By: Denise Gilmartin, VP, Business Affairs, AICP
At the March 31, 2026, virtual conference “Frame & Focus: Accelerating Production Partnerships,” hosted by AICP and ANA (the Association of National Advertisers), one panel tackled a topic that is becoming increasingly urgent for brands and production partners alike: how to avoid legal missteps as production models evolve.
Led by Jeffrey A. Greenbaum, Managing Partner, Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, and Roberta Wolff, Owner, Law Office of Roberta Wolff, the session offered a candid look at the legal friction points that arise when advertisers engage production companies directly—without the traditional agency intermediary.
A Changing Production Landscape
Historically, advertising agencies managed the production process end-to-end, engaging production companies and navigating contracts. Today, however, many advertisers are working directly with production companies.
The panelists noted that this shift often comes with growing pains. Agencies have long understood the specialized nature of production agreements. Advertisers, by contrast, may unintentionally apply procurement models designed for entirely different types of vendors.
The Problem with “One-Size-Fits-All” Contracts
The central theme of the discussion was the mismatch between standard corporate vendor agreements and the realities of commercial production.
Many large advertisers rely on master service agreements (MSAs) designed to cover a wide range of vendors—from manufacturers to service providers. But commercial production is fundamentally different. It is collaborative, fluid, and highly dependent on shared responsibilities and evolving creative direction.
The panel emphasized that production-specific agreements—developed to address the nuances of the commercial production industry—are almost always far better suited to address these nuances.
Speed vs. Structure: Timing and Payment Challenges
Marketing and production move quickly, but internal procurement processes and other corporate procedures often do not. Requirements such as the issuance of purchase orders prior to payment, or long waiting periods before payment can be made, can cause delays in production timelines.
Production companies typically begin working upon award of the project and incur significant upfront costs in relation to the total cost of the project; therefore, funding is needed before filming begins. Most production companies are not structured to finance projects on behalf of brands.
The speakers encouraged advertisers and production companies to align up front about production timelines. When an advertiser’s procedures stand in the way of production commencing on the timeline needed by a marketing department, this may require brands to build in extra lead time or make other adjustments to their procedures, such as, rethinking payment structures to include upfront funding.
Ownership vs. Rights and Usage
While advertisers often expect deliverables to be “work made for hire” with unlimited usage rights, the panel clarified that real-world limitations frequently apply.
Commercials often incorporate third-party elements—such as music, stock footage, or talent—that are licensed under specific terms.
The key takeaway: while brands can own the final content, their usage rights are only as broad as the rights granted.
Confidentiality in Practice
Confidentiality is critical for brands but enforcing it through standard NDAs for every crew member is often impractical—especially on union productions, where crew are subject only to union-approved confidentiality obligations.
Instead, the panel recommended a layered approach:
Strong mutual confidentiality provisions within the production agreement
Reliance on union-approved NDAs where applicable
Practical on-set measures such as restricted access and security protocols to address particular confidentiality concerns
Understanding the Production Workforce
Another common misconception is that production companies operate with large, full-time staffs. In reality, most productions are staffed on a project-by-project basis, using a mix of freelance crew, independent contractors, and specialized vendors.
Requiring approval of every routine subcontractor—or insisting they all agree to the terms of a brand’s MSA—is not going to be feasible. Subcontracting is not the exception in production; it is the norm.
Shared Responsibility Means Shared Risk
Indemnification provisions can become a sticking point when advertisers expect production companies to assume full liability for all claims.
The panelists stressed that production is inherently collaborative. Advertisers, creative agencies, and production companies each contribute materials and creative input—and each should generally be responsible for what they bring to the table.
Rethinking Cancellation Terms
Finally, the discussion addressed cancellation. While advertisers often seek flexibility to cancel projects and pay only out-of-pocket costs, this approach can overlook the broader commitments made by production companies and directors.
Once a project is awarded, key talent is booked and alternative opportunities for the director and production company may be declined. Significant preparatory work also begins immediately.
The panel emphasized that the parties should agree upon fair cancellation terms, which account not only for costs, but also for work performed, time, effort, and lost opportunities.
Building Better Relationships
The session ultimately underscored a simple but important point: as advertisers take a more direct role in production, success depends on understanding the unique dynamics of the production process.
By using appropriate agreements, aligning expectations, and recognizing shared responsibilities, brands and production companies can build stronger, more efficient relationships—without the legal pitfalls that too often slow things down.
As the industry continues to evolve, those who adapt their contracting and collaboration models accordingly will be best positioned to move at the speed that marketing demands.
If you have any questions regarding this article, or any other business affairs issue, please contact me at deniseg@aicp.com.
This information is designed as a service to AICP Members and is intended only to provide general information on the subject covered and not as a comprehensive or exhaustive treatment of that subject, legal advice, or a legal opinion. Members are advised to consult with legal counsel and other professionals with respect to the application of the subject covered to any specific production or other factual situation. Use by a company of any of the options and provisions discussed herein are matters of individual company decision in accordance with its own business needs and nothing contained herein is intended to suggest agreement among AICP members or the adoption by the AICP of a uniform position concerning the content of this article.