sabiz

Recently, a dispute arose when members of the popular girl group NewJeans informed their agency, ADOR, of their intention to terminate their exclusive contracts.

In cases where celebrities under exclusive contracts are involved in disputes with their agencies while appearing on broadcasts, additional conflicts often arise between the production companies, the participants, and the agencies over the ownership of the appearance fees.

This article aims to provide guidance on the impact of exclusive contract disputes on broadcast production and key considerations for stakeholders.

◇ When Drafting the Appearance Contract

An entertainer's participation in a broadcast cannot achieve its intended effect if someone else appears in their place. Therefore, production companies should include the entertainer as a party to the appearance contract to ensure their participation is guaranteed, and explicitly state that paying the appearance fee to the specified account will release them from any disputes between the entertainer and the agency.

If the entertainer delegates all their rights related to the appearance to the agency, there may be cases where only the agency is recognized as a party to the contract. In the event of a dispute with the agency, this could restrict the entertainer’s ability to exercise their rights to the appearance fee, so it is advisable for the entertainer to be directly involved in the contract.

◇ When Both the Participant and the Agency Claim the Appearance Fee

In cases where a dispute arises between the agency and the entertainer before the production company has paid the appearance fee, there is a risk that the payment to one party may be deemed invalid.

If both the agency and the entertainer claim the appearance fee, rather than arbitrarily paying the fee to one party, the production company should opt for a payment deposit (under Civil Code Article 487) to avoid the risk of double payment.

◇ When a Third Party Has an Interest in the Participant or Agency

If a third party, such as a creditor with a claim for seizure or provisional seizure against the participant or the agency, directly claims the appearance fee, the production company should be cautious about who the true creditor is. In addition to the uncertainty of the legitimate creditor (as per Civil Code Article 487), there is also a concern of competing claims under the Civil Execution Act (Article 248, Paragraph 1). In such cases, the production company should make a mixed deposit, combining payment deposit and enforcement deposit, to avoid the risk of double payment to the competing creditors.

Conclusion

When disputes occur between an entertainer and their agency, the production company of the broadcast they appear in can become entangled in legal conflicts over the ownership of the appearance fee. If the validity of the payment or deposit is challenged, the company may face further legal obligations to repay the fee.

Therefore, it is essential to conduct thorough legal reviews of the potential impact that disputes over exclusive contracts may have on appearance contracts and broadcast production.