International Trade Remedies to Bring Hollywood Home Claire Wright
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Akron Law Review Akron Law Journals July 2015 Hollywood's Disappearing Act: International Trade Remedies to Bring Hollywood Home Claire Wright Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Follow this and additional works at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview Part of the International Law Commons, and the International Trade Law Commons Recommended Citation Wright, Claire (2006) "Hollywood's Disappearing Act: International Trade Remedies to Bring Hollywood Home," Akron Law Review: Vol. 39 : Iss. 3 , Article 4. Available at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol39/iss3/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Akron Law Journals at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The nivU ersity of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Akron Law Review by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Wright: International Trade Remedies to Bring Hollywood Home WRIGHT1.DOC 6/1/2006 2:40:25 PM HOLLYWOOD’S DISAPPEARING ACT: INTERNATIONAL TRADE REMEDIES TO BRING HOLLYWOOD HOME Claire Wright* I. INTRODUCTION Hollywood has a dirty little secret: a great many of the U.S.’ cul- tural and entertainment products are not even “Made in the USA” any- more,1 and Hollywood itself appears to be for sale to the highest bidder. In November 2005, the Los Angeles Economic Development Corpora- tion reported that approximately 33% of U.S.-developed feature films are filmed outside of the U.S. today,2 and there are indications that this figure could be much higher.3 Forty-five percent of all major studio * Assistant Professor, Thomas Jefferson School of Law. I was aided by helpful comments from Professor Robert Lutz of Southwestern University School of Law, Professor Alan O Sykes of the University of Chicago, The Law School, and Professor Paul Weiler of Harvard Law School. 1. A movie shot in another country possesses the country of origin of that other country. See Tariff Act of 1930 § 304, 19 U.S.C. § 1304 (2005); 19 C.F.R. § 134 (2005). The country of origin of an imported product is the country of manufacture. See 19 C.F.R. § 134.1(b) (2005). 2 2. Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation, Film Industry Profile of California/Los Angeles County 6, 14 (November 2005) [hereinafter Film Industry Profile] (utilizing data obtained from the Tuesday edition of the Hollywood Reporter), available at http://www.laedc.info/pdf/Film- 2005.pdf (last visited May 7, 2006). These data reveal that this percentage was 32% in 2003. Id. at 14. The Hollywood Reporter monitors feature film production by major studios as well as inde- pendent companies. For each feature film, the trade magazine reports the film location (or loca- tions, if applicable). Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation, What is the Cost of Run- Away Production? Jobs, Wages, Economic Output and State Tax Revenue at Risk When Motion Picture Productions Leave California 15 (August 2005) [hereinafter What is the Cost of Run-Away Production?], available at www.film.ca.gov/ttca/pdfs/link_overview/ cfc/California_Film_Commis sion_Study.pdf (last visited May 7, 2006). See also Letter from Tim McHugh, Executive Director, et al., Film and Television Action Committee, to Ronald Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of Pol- icy, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce 12 (June 28, 2004) [hereinafter FTAC Letter] (generally commenting on Unfair Trade Practices Task Force 69 Fed. Reg. 30,285 and not- ing on page 12 that data maintained by the Directors Guild of America (DGA) shows that one-third of movies shown in theaters in 2003 and shot under DGA contracts were made outside of the U.S.), available at www.ftac.org/files/FinalTaskForceLetter.pdf (last visited May 7, 2006). 3. See infra Exhibits 7, 8 and 9 (portraying data compiled on May 15, 2005 from the interna- tional movie data base, which can be found at www.imdb.com, which indicate that, by the 2004 release year, 65% of U.S.-developed feature films were shot outside of the U.S.). Note that these 739 Published by IdeaExchange@UAkron, 2006 1 Akron Law Review, Vol. 39 [2006], Iss. 3, Art. 4 WRIGHT1.DOC 6/1/2006 2:40:25 PM 740 AKRON LAW REVIEW [39:739 films were shot outside of the U.S. during 2004,4 and for a number of years, an even higher percentage of U.S.-developed television programs and movies-of-the week (MOWs) were filmed in other countries.5 For example, at least one study reported that, in 1999-2000, the percentage of U.S. - developed MOWs made outside of the U.S. was 59%.6 A great many of the films shot outside of the U.S. are shot in Can- ada,7 which has the most established film incentive programs, both on the federal and provincial level.8 The list of U.S.-developed movies filmed in Canada is long and impressive.9 So many U.S.-developed movies are filmed in Canada that it is referred to in the industry as “Hol- lywood North,”10 and Canada’s actors’ union, the Alliance of Canadian Cinema Television and Radio Artist (ACTRA), even offers a workshop to teach Canadian actors how to use American accents, so that fewer American actors need be hired on any film that is shot in Canada.11 A sample of the big budget, well-known feature films shot there within recent years includes Brokeback Mountain, Good Will Hunting, Catwoman, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, The Day After Tomorrow, I, charts do exaggerate the outsourcing of the U.S. feature film industry in the sense that the searches performed did not account for the fact that a film may be made in multiple foreign locations, and hence such a film is counted multiple times in the charts. However, it is not common for a film to be shot in multiple foreign locations. The author is not aware of any other manner in which the ex- hibits may be based on incomplete or inaccurate data. At the same time, as it isn’t clear how and when data is entered into this data base, the reader is cautioned that there is no guarantee that the data on which these exhibits are based are otherwise complete and accurate. 4. What is the Cost of Run-Away Production?, supra note 2, at 15. 5. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, The Migration of U.S. Film and Television Production 27-29 (January 18, 2001) [hereinafter U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE] (citing The Monitor Company, The Economic Impact of U.S. Film and Television Runaway Film Production (June 1999) [hereinafter The Monitor Company] and Letter fromRobert Solomon, Chairman, Governmen- tal Affair, Southern California Chapter of the Association of Imaging and Technology and Sound (ITS) to Michael Fink, Federal Research Division, Library of Congress (July 5, 2000) [hereinafter Solomon Letter]). The U.S. Department of Commerce and The Monitor Company reports are both available at http://www.ftac.org/html/2a.dgasag.html (last visited May 5, 2006). 6. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, note 6, at 28 (citing the Solomon Letter). 7. The Monitor Company, supra note 5, at 3 (stating that, in 1998, Canada captured more than 80% of all U.S.-developed feature film and television projects); see also infra Exhibits 5 and 6 (showing that, by 2001, Canada produced 19% of all feature films filmed worldwide that year); see also infra Exhibits 7, 8, and 9 (illustrating that Canada produced 31% (20% of the 65%) of all U.S.- developed feature films produced outside of the U.S.). 8. See infra Section V (Canadian PSTC Film Incentives). 9. See sample list of U.S.-developed feature films produced in Canada during 2000-2005, attached as Appendix A (compiled from data maintained in the international movie data base, which can be found at www.imdb.com). 10. CTV, Canada the New Hotspot for Video Game Creators, available at http://www.ctv.ca/ servlet/articlenews/story/ctvnews/1110995669946_56 (last visited November 4, 2005). 11. FTAC Letter, supra note 2, at 19 (citing Tamsen Tillson, Canuck Thesps Get Earful: Gross Gives ACTRA Keynote, DAILY VARIETY (June 2, 2004)). http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol39/iss3/4 2 Wright: International Trade Remedies to Bring Hollywood Home WRIGHT1.DOC 6/1/2006 2:40:25 PM 2006] INTERNATIONAL TRADE REMEDIES TO BRING HOLLYWOOD HOME 741 Robot, Cinderella Man, Electra, and Armageddon.12 Even many quin- tessentially “American films” have been shot outside of the U.S., pri- marily in Canada.13 The outsourcing of the U.S. feature film industry for economic reasons, which began in the early 1990s and picked up consid- erable steam in the late 1990s,14 is continuing unabated. The fact that in the spring of 2005 Jennifer Garner was in Vancouver filming Catch and Release, Brad Pitt was in Calgary filming The Assassination of Jesse James, and Ben Affleck was in Toronto filming the movie Truth, Justice and the American Way15 illustrates the pervasiveness of this phenome- non. In fact, the outsourcing of the U.S. film industry is so well- entrenched and accepted by film industry management that there are re- ports that U.S. film industry workers who have organized activities pro- moting the retention of film production in the U.S. have been “black- listed” in Hollywood.16 Just as in the McCarthy era in the 1950s, these film industry workers say that they are being accused of being Commu- nists and of engaging in potentially dangerous “un-American activi- ties.”17 As a result, they claim that they are finding it difficult, if not im- 12.