance. If the revenue split is the most important determinating factor for a producer in evaluating distribution deals, taking a smaller advance may increase the producer’s split of revenues. Indeed, if the offer from a distributor is only a small amount, they should negotiate for a larger percentage of the back end.

If the producer can’t wait a number of months or more or even years to be paid out of a film’s revenues, they may want to try to negotiate a percentage of the revenues as the film takes in money. While this is worth a try, it is easier to ask for this than to find a distributor willing to grant this type of revenue splitting at an early stage.

Sales of foreign distribution rights to foreign territories can also be made in exchange for advance payments a producer can use to finance some or even a large percentage of a film’s production budget.

In today’s world where distributors find niches where they have the most experience, it’s often better for a producer to find distributors who know their territories or platforms best but to also use due diligence to research the distributors’ reputations a producer is interested in before signing any distribution agreements with them.

Distributor Due Diligence Before Offering Distribution

Before distribution can be obtained, a distributor’s E&O insurance company routinely requests a legal opinion from their attorneys to confirm that all the proper legal contracts have been signed with every participant in the creation and development of a project and that the production company is the sole owner of all the rights to the project’s components.

When a distributor looks at a filmmaker’s rights to the work about to be filmed (if contacted that early) or distributed, the distributor looks at the producer’s rights to the script, any underlying book or prior scripts, any collaborators rights, music rights (licensing), location agreements, and more.

A filmmaker must have obtained parental consent for any child actors, actor agreements must be scrutinized, agreements with all of the over the line crew will be looked at as will talent release forms, materials release forms, location release forms, group releases, extra releases, crew deal memos, and anything else that might concern a distributor that the production company needs in order to be able to claim it is the sole owner of the project.

Additional Distribution Considerations and Negotiations

A filmmaker’s ability to modify a distribution contract they’ve been offered depends on a producer’s negotiating strength and the commercial viability of the project. A producer’s objective is to negotiate a large advance payment and limit the length of term and territory of distribution so the producer can negotiate with other distributors better suited for other markets.

The entertainment playing field is constantly changing. Distributors who previously touted their experience in platforms such as home video, no longer the lucrative platform it once was, may not be the distributors best suited for dealing with the large number of competing streaming services today.

The bargaining power of the producer will depend on the track record of the producer, the buzz already out in the public in the press and social media about the film about to be distributed (whether the buzz is good or whether it’s already being thought to be a dud due to the actors, the director or some other reasons), whether the producer has other offers, the size of any such offers, the potential for commercial success of the film, and other factors as well.

Many producers desire to retain certain areas of distribution for themselves. However, if the advance payment from the distributor is contingent on granting full rights of distribution, and the producer has exhausted all other avenues and without the advance payment being offered the film will not get made, the producer may feel they have little option but to grant the distributor full rights of distribution.

What a producer must determine is whether the distributor has the skill to fully distribute the film in all markets, if other producers have had difficulties obtaining payment from the distributor, and if other distributors may not be better suited for the project in question. If it appears the distributor has the knowledge to fully distribute a film and be honest about payments, the producer may grant theatrical distribution rights, free TV, pay/cable, video-on-demand, transactional, subscription and ad-sponsored VOD, home video, semi-theatrical distribution, educational distribution, and transportation (e.g. airline) distribution.

A producer may be able to obtain a negative pick-up whereby a distributor agrees to pay for the cost of completing a film, but they may attach requirements to the deal any deviations from which will require their approval.

If a producer can obtain a distribution guarantee agreement, the producer will need to sell the distributor the film’s full distribution rights. In return, the producer will receive a fee and the negotiated royalty or gross participation in the revenues.

However, since fees are generally not paid until a producer has completed the film and royalties or profit participations are not paid generally until many months after box office receipts roll in, a producer may need to use the distribution agreement and pay for a film completion bond to obtain bank financing and such bonds can unfortunately be quite expensive to procure.

Studio Financed Production Deals and Distribution

Making a picture under the terms of a studio-financed production and distribution deal can be advantageous but also problematic. While a studio’s power to assist in the production of a film and distribute it can greatly improve the potential success of a film, a filmmaker will quickly learn the extent to which they have given up their creative control of the film.

In some cases, the filmmaker may be lucky to continue to have much of any say in the production. The screenplay is likely to undergo major changes and if the producer is the director as well, they will likely be micromanaged in exchange for the possible commercial success that may follow. Before it’s finished, however, the filmmaker may wish they’d made their film for a streaming platform known to let the producer have greater free reign.

California Film Television Development Deals Financing Lawyer Sebastian Gibson: Distribution Deal Terms

Many producers still deal with a domestic distributor for the country of their production company and possibly the U.S., if say their country is in the UK, and a foreign distributor for foreign markets.

Distribution agreements generally grant the distributor exclusive rights to the territory granted in the agreement. However, the length of time for distribution is generally limited anywhere from as little as 2 for certain distribution platforms to 5 or 10 years and sometime as long as 15 to 20 which all distributors request. Keeping the term on the short side is generally in the interest of the producer who can after the term expires, reassess the marketability for the film and also possibly remedy a bad situation with a distributor.

A distributor’s performance levels needs to be specified, but in reality, if a distributor fails to meet those levels, the process of getting the distribution back from a failing distributor once the film has already be released, is generally of little value at least with respect to theatrical release, as the public’s interest in the film will likely have faded and a re-release is unlikely to generate the same interest as the initial release

The most important area of a distribution agreement is the money and how terms involving the accounting of the receipts, expenses and payments are calculated and paid, and how terms in the agreement relating to those monetary provisions are defined.

With creative accounting, there are any number of ways for a producer to find they have little left over for themselves and their investors at the end of the day if the distribution agreement and the definitions for any terms used therein are poorly drafted. Even when there is money left to be paid to the producer by a distributor, it’s common for long delays to occur before payments to a producer are ever made.

A producer needs to keep alert to provisions which allow fees to be stacked, accounting of distribution which is cross-collateralized, and what materials need to be delivered by the producer. A producer must also avoid allowing a distributor to have any rights to change or modify a work for censorship reasons, or to shorten the work for broadcast time limitations. Distributors are not, and should not be treated as creative artists or producers despite their being a part of the entertainment industry.

Fragmenting the Distribution

It is now not uncommon for producers to have separate distribution agreements for theatrical distribution, home video, video-on-demand, and as for international distribution. While separating out each of these markets to different distributors may limit the size or potential for advances from a distributor, they can also unlock the potential for a film and at the same time, spread the risk of creative accounting being performed by an unscrupulous distributor.

One risk a producer faces in dealing with theatrical distributors is focusing too much on spending the money to make a great film and then short-changing the marketing side to ensure the film’s success. One reason producers will do just that is how distribution affects the ability to turn a profit on even a successful film. A producer doesn’t want to have a huge marketing budget which only benefits the theatrical distributor.

Just as in other areas of the entertainment industry such as music or publishing, producers today should reserve many distribution rights on other platforms and as many other derivative rights for themselves as possible such as the merchandising rights and the rights to make remakes and sequels. Think how much money George Lucas would have lost out on if he had not retained merchandising rights when he made the first Star Wars film.

Securities Offerings to Film Investors

As it can be costly to retain an experienced securities attorney to produce the offering, a producer will often try to find a single investor to informally (as a gift or loan) advance the funds to cover the offering expenses. Unfortunately, if that investor is a passive investor, an offering is required in order to accept such funds. Should the a start-up investor however require a say in how the project is developed, he may no longer be a passive investor requiring an offering.

However, such an investor may also ask for a profit participation on the producer’s side as an added incentive to providing these early funds. Indeed, start-up funds are frequently provided by an active investor who is already an equity owner in the producer’s production company and who may have voting rights in an LLC.

Other Sources of Investment Funds for Films

Producers will turn to banks if they’ve been able only to obtain a portion of the funds they need to produce a film. However, bank financing can be expensive and banks want to see that a producer has all the elements put together to produce the film

Product placement (for example, having the A-list actor drink a beer on film) can raise significant funding, but it has to be limited (audiences are wise to this) and can result in controversy. Before a product manufacturer is willing to pay handsomely for the product placement they will want to know what the film is about, who are the stars, what the marketing campaign will involve, and more.

Film Investing Entities on the Internet

All of the above being said, an experienced entertainment attorney can find scores of entities ready to assist filmmakers with development money though in limited amounts. Some entities with articles on the internet indicating they are willing to invest in development may or may not be reputable so a producer has to be careful of dealing with such entities without due diligence.

Even with a careful evaluation of such an entity, it can be beneficial for the producer to retain an experienced attorney to review the terms offered by such entities.

Internet searches however can provide contact information for well known film institutes and film festivals known for assisting filmmakers to produce films. These are clearly entities a struggling producer would be wise to contact and apply to for financial assistance. An enterprising filmmaker can also find grants if one looks hard and long enough.

Before A Producer Makes A Serious Mistake They Should Call Film Television Development Deals Financing Lawyer Sebastian Gibson

Before a producer approaches any investor for development money or investment funds for production or signs any development deal with an investor, they should think seriously about retaining an experienced California Film Television Development Deals Financing Lawyer for their project and an attorney experienced with securities offerings as well.

A knowledgeable entertainment lawyer can work with a producer to develop an approach to obtaining development money and production investment funds to bring a producer’s project to fruition. They can also form the entities a producer needs to protect themselves and their investors and give an independent filmmaker the advice they need to become a successful producer.

Turn to Film Television Development Deals Financing Lawyer Sebastian Gibson

California Film Television Development Deals Financing Lawyer Sebastian Gibson has been called “Brilliant” and “A Legend” and is a cum laude graduate of UCLA. He has law degrees both from the University of San Diego School of Law and from Cardiff University in Wales where he graduated magna cum laude.

With these dual law degrees in the U.S. and Great Britain, and over 40 years of combined experience both in London and California, California Film Television Development Deals Financing Lawyer Sebastian Gibson is the international entertainment law firm to turn to for music events, festivals and world tours, music, film, television, songwriting, film music licensing, film and TV production agreements, publishing, modeling, athlete representation, and other creative aspects of the entertainment industry in the U.S., the UK and around the world.

California Film and TV Development Financing Attorney Sebastian Gibson

Focused on bringing great film projects to UK film producers who recognize the unique voice of British actors, directors and crews and as a California entertainment powerhouse working with actors, musicians, songwriters, novelists, models and athletes from offices just near enough to Hollywood but far enough from the congestion of LA, California entertainment lawyer and the law firm of Sebastian Gibson is the right choice for all your entertainment endeavours from California to the UK and throughout the world.

California Film Television Development Deals Financing Lawyer Sebastian Gibson has been named one of the 2022 Top Lawyers by the prestigious Palm Springs Life Magazine for the past 12 years in a row and is one of the most acclaimed lawyers in the Coachella Valley of California. California Film Television Development Deals Financing Lawyer Sebastian Gibson has also written for the Los Angeles and San Francisco Daily Journal Newspapers, is a published novelist and wrote and recorded the music and lyrics for the musical, Shake, in London. California Film Television Development Deals Financing Lawyer Sebastian Gibson has a top rating of “Superb” by Avvo, their highest rating, which rates attorneys all across the U.S.