Casey Budden

Recent Posts

What’s a “MacGuffin?”

Posted by Casey Budden on Dec 10, 2018 12:48:17 PM

Lady eating popcorn, watching movie.

Sometimes derisively referred to as a “plot coupon,” a MacGuffin is a device in scriptwriting, a “thing” which the protagonist pursues, often loosely defined, which serves as their primary motivation and goal in the film. Alfred Hitchcock is often credited with coining the term; in a 1939 lecture at Columbia University in New York, he attempted to define it:

“It might be a Scottish name, taken from a story about two men on a train. One man says, 'What's that package up there in the baggage rack?' And the other answers, 'Oh, that's a MacGuffin'. The first one asks, 'What's a MacGuffin?' 'Well,' the other man says, 'it's an apparatus for trapping lions in the Scottish Highlands.' The first man says, 'But there are no lions in the Scottish Highlands,' and the other one answers, 'Well then, that's no MacGuffin!' So you see that a MacGuffin is actually nothing at all.”

In the film Ronin, for example, the MacGuffin was a metal briefcase whose contents were never revealed, but which all the characters in the film were desperate to obtain. The audience does not know, and does not need to know, what is inside the briefcase; the MacGuffin is charged with such importance that its significance does not need to be explained to serve its narrative purpose.

Examples of famous “Macguffins”:

  • The Maltese Falcon (The Maltese Falcon, 1941)
  • The Holy Grail (Monty Python and the Holy Grail, 1975)
  • “ROSEBUD” (Citizen Kane, 1941)
  • Marcellus Wallace’s case (Pulp Fiction, 1994)
  • The One Ring (The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, 2001-2003)
  • The Necronomicon (Army of Darkness, 1992)
  • The Ark (Raiders of the Lost Ark, 1981)

Topics: Film and entertainment insurance

Insurance for filming animals

Posted by Casey Budden on Dec 10, 2018 12:45:48 PM

shutterstock_92423836

Lions & Tigers & Bears. Oh My.

Animals are frequently used in film productions and everyone loves seeing our furry friends on film. However, there are several considerations with respect to using animals in films that could have a significant impact on your project.

First, if the animal is to be a regular cast member (e.g., it has an identifiable role in the film), the loss or unavailability of the animal actor could potentially cause the same financial loss to the production company as the loss of a human actor. One possible solution would be to insure the animal under Cast coverage (the insurer will require a medical to be performed on the animal by a vet to determine eligibility).

Second, while animal mortality is built in to many commercial insurance policies, there is typically no coverage for injury to animals. Animals are usually borrowed from companies that specialize in providing trained animals to film crews. Like any other thing that belongs to someone else, you could be liable if the animal is injured while under your care, custody and control. You may wish to consider purchasing coverage for legal liability to animals to protect yourself against this possibility.

Finally, the contract with the animal wrangler should be examined closely prior to signing. It’s a good idea to have a specialized entertainment insurance broker like Front Row peruse the contract to ensure there are no provisions which could leave you exposed to additional liability.

These are the questions insurers typically ask with respect to animals:

  • Dates of use
  • Location
  • List of animals
  • Values of animals
  • Current vet certificates
  • Description of use
  • Name and telephone number of trainer

Animals require very special handling and have special insurance requirements. If your production will feature animals, contact us: we can provide advice.

Topics: animal insurance, filming animals

Wrap Party - Event Insurance Policy

Posted by Casey Budden on Nov 5, 2018 12:21:47 PM

Event Insurance for Wrap Parties

Event Insurance for Wrap Parties

It’s a Trip…a Trap…We Mean, a Wrap!

It seems your lead actor (let’s call him Frankie Awesome) has done it again. You see, Frankie is a terrific actor, but a disastrous human being. He cannot be let loose in polite company without something absolutely terrible happening. Nothing, from the neighborhood cat to your favorite plate glass window, is safe from his catastrophic, and frequent, accidents. It’s no mistake that Frankie’s other nickname is “The Master of Disaster.”

Oh, Frankie. This time, the big klutz managed to wind his legs together and crash headlong into a rented tent. What fun! Now you have a table of horrified actors suddenly very unprepared for the weather, watching in real time as their seafood turns into soup.

  • Cue sound of screeching tires.
  • Cue stylus scratching record.
  • Cue sinking stomach.
  • Not exactly the big, cool sendoff your cast and crew were looking for, was it?

Despite the general horror, Frankie will be okay; he’s an old hand at this kind of scene. But what about your pride, and your pocketbook? Someone’s going to have to pay for those tents…and the dry cleaning.

You carried all the right insurance all the way along, but entertainment package policies don’t cover wrap parties and you didn’t think something would happen. While you can’t stop Frankie Awesome from being awesome, you can prevent the consequences of his awesomeness from costing you money.

Let’s get serious for a moment. If you could provide peace of mind for yourself and your wrap party for around $200, would you do it? Front Row offers an event liability policy which will ensure that if an incident of bodily injury or property damage occurs, you won’t be paying out of pocket. We will, at your request, provide certificates of insurance to your vendors to ensure they’re covered, too. And we can obtain host liquor liability for you if that’s needed (which it will be if you’ll be serving alcohol to your guests yourself). Our Event policy can also be endorsed to cover rented tents and marquees so they’re safe from Frankie.

Without your cast and crew, the film wouldn’t have been made. The wrap party is for them. Make sure it’s a memorable night…for the right reasons. Get a fast & free online quote.

 

RELATED LINKS:

Event Insurance 101 & How to Protect Your Events

Venue Insurance in Canada

Event Planning

Wedding Insurance

Renting Churches, Mosques

Planning a Bridal Shower?

Baby Shower Insurance

Event Cancellation

Conference & Event Insurance

Concert Insurance

Movie Theatres

Wrap Parties

Holiday Office Party Insurance

Anniversary Parties

Birthday Party Insurance

Kid's Birthday Party Insurance

Bar Mitzvah Insurance

Planning a Garden Show?

Picnic Insurance

Topics: Special Event Insurance, event insurance, event liability insurance, cheap event insurance, one day event insurance, One day special event liability, online event insurance, event liability, one day event liability, short term event insurance

Filmmakers and Insurance: What Moves You

Posted by Casey Budden on Nov 5, 2018 11:59:13 AM

Movie fans in theatre.


What Moves You?

More than 100 years after their invention, “moving pictures” still seem to command our collective imagination. We often have very personal emotional attachments to movies: we say that certain films inspired us, moved us, shaped our childhood, shocked us, or opened our minds.

What is unique about the medium of film? What explains this continuing fascination despite all the other technological delectations our age offers up? Is it because film promises us a total escape from the everyday? Provides deep insight into the human condition? Or is it simply good entertainment?

Probably, it’s all of the above. 2017’s total box office results were the highest in history, with over $39 billion in takings worldwide despite the fact that public attention is more divided than ever, with video games, streaming services, and downloads all vying for a slice of their entertainment dollars. Clearly, movies aren’t going anywhere.

What is changing is the way content is delivered. Creators are both rapidly influencing, and being influenced by, new technologies. This is not anything new: the history of film is one of periodic disruption followed by renewal in response to the changing tastes of audiences.

Early “talkies,” which began to appear in the mid-to-late 1920s, were often compared uncharitably to earlier, silent films. Critics often felt that the spoken dialogue made for tawdry, artistically inferior pictures. Audiences loved them, however, and by the early 1930s, the majority of films were being produced with sound.

Starting around the same time and lasting until the late 1940s was the Hollywood “studio system”—a system of production characterized by complete vertical integration of the production process. The studio system totally dominated filmmaking during this period. Studios “owned” talent, cast was repertory, and filming was done mainly on elaborate sets or backlots rather than on location. Props and sets were also frequently recycled through various productions. Many venues were owned by studios, who could thus control when, where, and for how long a film screened. Theatres that were not studio-owned were subject to a practice called “block booking” in which they were required to take on and screen entire slates of lesser-quality films from a studio in order to obtain screening rights to a single anticipated hit. (This is where the term “B movie” comes from).

As might be expected, this arrangement provided steady and reliable revenue for the studios. The big stars of the time were household names. Studios were nicknamed “Dream Factories” due to their ability to quickly churn out genre favorites—westerns, musicals, romances. Fantasy and spectacle were favored over realism, and audiences gobbled them up. But new technology was already sowing the seeds of change: the rapidly growing popularity of television, as well as a landmark antitrust case in 1948 which forbade studios from owning movie theatres and curtailed the practice of block booking, placed the film business on shaky ground by mid-century. The severe slump which ensued was not truly reversed until 1972, the year The Godfather was released.

The collapse of the studio system was both good and bad. As major studios were no longer guaranteed a theatrical release for their films, they became more risk-averse, tending to focus on properties they knew would make money. On the other hand, the proliferation of smaller studios and the uncoupling of distribution from production allowed many up-and-coming directors to make their mark. The 1970s ushered in the emergence of a raft of American auteur directors—Robert Altman, Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Roman Polanski, and Stanley Kubrick among them. These directors were influenced by European art-house cinema of the 50s and 60s and approached filmmaking with a markedly different aesthetic. Their films featured greater realism and frequently controversial subject matter. Like their European contemporaries from decades past, more scenes were shot on location. Dialogue was less frequently dubbed. Increased emphasis was placed on characterization and dialogue.

Simultaneously, and progressing in a completely opposite artistic direction, another trend was taking shape: the “Hollywood blockbuster.” Designed to maximize ticket sales for large studios, these films featured larger-than-life spectacle and action, supported by cutting-edge technology and special effects. Star Wars (1977) represents the most obvious example of this phenomenon. Audiences flocked to the cinema for the first time in decades to be part of an experience they could not replicate with equipment available at home. The modern action-adventure spectacle was born (and continues, in the guise of the ubiquitous superhero movie).

The 1980s accelerated these changes in filmmaking. Major studios could no longer afford to back a loser, so often doubled down on grand special-effects laden productions that audiences would be guaranteed to love, or else reliable franchises such as Rocky, Rambo, Indiana Jones, Friday the 13th,, A Nightmare on Elm Street, etc. The advent of home video technologies such as VHS and Betamax meant that a significant proportion of a film’s income now came not from box office, but home video revenues. This further opened up the playing field, as it was now economically viable for a small independent producer to market their film “direct-to-video” and make a profit.

Cut to the present day where, in addition to the multiplex, you can now watch a film on your phone, tablet, smart TV, portable music player, or game console. Streaming services are the latest disruptive innovation and have changed the way episodic TV content, for example, is presented (no more “previously on…” and no more commercials). It’s arguably never been easier for a creator to get their work out there.

Audiences flocked to the “dream factories” of the Golden Age of Cinema because there’s no magic like film magic. This hasn’t changed, and we don’t think it ever will. Film is the only medium that has the ability to inspire both our intellects and our hearts while completely engaging our senses.

At Front Row Insurance, we are “Passionate about the arts…better at insurance.” We love creatives and the creative work that they do. That’s what moves us. What moves you? Whatever it is, we probably have a policy that will suit you. Contact us.

Topics: Film and entertainment insurance, Film E&O, Public Liability Insurance for Film, Studnet Film Insurance, Film Location Insurance, insurance for film set, Film Extra Expense, educational film production insurance, film school insurance, pre production insurance for filmmakers

E&O Film Insurance Protects Against Invasion of Privacy and False Light Accusations

Posted by Casey Budden on Oct 26, 2018 7:10:24 AM

E&O Film Insurance & False Light Accusations

False light accusations

You’ve made it! After much hard work, your film is finished and being widely screened in theatres. Audiences love it, and very positive reviews have appeared in several notable publications. Pride and excitement are the order of the day as everyone involved enjoys the fruits of their labor. Extreme care was taken in the production, so you’re shocked when you’re informed that a lawsuit has been brought against you for invasion of privacy.

Invasion of privacy is a serious risk to which filmmakers are exposed, and it’s difficult to anticipate all possible sources of legal action.

Imagine this scenario:

Your movie is an adaptation of a well-known book—let’s say, a roman a clef about a Canadian rail disaster. Due to the length of the book and the demands of the feature film format, some artistic license necessarily had to be taken and the book was heavily adapted from the original. This is not unusual, but unfortunately an actual person recognized himself in one of your characters and took serious issue with the way he was depicted.

Claims of this sort are fairly common and fall under the rubric of “false light” accusations. The typical argument is that a specific characterization is unflattering and transparent enough that the average member of the public can easily deduce who it is based upon. In other words, the party in question has been presented “in a false light.”

Let’s also consider a second scenario:

Your film is a documentary about the Canadian boxing world. You’re very careful about securing releases from all parties discussed in your film and all recognizable persons who appear in the background. You’re confident that you’ve taken all necessary precautions, but you still receive notice that one of the fighters discussed has initiated a lawsuit against you for public disclosure of embarrassing facts. While your depiction was accurate, your film included some discussion of the fighter’s life after the boxing world and went into detail about a failed business venture. The party concerned considers this information embarrassing and not relevant to the subject of the documentary.

What can be done?

Generally, claims of invasion of privacy are more successful if the plaintiff can argue that:

  • The subject matter would be highly offensive to a reasonable person
  • The information is not of legitimate concern to the public (i.e., the information is not newsworthy).

It’s obvious that these terms are highly subjective. What constitutes “highly offensive?” Who is this fabled “reasonable person?” And what exactly is of “legitimate concern” to the public? Even when extreme care has been used, a lawsuit is sometimes unavoidable.

A Producers’ Errors & Omissions (E&O) Insurance Policy Is The Best Protection.

The last thing you want is to face a costly lawsuit after your film has already been released. An Errors & Omissions policy protects the entire lifespan of your project against situations such as the above, by helping arrange a legal defense against:

  • Allegations of unauthorized use of titles, formats, ideas, characters, plots, plagiarism
  • Allegations of libel, slander, and defamation of character
  • Allegations of invasion of privacy

Contact us for more information.

 

RELATED LINKS:

E&O Insurance 101 & How to Protect Your Film Project

E&O: What You Need to Know

E&O: Cost

Are you paying for the coverage you need?

Steps to Obtain

Producer Errors and Omissions

E&O: Reviewing Scripts

Distributor Errors and Omissions

Documentary E&O Insurance

Copyright Reports

How much of your film is copyright-able?

Copyright Infringements

Title Reports

Script Clearance Reports

Clearance Procedures

Claims Made vs. Occurrence

Fair Use

False Light Accusations

The value of a lawyer

To get or not get permission: The Social Network

A production lawyer's guide to obtaining E&O insurance and preventing litigation

Topics: Multimendia Risk, Producers Errors & Omissions Liability Insurance, Producers E&O Insurance, HD E&O, Producers Errors and Omissions Insurance, media liability insurance policy, title clearance, Film E&O, E&O Policy for producers, E&O copyright report, false light and E and O, invasion of privacy and filming

Fair Use Misconceptions and Filmmaker E&O Insurance Part II

Posted by Casey Budden on Oct 24, 2018 12:52:59 PM

FAIR GAME? - A FAIR USE PRIMER FOR DOCUMENTARY FILMMAKERS (Part 2)

Fair use part 2

Applicable to US-based producers only

Not all uses of copyrighted material in your documentary will require you to obtain permission from the copyright holder. If you can argue that your use of the material in question meets the criteria to be considered fair use, it may be acceptable.

However, if you’re still not sure how to figure out if your chosen use of the material will pass the test or not; there’s still a lot of grey area. Below, we will attempt to shed some light on some common misconceptions about fair use.

  • If I only use a few seconds of the underlying work, I should be okay.” The logic behind this is easy to follow and, as discussed in our previous article, there is some truth to it. The more you borrow from a previous creator, the more likely a lawsuit—it’s more likely the rights holder will take notice, and more likely that they’ll feel their commercial interests have been impaired. However, the proportion of the original work that is used is just one of a myriad of factors a judge would consider in the event of a copyright dispute.
  • “I got it from the Internet, so it should be free to use.” This misconception is less common than it used to be, but still exists. In its early days, the Internet was thought of as a kind of “Wild West” where the traditional legal frameworks didn’t necessarily apply. Today, as the Web becomes more sophisticated and ubiquitous, we know that’s no longer true. The general legal understanding now is that the moment a work is fixed in a particular creative medium, copyright exists. For example, technically speaking, a copyright exists the moment a person takes a photograph. For that reason, when making use of copyrighted material from the internet, the documentary filmmaker must exercise a level of care equivalent to that used when considering the use of any other type of copyrighted material.
  • “I’m using copyrighted material, but it’s okay because I gave credit to the author.” It may seem like this is just common sense—how could anyone claim that you’ve ripped off their work if you openly attribute it to them? In reality, this is not an automatic defense. In fact, a court of law could argue that by giving credit to the author, you are implicitly acknowledging that the material in question belongs to them. Without knowing it, you may also be tacitly validating their claim of ownership (and potentially their claim of infringement). This is not to say that giving credit to the owners of copyrighted material is not the right thing to do (it is), just that doing so in itself is not a complete defense against claims of copyright infringement.
  • “I need to ask permission from the copyright holder first.” Referring back to #3 above, you’ll recall that a rights holder might actually interpret your request for permission, in itself, as a sign that infringement has taken place (“if you’re asking me for permission, you already know you don’t have the right to use it”). Another perfectly logical assumption that does not necessarily hold in the complicated landscape of copyright issues. If your use of the copyrighted material in question already falls within the definition of fair use, you are not required to obtain permission from the rights holder first.

Sound complicated? It is. As we’ve shown, although the law does provide some latitude for documentary filmmakers to use copyrighted materials in a new creative work, there are a lot of issues to consider. An understanding of fair use is an invaluable tool for the documentary filmmaker, but is not sufficient to keep your production safe. You’ll also need an errors & omissions (E&O) policy which will ensure you’re covered in the event that you missed something. Contact us.

Part 1

Topics: producers errors and omissions policy, producers e and o insurance quote, E&O Policy for producers, Fair Use for Documentaries, Fair Use Doctrine

Fair Use and E&O Insurance for Filmmakers - Part 1

Posted by Casey Budden on Oct 24, 2018 12:48:02 PM

FAIR GAME? - A FAIR USE PRIMER FOR DOCUMENTARY FILMMAKERS (Part 1)

Fair use

Applicable to US-based producers only

“If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” –Isaac Newton

As a documentary filmmaker, you’ll likely need to make use of copyrighted materials at some point in your production. Indeed, it’s almost impossible to avoid: film clips, music and archival interviews are indispensable tools for lending depth, color and authority to your production. However, securing the rights to such materials can be difficult, prohibitively expensive and, most importantly, fraught with potential danger if the rights holders feel that their copyright has been infringed.

For example: you’re making a documentary about Hammer Horror films of the ‘50s and you use a short clip of Christopher Lee baring his fangs. You haven’t obtained permission. Will you be sued?

The legal doctrine of Fair Use permits creators a degree of freedom to incorporate copyrighted works of others into a new creative work. The law recognizes that the rights of copyright holders to enjoy the profits of their creations must be balanced with the rights of creators to enjoy freedom of expression and build upon past works in the creation of their own.

The problem that can sometimes occur is that it can be very difficult to define what constitutes fair use, and rights holders can be aggressive in defending their copyright.

Navigating fair use can be a challenging proposition. It is particularly important to the documentary filmmaker due to the fact that documentarians usually need to use more copyrighted material than, say, the director of a period piece.

There are two important things that you can do as a documentary filmmaker to keep your production safe: understand Fair Use, and purchase Errors & Omissions Insurance. The first will help you avoid being sued; the second will help protect you if you are.

Understanding Fair Use

You want to use a short clip of music or film in your documentary. You might have a limited budget. Traditional wisdom dictates that every piece of copyrighted material needs to be cleared and paid for, but this may not be the case if you can argue that your use of the clip in question constitutes Fair Use. How do judges determine if the use of a given clip is Fair Use in any given situation? The following criteria are considered.

  • What purpose the material is used for. Courts generally hold that a use of copyrighted material which is “transformative” meets the criteria to be considered Fair Use. “Transformative” means that the material is made part of a new creative work, for a purpose and context which are different than the original.
  • The nature of the source material. Factual, non-fiction source material which was created for an academic or educational purpose, with the intention of being strictly informative in nature, is less likely to give rise to a copyright claim if it is presented appropriately.
  • How much of the source material was used. The more of the original work is used, the more likely a lawsuit becomes. For example, musicians are more likely to encounter a problem using a lengthy musical phrase copied from a prior artist than they would be using a single breakbeat or horn blast which may no longer be recognizable as part of a prior creative work.
  • How the use of the source material impacts its value. If the rights holder can argue that their profits, potential profits or the integrity of their brand have been impaired by another’s use of their material, it may provide grounds for litigation. For example, a documentarian making a film about Miles Davis might get away with showing a brief clip of Miles playing, but reproducing an entire 15-minute live performance of him is likely going to attract a lawsuit.

Armed with this information, you might think that these rules are just common sense, and with an abundance of caution a prudent filmmaker might be able to avoid the possibility of a lawsuit. However, the reality is not so simple. The second part of this article will discuss some common fair use misconceptions.

Part 2

 

RELATED LINKS:

E&O Insurance 101 & How to Protect Your Film Project

E&O: What You Need to Know

E&O: Cost

Are you paying for the coverage you need?

Steps to Obtain

Producer Errors and Omissions

E&O: Reviewing Scripts

Distributor Errors and Omissions

Documentary E&O Insurance

Copyright Reports

How much of your film is copyright-able?

Copyright Infringements

Title Reports

Script Clearance Reports

Clearance Procedures

Claims Made vs. Occurrence

Fair Use

False Light Accusations

The value of a lawyer

To get or not get permission: The Social Network

A production lawyer's guide to obtaining E&O insurance and preventing litigation

Topics: Digital E&O insurance, media liability insurance policy, producers errors and omissions quote, E&O Insurance for producers, Fair Use for Documentaries

Insurance for Theft of Camera and Film Equipment

Posted by Casey Budden on Oct 24, 2018 10:43:17 AM

Camera insurance Canada - woman on phone

Action!

You’ve finally gotten to the meat of the production: the principal photography phase. Much of the busywork is done; now for the fun part!

Unfortunately, as it so often does, disaster strikes at the worst time: a rented vehicle used in the production is stolen from the set. Worse, it contained an expensive piece of camera equipment (also rented). The vehicle is quickly recovered, but the camera equipment is nowhere to be found and there is damage to the vehicle. The cost of your production is suddenly mounting very quickly.

Could this have been prevented?

A commercial vehicle physical damage policy covers accidents mentioned above.

You’ll also want to ensure your production has production equipment insurance, which covers you against physical loss of or damage to, or destruction of, cameras, sound, lighting and grip equipment which are owned or rented by the production company.

A film production is a complex animal; you want the process to be as seamless as possible. Wouldn’t it be nice if there was one less thing to think about?

Ensure that your production is adequately covered so that you can concentrate on filmmaking rather than financing.

Topics: Camera Equipment Insurance, Camera Insurance, Camera Insurance Broker, online camera Insurance, camera equipment insurance policy, Film equipment rental insurance, CAMÉRAS

Camera and Film Processing Insurance

Posted by Casey Budden on Oct 24, 2018 10:30:32 AM

film processing insurance

camera & film processing insurance

Put the Finishing Touches on your Film Without Worry.

Congratulations! Principal photography on your production is complete and so far, everything has gone off without a hitch. You’ve managed to remain on budget, and footage was delivered to the post facility on time. While you understand that editing is both an art and a science, the cut of the film you got back was not what you were looking for. Instead of seamless edits, you got jump cuts!

While faulty editing is a problem that will cost your production time and money, it’s not the most serious risk you face at this stage. Let’s consider a second scenario.

Imagine you’re making a documentary about jazz. Your sound engineer composes an original piece to be used as background music in a scene. All is well and good until a famous jazz musician sues for copyright infringement, claiming that the music is too similar to a well-known piece of theirs. While you know the case would be won in court, the associated delay and cost would harm your production.

Your film is slated to be broadcast in a matter of months, and the clock is ticking.

The best defense against unforeseen perils such as the above is a specialized insurance policy designed to protect you, the filmmaker. Entertainment Package Policy includes:

1. Faulty Stock, Camera, & Processing insurance.

Faulty Stock, Camera & Processing insurance provides protection against:

  • Loss, damage or destruction of raw film or tape stock, exposed film (developed or undeveloped), recorded video tape, sound tracks and tapes, caused by or resulting from fogging or the use of faulty equipment (including cameras and videotape recorders).
  • Faulty sound equipment
  • Faulty developing
  • Faulty editing and faulty processing
  • Accidental erasure of videotape recording

But does not cover: Loss caused by errors of judgment in exposure, lighting or sound recording, or from the use of incorrect type of camera, lens, raw film or tape stock.

2. Commercial General Liability.

This is a standard liability coverage included in entertainment package policies which will arrange a defense if you are sued for reasons connected with your production, regardless of whether the suit has any merit. Returning to the example above involving music, this coverage would prevent you from having to pay for legal defense costs out of pocket.

You’ve come too far to let unforeseen circumstances put you behind.

Make sure you have the right insurance coverage.

Topics: Camera Equipment Insurance, Camera Insurance, Camera Insurance Broker, online camera Insurance, camera equipment insurance policy, CAMÉRAS