For the second year running, we have partnered with South by Southwest (SXSW) as the official legal services supplier for SXSW London, taking place from 1-6 June 2026.
SXSW is a globally acclaimed event that has been at the forefront of celebrating innovation and creativity since its inception in Texas in 1987. Known for its ground-breaking conferences and festivals, SXSW brings together leading voices across technology, film, music, education and culture.
This renewed partnership reflects the strong alignment between SXSW’s visionary approach and our expertise in the creative industries. We are excited to continue to support and contribute to this vibrant gathering of leaders and creators as it enters its second year in London.
For more details about the conference, please visit the official SXSW London website.
Charlene’s podcast is aimed at successful professionals wanting to achieve their career goals without the stress. As a former lawyer turned executive coach, Charlène aims to guide individuals to a balanced career without sacrificing success.
In this episode, Howard shares his insights on workplace stress from navigating stress claims and discrimination to addressing burnout and fostering healthier workplace cultures. Howard, who is a leading expert on stress at work compensation claims and mental health in the workplace, provides his perspective which lies at the intersection of employment law and wellbeing.
With traditional commissions remaining hard to come by, producers are increasingly seeking branded content as an alternative ‘holy grail’ to getting their shows funded. But what exactly is it? And how does having a brand onboard interplay with broadcasters’ duties to the public?
ISN’T IT JUST THE SAME AS SPONSORSHIP?
Advertiser Funded Programming (AFP), means programmes created with the input of a brand – often financial but it can also be creative too. Branded content on the other hand, usually means programmes created by producers for a brand where the brand effectively acts as commissioner. Increasingly, the term “branded content” is used colloquially in the TV industry to mean either.
Crucially, AFP for traditional TV is where the brand buys into the existing editorial integrity of the programme and is looking to reach consumers by aligning with the programme’s existing values. As Jon Willers of The Development Network puts it, “branded content for Channel 4 must feel like something they would commission anyway”. In other words, the branding is complementary, or supplementary, to the story being told. Of course, there is branded content which starts with the brand and works backwards, but again, the final product isn’t intended to look and feel like an advert.
The key difference between AFP and sponsorship is that usually with AFP, there is a deeper relationship with the programme makers (the producer and broadcaster) and the programme itself. The Branded Content Marketing Association describes it as “any means by which an advertiser can have a deeper relationship with programming product beyond traditional media activity”. This definition requires a funding relationship with the programme or series that goes beyond sponsorship because the funding goes directly into production. Effectively, it is programming that wouldn’t exist without the brand partner. Sponsors, on the other hand, rely on the right programme being available, and only then are they able to secure sponsorship on it.
WHO OWNS THE IP?
Typically, in AFP, brands do not take a share of the intellectual property rights in the programme as they perceive the value of the partnership to lie in the exposure and reach it provides for their brand. This is good news for producers as it leaves them free to exploit the format and the like, subject to any terms agreed with the broadcaster. However, this position may be changing, at least in the digital space, as brands get savvier to the potential upside in owning a share of the IP-pie. Some might even be interested in a share of net revenues from producers’ exploitation of the programme on the secondary market after the initial broadcast. With negotiations wide open, it’s all to play for. For public service broadcaster (PSB) deals, though, under the Terms of Trade, the producer must remain the owner of the IP in the shows (which means that certain brands who are entering the AFP space for the first time may need to have their expectations managed).
HOW DOES BRANDED CONTENT WORK FOR THE PSBS WITHIN THE OFCOM RULES?
The BBC has historically shied away from any type of brand involvement in its shows, primarily due to restrictions on its funding and operational framework. The BBC is funded by the licence fee, which is public money provided by Parliament. It is prohibited from using these funds for services that are wholly or partly financed through advertisements, sponsorship, or other alternative funding methods, unless prior written approval is granted by the Secretary of State. This restriction ensures that the BBC remains independent and free from commercial influence, maintaining its public service remit. That being said, commercial arms of the BBC do engage in brand-funded content, like BBC StoryWorks which commissions branded content for the non-UK market.
The other PSBs however, have previously engaged in a fair level of AFPs, but the last few years has seen a huge rise as the climate for fully funding their shows remains challenging. A good example is Cooking With the Stars in partnership with Marks & Spencer; DNA Journey with Ancestry; and John and Lisa Down-Under with Trailfinders.
However, the PSBs fall under the jurisdiction of Ofcom, meaning any branded-funded content they show needs to comply with the Ofcom Broadcasting Code (the Ofcom Code).
PRODUCT PLACEMENT UNDER THE OFCOM CODE
Product placement involves the inclusion of a product, service or trade mark within a programme in return for payment or other consideration.
Product placement is permitted in certain types of programmes, such as films, TV series’, entertainment shows, and sports programmes, provided it complies with the rules set out in Section 9 of the Ofcom Code. These rules require that product placement does not compromise editorial independence, is not unduly promotional and is clearly signalled to viewers through a universal product placement logo displayed at the start, end and after advertising breaks in the programme. This means that whilst certain brands may want to have control over how their products are featured in content, the extent to which they can do so is limited under the Ofcom Code meaning their expectations need to be managed accordingly.
SPONSORSHIP UNDER THE OFCOM CODE
Under the Ofcom Code, the sponsor may not influence the editorial content of the programme. The sponsorship must be clearly identified and there must be a clear distinction between editorial content and advertising to maintain transparency and consumer protection. Whilst we said above that AFP and sponsorship are not the same, the sponsorship rules in the Ofcom Code may well still apply to brand-funded content.
SO, WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
In short, setting aside the BBC (which is subject to additional restrictions) branded content for the PSBs is permitted provided producers successfully navigate and adhere to the standards and transparency requirements of the Ofcom Code.
WHAT ABOUT STREAMING PLATFORMS?
For the PSBs’ digital offerings, like Channel 4, BBC iPlayer and ITVX, the regulatory landscape is currently different than for their PSB main channel counterparts, as the Ofcom Code itself does not apply. The same is true for streamers like Netflix and Amazon Prime. Instead, VOD services are currently regulated by the ODPS (On-Demand Programme Services) Rules which impose alternative broadcast standards. Whilst the ODPS Rules on sponsorship and product placement are broadly similar to the Ofcom Code, they are slightly lighter with regards to how VOD services are allowed to implement them. For example, under the Ofcom Code, product placement must be editorially justified and signalled with a ‘PP’ logo. That being said, the ODPS Rules for signalling requirements must only ensure that viewers are adequately informed about product placement – there is no strict format requirement. This means an ODPS would be able to use its end credits to disclose a promotional consideration.
The Media Act 2024, now in force, gave Ofcom the power to create a new Ofcom code which will apply to Tier 1 Video On-Demand (VOD) services (the VOD Code), This would cover the PSBs’ VOD offerings as well as independent streaming services like Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney+ etc. Will this tighten up the rules on branded content in the online space? Based on current thinking, the new Ofcom code will not focus on these areas meaning ODPS will continue to be governed by the existing ODPS Rules.
HOW ABOUT YOUTUBE, INSTAGRAM AND TIKTOK?
YouTube is the home of long-form branded content; Instagram and TikTok are the home of short-form branded content and clips. Brands and producers make use of all of them as part of a cohesive, multi-platform branded strategy.
Crucially, none of the above Ofcom or ODPS Rules currently apply to YouTube, TikTok or Instagram. A recent Government announcement has confirmed that video-sharing platforms like YouTube, will not in and of themselves be designated as Tier 1 VOD (though some individual channels on YouTube with a high number of subscribers, like the PSB’s own YouTube channels, may be caught).
Instead, branded content on these types of platforms is subject to the CAP Code. This is a separate set of rules governed by the Advertising Standards Authority which states that, where a brand has editorial control, there must be clear labelling to allow viewers to easily recognise the content as an advert, and messages should not be conveyed surreptitiously. On social media sites, influencers must use clear labels like “#ad” to ensure transparency where they are posting a brand-funded video.
WHAT NEXT FOR BRANDED CONTENT?
Branded Content shows no sign of waning. Whilst the regulatory landscape continues to evolve, producers, broadcasters and brands remain set on navigating the rules and reaping the benefits that collaboration between traditional TV indies and brands can bring.
We are experts in advising on both sides of the fence as well as advising on deals with broadcasters where there is brand involvement. Our advice ranges from deal-making and structuring, contract drafting, negotiation and advice on the regulatory regime. If you are a TV production company, agency or a brand working on a branded content or AFP project, please get in touch.
On Saturday Formula 1 (F1) announced the decision to cancel the Bahrain and Saudi Arabia Grands Prix due to the conflict in the Middle East.
While the human cost of the conflict is immeasurable and far outweighs any sporting consideration, the cancellation of multiple races will nonetheless have significant consequences for F1.
The sport is reported to face losses in excess of £100m as a result of the cancelled races – a figure that is likely to be substantially higher once sponsor compensation and other stakeholder claims are factored in, given the loss of value arising from a shortened season.
Depending on how the war unfolds, cancellations to further races could follow – in particular rounds 23 and 24, in Qatar and Abu Dhabi, could be at risk.
Mass race cancellations are not unprecedented, with the Covid pandemic resulting in races being cancelled or held behind closed doors. The prospect of a reduced racing calendar has therefore been front of mind for stakeholders negotiating contracts with rightsholders including F1 and the teams in recent years.
This has led to sophisticated stakeholders – in particular drivers, sponsors and broadcasters – digging into the force majeure provisions in their contracts with rightsholders, which can relieve a party of its obligations if they are unable to perform due to circumstances outside of its control. Sponsors and broadcasters will often try to negotiate these clauses to ensure they are entitled to a pro-rata refund of the fee for the affected Season if races are cancelled, while drivers will be keen to ensure their fee is unaffected by circumstances outside of their control.
Rightsholders will be reluctant to make these changes, given the loss of income, and there will be many cases where unequal bargaining power, or a willingness to get the deal done will leave parties who signed up to rightsholders’ standard terms without legal recourse.
While many cases will be resolved on a commercial level, with substitute rights granted at other races to maintain partnerships and key relationships in a sport that is notoriously a “small world”, the soaring commercial success of F1 and the ever increasing values of commercial deals means it would be unsurprising if the 2026 Season is marred by high-profile litigation.
Brands negotiating new sponsorship agreements with sports rights holders (including F1 teams), or renewing existing arrangements for the 2027 Season onwards, will now be minded to dig into force majeure provisions to ensure there is a satisfactory mechanism – which may include substitute rights or expert determination of the value of the lost rights – to ensure their interests are protected if races are cancelled.
In 2026, buzzwords like digital-first, micro-dramas, the creator economy and vodcasts will face their moment of truth; Paramount’s Warner Bros. Discovery deal could reshape UK PSBs – will Sky and ITV tie the knot, and what about a BBC-Channel 4 merger? AI’s influence will grow with the anticipation of the first fully AI-generated feature film and increased use of generative tools by UK broadcasters.
The year is off to a flying start and the first 2026 edition of our UK film and TV newsletter covers how shifting viewing habits will see ad-supported streaming rise, cinema admissions decline and more YouTube experimentation, and discuss how studios will adapt by testing vertical drama formats while broadcasters strengthen partnerships with global streamers.
HARBOTTLE HIGHLIGHTS
Harbottle & Lewis and Animation UK Partnership
We are excited to announce our brand-new partnership with UK Screen Alliance /Animation UK as their exclusive legal sponsor for 2026.
Since its inception, UK Screen Alliance, in partnership with Animation UK, has championed the strengths of the sector, playing a pivotal role in securing the introduction of the UK’s Film and High-End TV tax relief in 2013. More recently, the UK Screen Alliance and Animation UK persuaded the UK government to introduce an uplift in respect of Animation and VFX in the Audio-Visual Expenditure Credit.
Keep an eye on our LinkedIn to learn more about how we’ll be working with UK Screen Alliance /Animation UK over the next 12 months. And if you’re a member, you may be seeing more of us in the near future!
GROWTHLAB AND INDIELAB INNOVATION AWARDS 2025
2025 marked Indielab’s 10th anniversary, and as part of our ongoing partnership, we joined their Growthlab conference in November for the launch of their first Innovation Awards. Edward Lane, Clare McGarry, Katerina Capras, and Caitlin McGivern all attended and Ed had the honour of presenting the award for ‘Outstanding Indie of the Year’ to CPL Productions, the creative force behind MAFS UK, Love is Blind, 90 Day Fiancé, and A League of Their Own, among others. It was a fantastic day and evening celebrating some of the most exciting innovation and creativity across UK television and digital-first content.
CONTENT LONDON
Our annual industry “Harbottle Happy Hour” returned this year and was held at the German Gymnasium in King’s Cross. This was a great opportunity to catch up with friends, clients and contacts during one of the busiest weeks in the industry calendar.
WOMEN IN FILM AND TV AWARDS 2025
Back in December, Sarah Lazarides, Abigail Payne, Catherine Flood, and Caitlin McGivern attended the Women in Film and TV Awards, joined by key contacts and clients at our annual table. The awards celebrate the outstanding female talent across the film and television industry, and it was a pleasure to be part of such an inspiring event.
INDIELAB CONTENT FUTURES ACCELERATOR 2026
We are continuing our long-standing partnership with Indielab into 2027 as the exclusive legal sponsor of their Content Futures 2026 Accelerator.
This year, the newly rebranded Content Futures programme will focus on technology, branded entertainment, digital platforms and the global TV market, supporting participants in reaching their goals in distribution, funding, and investment.
INDUSTRY UPDATES
PACT/EQUITY UPDATE
UK film and TV performers vote overwhelmingly for AI protections
Equity’s indicative ballot in December saw 99.6% of participating performers vote to refuse digital scanning on set without stronger AI protections. Although not legally binding, the result prompted Equity to push Pact for improved proposals focused on explicit consent, transparency and fair compensation, building on standards set by SAG AFTRA. Pact has now issued a revised counterproposal that strengthens provisions around synthetic performers and maintains that existing protections, combined with UK GDPR, already offer comprehensive safeguards. Pact has also rejected claims that producers are selling biometric data to third parties, noting no evidence has been found, but has agreed to review GenAI market practices on a regular basis.
New Pact Equity TV Agreement rates card
As of 1 January 2026, the new rates card under the TVA is now in effect. Pact and Equity have also agreed to extend the current rates under the CFA until 5 April 2026.
EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT 2025
After the twists and turns of its parliamentary journey in 2025, the long-awaited Employment Rights Act 2025 is now law. Read our note to see what this means for employers in the film, TV and entertainment sectors: ERA 2025: the new Act and the entertainment industry.
NEW DIRECTORS UK BLANKET AGREEMENT
The updated agreement, effective from 1 July 2025, keeps commercial fees for PSB and Sky commissions at current levels and introduces a 3% net revenue share from year eight on profitable, fully recouped programmes.
Producers do not need to include this in individual contracts, as it applies automatically unless a separate deal is less favourable. The agreement covers all new and returning commissions after the effective date and will be reviewed in 2028.
RIGHT TO WORK CRACKDOWN
Proposed Home Office reforms could see companies face fines of up to £60k per casual worker if they fail to carry out right to work checks on freelancers, extending existing obligations beyond standard employment contracts and hitting sectors reliant on short term labour such as film and TV. Experts warn that gaps in verification processes could create significant financial and reputational risk, and the clear message for employers is that right to work checks must be completed for every individual engaged, regardless of contract type or duration.
OFCOM STATEMENTS
In November 2025, Ofcom released two significant publications relating to the implementation of the Media Act 2024, which is expected to result in substantial changes in the media landscape by 2027. Ofcom’s report focuses on how streaming services that are available in the UK protect their audiences and further identifies areas for improvement.
Disney Partners with OpenAI’s generative platform to license iconic characters
Disney is making more than 200 characters, along with costumes, props and vehicles from Marvel, Pixar, Star Wars and classic animations available on OpenAI’s Sora platform, allowing fans to create AI generated videos and images. Disney also plans to use OpenAI technology internally to support new products and enhance Disney Plus, with both companies stressing responsible AI use and a commitment to protecting creators’ rights while expanding storytelling and audience engagement. This is BIG news, especially given Disney’s historic reputation of being super protective over its IP.
No changes to the UK’s AI legislative framework
The UK has made no major changes to its AI framework following its government consultation, confirming it will retain a flexible, non-binding, sector based approach rather than introduce formal legislation (for now…). Although the consultation highlighted gaps and the need for more support, the government has kept its non-statutory model and committed funding to strengthen regulators instead of creating binding obligations. With other regions introducing comprehensive AI laws, the UK’s slower approach risks ongoing uncertainty for the creative sector seeking clearer rules on responsible AI use.
Getty v Stability AI: UK Appeal set to shape copyright & AI in 2026
Getty Images has been given permission to appeal its case against Stability AI. Getty’s original claims centred on the alleged use of millions of its images to train Stable Diffusion, but the primary infringement claim was dropped after the court accepted that training took place outside the UK.
After the primary claim fell away, Getty instead argued that making the model available for download in the UK amounted to importing an infringing copy, which the court rejected on the basis that Stable Diffusion does not contain copy’s of Getty’s works. The court recognised the issue as both novel and important and allowed an appeal on the meaning of an infringing copy, leaving open future arguments about AI training and primary infringement.
The Court of Appeal’s decision will be key in determining the reach of English copyright law reaches into global AI development.
IT’S ALL ABOUT COLLABORATIONS
BBC announces new strategic partnership with YouTube
The BBC is expanding its YouTube presence with new digital first programming, including targeted channels for children and young adults such as Deepwatch and channels featuring content from Operation Ouch, Horrible Histories, Horrible Science and Deadly 60. The partnership aims to boost the visibility of major BBC brands and deliver trusted news through global channels, live story streams and new storytelling formats to reach younger audiences who do not consume traditional BBC content. It also includes a UK wide creator development programme, with around 150 media professionals receiving YouTube training through workshops and events led by the National Film and Television School.
Netflix and Spotify’s video podcast partnership: a strategic move
Netflix has partnered with Spotify to bring a slate of established video podcasts to the SVOD platform, supporting its strategy to expand engagement through more diverse and timely formats. The selected shows sit within genres where Netflix already has a strong presence or ambitions to grow, including sport and true crime, and are intended to complement its mix of appointment viewing and more casual background content. The move is aimed at positioning the service more competitively against platforms like YouTube in the live and interactive space. While some questions remain about how this fits with Netflix’s premium brand, the partnership offers creators new distribution opportunities and opens the door for further live or timely formats.
Netflix and Sony expand exclusive movie pact
Sony and Netflix have expanded their Pay 1 deal into what they describe as an industry first worldwide arrangement that will roll out as Sony’s individual territory licences expire, giving Netflix exclusive first post theatrical rights to Sony films. The deal builds on their existing agreements in the US, Germany and Southeast Asia and is expected to reach full global availability by early 2029.
Titles covered include Sam Mendes’ four-part Beatles project due in 2028, Spider Man: Beyond The Spider Verse, the live action Legend of Zelda adaptation, Sony Pictures Animation’s Buds and The Nightingale, with Netflix also licensing select Sony feature film and television library titles.
The last few days has brought big news on two of the most exciting “will they, won’t they” storylines we’ve had since Ross and Rachel. Paramount pipped Netflix to the post on Warner Bros Discovery and – hot off the press – Banijay Entertainment and All3Media have finally confirmed their merger of equals. Yes, please welcome to the stage (deep breath) Paramount Skydance Warner Bros Discovery and Banijay Entertainment All3Media. I am sure that someone is, as we speak, working on some better names.
Yes, big deals are back!
Paramount is forking out $111bn for Warners and the combined Banijay/All3 will be the largest production group outside of the US. We’ve also in recent months had French studio Mediawan’s acquisition of Peter Chernin’s The North Road Company and Sky and ITV in talks to do a $2.2bn tie-up.
After years of lacklustre M&A activity, what’s going on? Well, in this modern era, scale is survival. These are defensive moves. The move to streaming as the dominant business model has made access to huge amounts of content paramount. Audiences have never had more choice, and streamers have responded by competing for the best, most enduring IP. Scale also gives you pricing power and better terms.
The broader macroeconomic environment is still uncertain, inflation remains stubbornly high and interest rates are not coming down as quickly as expected. Uncertainty is the new paradigm. This should mean less M&A. The fact that we are seeing these big deals means all is not well. The Attention Wars aren’t going great for traditional media: competition from YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, purveyor of parasocial relationships OnlyFans and prediction markets has meant those selling more traditional content are fighting over an ever-shrinking pool of attention. People are spending less time watching long form content and subscriber growth has slowed.
These megadeals are really about securing a bigger slice of a smaller pie.
The question now for Paramount is whether it can get past the various regulatory hurdles and close the deal – this is only the beginning of a long process, in the course of which AI may have transformed (even more) the world of content. Meanwhile, Netflix’s share price has skyrocketed, telling us all we needed to know about the market’s view of the deal (at one point its share price has dropped by more than the $82bn it had bid for Warners). Netflix also receives a $2.8bn break fee for its troubles; not bad for a few months’ work.
At the smaller end of the market, we are seeing good levels of activity and hope to be able to talk about a number of cool things we’ve been working on soon. The main driver of the deals we’re doing is more positive: larger businesses acquiring indie expertise and experience in areas they want to expand into – it’s all about backing talent and giving them the resources to meet their full potential.
Until next time!
IP, THEREFORE I AM?
Increasingly, AI is being used to generate digital replicas, also known as “deepfakes”, of reallife individuals. This is often for commercial use, including on social media, to promote products and services. This is of particular concern for actors and celebrities, whose images and likenesses are widely available and accessible online, meaning that there is an abundance of source material for AI systems to draw from.
Intellectual property managing associate, Daniel Prim, shares his insight on how this development might unfold in the UK and its impact on the creative industry on our website.
In a well-documented High Court case, McLaren has been awarded millions of dollars in damages after driver Alex Palou reneged on an agreement to drive for the Arrow McLaren IndyCar Team, and to provide reserve and test driving services to the McLaren Formula 1 team.
This case provides interesting lessons for teams, athletes, agents and brands relating to agreements between teams and their elite athletes, and commercial agreements with brands and suppliers.
In particular, this case shines a light on the following issues.
Agreements with athletes
SIGNING ON FEES
Any element of an athlete’s fee that is payable in consideration of their signature is likely to be unrecoverable by their team, as was the case in McLaren v Palou, in which the Court ruled that the signing on fee was a literal reward for Palou’s agreement to sign the contract. From the team’s perspective, it would typically be considered reasonable to ensure all fees are expressed as subject to performance by the athlete, payable in instalments, and refundable if the Driver defaults.
TERMINATION RIGHTS
If an athlete is entering into a contract in order to achieve a specific outcome, whether that be securing a Formula 1 seat or a regular starting position in a football’s team’s lineup, they should be advised not to rely on promises and non-contractual representations, but instead to consider ways to hold the team accountable contractually. For example, termination rights linked to the team’s failure to support an aspiring Formula 1 driver in his journey by offering him a certain number of rookie test sessions, or including a footballer in a certain number of starting lineups during each season, can help the athlete to exit a relationship that is not working, and avoid protracted, expensive legal proceedings such as McLaren v Palou. That being said, this case has demonstrated that contracts can, and regularly are, broken in sport. If a relationship is not founded on mutual trust, making the wrong long-term commitments can be career defining.
LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION
In McLaren v Palou, McLaren claimed it had suffered substantial losses relating to its Formula 1 and IndyCar teams and their commercial agreements with third parties. These alleged damages far surpassed the fees payable to Palou under the driver agreement. Careful drafting can help athletes to avoid liability for losses that do not directly result from the athlete’s breach. As a minimum, if the team’s bargaining power is such that the athlete is on the hook for losses associated with the team’s agreements with third parties, the athlete should resist providing indemnities in this regard and should require the team to agree to an express obligation to take steps to mitigate its losses. In circumstances where an athlete is being courted by another team, the athlete should take a leaf out of Palou’s book, requesting an indemnity to shield the athlete from incurring these sorts of losses.
Commercial agreements with brands or key suppliers
KEY INDIVIDUALS
In cases where major commercial agreements are contingent upon the presence of key individuals in the team, suppliers, brands and teams should weigh up the benefits of making this contractual. From the supplier or brand’s perspective, this would provide them with clear recourse – and ideally the ability to exit – should the key individual leave the team.
From the team’s perspective, in the event of the athlete’s breach of contract leading to the sponsor or supplier terminating the agreement, the team will have a more straightforward claim against the athlete given the causal relationship between athlete’s breach and team’s loss. Better still, if the team is concerned about the athlete honouring the contract, an indemnity could be sought to cover anticipated losses. That being said, the benefits of naming key individuals in commercial agreements should be assessed on a case-by-case basis taking specialist legal advice, particularly as the risk of losing the athlete in a non-breach scenario could leave the team exposed.
PERFORMANCE BONUSES
A brand will often try to include a performance-related element in sponsorship deals. This might be tied to the fee or a break clause where a certain level of performance is not achieved. While the team may be confident of achieving the performance milestones, circumstances outside of the team’s control such as a key team member’s departure (or failure to join the team as expected) could compromise the team, leading to lower than expected revenues or the departure of key partners. In McLaren v Palou, the Court determined that McLaren could not recover all of its losses linked to failure to achieve performance bonus milestones, citing the inherent uncertainty in projecting performance outcomes notwithstanding the Driver’s talent. That said, it may be preferable for a team to agree to a lower overall guaranteed fee, over a higher fee that encompasses performance-related elements.
Our sports team has extensive experience advising teams, athletes, agents and brands on agreements with elite athletes, as well as commercial deals with brands and suppliers. For more information, please get in touch.
After launching the Harbottle & Lewis Indie Games Collective (IGC) in January, we are pleased to announce our programme members for 2026.
PROGRAMME OVERVIEW
Over the next six months, they will have access to a series of training sessions covering key legal and business topics, including an introduction to IP essentials, contracts, the use of AI, corporate housekeeping and much more.
THE IGC MEMBERS
Beyond the Pixels
Based in London, Beyond the Pixels develops original and licensed game IP designed to expand into film, TV and user-generated content. Their debut indie game Astro Burn is being developed in parallel as a TV show concept.
Epoch Media Studios
Based in Warsaw, Poland, Epoch Media Studios is currently developing asymmetric horror game Soul Walker as transmedia IP,with plans to expand into film, animation and fashion collaborations.
Foolhardy Games
Based in London, Foolhardy Games develops indie games for Steam. They are currently working on their upcoming game Crashbound, a 2D side-scrolling strategy game where players aim to survive, expand and rebuild their airship to escape a hostile world.
Galatico Studios
Galatico Studios is an independent UK games studio based in Portsmouth that creates gameplay-driven experiences for PC, mobile and AR, with a focus on community. The studio also supports emerging developers through practical production experience, mentorship and collaboration.
Gamirare
Gamirare is an indie games studio based in Kyiv, Ukraine, currently working on projects Trickster Trove and SaaS Keeper. With game designers, developers, artists and storytellers, their focus is on building deep, re-playable worlds. Their portfolio includes dark fantasy PvPvE titles, storytelling tools and a creator platform.
Haaris EntertainmentLtd
Haaris Entertainment Ltd develops online entertainment focused on unique gameplay, distinctive characters, imaginative worlds and in-depth narratives. The London-based company aims to create experiences designed to inspire creativity and connections across multiple media platforms.
Lost Wanderer Games
Also based in London, Lost Wanderer Games aims to craft immersive gameplay experiences through meaningful storytelling. They are committed to innovation and creativity in order to reflect the diversity of the real world.
Ludo Gamelabs
Ludo Gamelabs is a games development studio from Manchester focused on creating innovative and engaging gameplay experiences. The studio utilises AI technology to support game creation and offers tools to assist developers in brainstorming ideas, generating assets and streamlining workflows. Their platform aims to empower creators and enhance the game development process. Recent projects include Wordhunters and Project Rome.
Pretty Cool Games
Based in Leeds, Pretty Cool Games are currently developing their debut title for PC and console, featuring physics-based gameplay. Their aim is to centre their business around creating unique, memorable and engaging IP.
Second Star Games
Second Star Games is a games development studio based in London that creates interactive experiences for young gamers and their families. The studio focuses on storytelling, unique mechanics and delivering exceptional story-led co-op experiences based on well-known and loved IPs (LEGO Star Wars), aiming to bring new worlds to life and create shared moments for families.
Silver Script Games
Silver Script Games is a Hampshire-based games startup currently focusing on their debut game The Quiet Things, an autobiographical game that deals with topics around childhood abuse and the impact that has on a person growing up.
South Westerly Games
South Westerly Games is a micro indie studio based in Hastings on the Southeast Coast, focused on developing and publishing games. The studio’s debut title, NINE ROUNDS RAPID, is a hand-painted, stylised roguelite top-down shooter for PC, PlayStation, Xbox and Switch.
Splash Games
Based in London, Splash Games is a tech-first games company building a platform for skill-based competitive play. They develop and operate original mobile games that allow players to compete in short, structured competitions where outcomes are driven by skill rather than chance. The company focuses on scalable technology, strong unit economics and operating responsibly within regulated environments.
The Goblin Workshop
The Goblin Workshop is a PC-first studio based in Surrey with four core values: a focus on action RPGs, influence from both the UK and Japan, visionary leadership and creating games that are dark but with a heart.
Umbra Dynamics
Based in Scotland, Umbra Dynamics specialises in remastering classic games for modern audiences, preserving well-loved game heritage. The studio revitalises proven IP to make previously out-of-print titles accessible, with the aim of appealing to both nostalgic gamers and introducing timeless classics to new generations.
Unannounced studio
This Derby-based games studio focuses on creating compact and innovative games developed with an emphasis on sustainability and ethical practices. With extensive experience in design, programming and independent publishing, the team is currently working on its first commercial project and looks forward to sharing it with players soon.
Unskippable Dialogue
Unskippable Dialogue is in the very early stages of development. The studio will focus on narrative experiences to tell stories about overlooked people throughout history. Their latest project focuses on lightkeepers of the 1860s and the surprisingly perilous work they undertook to keep the shipping lanes safe.
Verso Gaming
Verso Gaming is a UK-based skill-tech company creating regulated, skill-based competitive infrastructure for multiplayer games. Its platform integrates with PvP titles to enable fair and compliant competitive play, allowing players to compete for real rewards while protecting developers from risks. Verso aims to provide a trusted, ethical and scalable alternative to unregulated competition, prioritising skill over spending and safeguarding player autonomy.
Whetstone Games
Whetstone Games is a London-based studio focused on developing short, genre-blending games for PC and console, with an emphasis on sustainability, quick production turnarounds and small budgets. The studio’s first project, currently in early prototype stages, is a business simulation game centred on music production.
On 26 February, the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), the UK’s advertising regulator, issued an Enforcement Notice concerning the disclosure of loot boxes in mobile game advertising and app store listings. For these purposes, “loot boxes” are random-item generators that can be acquired with real money, or with virtual currency obtainable only through real-money purchases. The notice was prompted by the ASA’s concern that mobile game publishers are failing to adequately disclose the presence of loot boxes in their games.
The ASA will begin actively monitoring compliance from 26 May, with targeted enforcement action to follow.
What is an Enforcement Notice?
An Enforcement Notice is essentially a warning to the relevant sector that the regulator intends to focus on this issue more intensively starting from the relevant date, giving the relevant businesses an opportunity to ‘get their house in order’.
We can expect a string of adjudications from the ASA (which enforces the CAP and BCAP Codes) on this subject in the months to come.
What are the rules?
Under CAP Guidance, the presence of loot boxes in a game is considered material information. This means the presence of loot boxes must be presented to consumers before they purchase or download a game (particularly for those with gambling-related vulnerabilities).
This can be achieved with a disclosure statement such as “Includes random-item purchases” or “Contains loot boxes” in a prominent location within advertising and app store listings.
Players should not need to expand hidden sections or scroll through game descriptions to find it. Note that built-in app store labels such as “Offers In-App Purchases” are not generally sufficient on their own. Loot box disclosures must be presented prominently alongside, or as part of, any in-game purchasing information.
What should I do now?
If your game incorporates loot boxes, review your advertising and app store listings to ensure the appropriate disclaimers are included.
Bear in mind that the global loot box regulatory environment is fragmented. This is largely due to a lack of harmonisation of gambling regulation and consumer protection laws across many jurisdictions that have developed in different directions over time. Territories with a particular interest in regulating and taking enforcement action in relation to loot boxes include Brazil, Netherlands, Poland, Belgium and recently there has been action in the US. It is a good time to reflect on your global loot box approach, and update any internal policies.
Increasingly, AI is being used to generate digital replicas, also known as “deepfakes”, of real-life individuals. This is often for commercial use, including on social media, to promote products and services. This is of particular concern for actors and celebrities, whose images and likenesses are widely available and accessible online, meaning that there is an abundance of source material for AI systems to draw from.
In December 2024, the UK Government launched an “AI and Copyright” consultation. The Government sought views from the industry on whether “personality rights” legislation should be introduced, or if existing performers’ rights legislation should be amended in the UK to give individuals greater control over how their likeness or voice is used. The Government recognises that other countries have taken action, or proposals have been made, to address this issue. For example, in the United States, two bills were enacted in California in 2024 to protect performers regarding the use of digital replicas imitating an individual’s voice, image or personal attributes without consent (California Assembly Bills 2602 and 1836). In Denmark, a bill was proposed allowing individuals to own copyright over their physical likeness which includes face, body and voice.
There were over 11,500 responses to the Government’s AI and copyright consultation from a range of parties including creators and right holders, developers of AI models and applications, academics, researchers, cultural heritage organisations, and legal professionals. The Government will be submitting a full report and economic impact assessment of its consultation before Parliament on or before 18 March 2026.
Whilst it is currently unclear whether or not specific personality rights legislation will be introduced into UK legislation to protect an individual’s likeness or voice from being digitally replicated by AI, it is worth bearing in mind that there is a patchwork of existing civil rights in the UK that may be relevant to the use of digital replicas without the consent of the real-life individual. Enforcing these rights in the UK civil courts in the context of AI digital replicas is, however, currently untested.
The rights include:
Trade marks. A UK trade mark registration gives the holder the potential to sue for trade mark infringement in respect of signs that are similar or identical to which the trade mark is registered. A real-life individual may wish to register a trade mark using a portrait of their face to give them the potential avenue of bringing a trade mark infringement claim when a digital replica of their face is used without consent by an AI. Well-known figures have sought such trade mark registrations. For example, Jeremy Clarkson has recently obtained a UK registered trade mark comprising two photo portraits of his face. This approach has also been taken in other jurisdictions, for example Dutch models Rozanne Verduin and Yasmin Wijnaldum have registered portrait photos of their faces as EU trade marks.
Passing off. If the public is misled into thinking a real-life individual has endorsed a product or service via a digital replica, the tort of passing off may be helpful to bring a stop to what the digital replica is doing.
Misuse of private information. If the real-life individual can establish that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information contained in the replica (which may, depending on the circumstances, include private events, or intimate scenes etc), then this tort may be helpful in relation to any unauthorised publishing of such information via the digital replica.
Data protection. Data protection legislation may also be helpful to prevent the misuse of personal data (which may, depending on the circumstances, include an individual’s likeness/voice) that has been processed by the digital replica’s handler.
Defamation. If a digital replica uses the real-life individual’s likeness/voice in such a way that causes the individual serious harm, the individual may have grounds to sue for defamation.
For now, the Government’s upcoming report on the consultation is due to be published by 18 March 2026 and is eagerly awaited by practitioners and the creative industry. It is almost guaranteed to encourage more debate on the issue of an individual’s personality rights in the UK.
After the twists and turns of its parliamentary journey in 2025, and many amendments later, the long-awaited Employment Rights Act 2025 is now law. We unpack what this means for employers in the film, TV and entertainment sectors for the year ahead.
UNFAIR DISMISSAL CHANGES
Turning first to the biggest change, unfair dismissal rights. The Labour Government’s aspirational ‘day one’ right not to be unfairly dismissed did not become law. However, the changes are still significant.
From 1 January 2027, employees will need six months’ service to bring a claim for ordinary unfair dismissal (rather than the current two years), meaning anyone continuously employed on or before 1 June this year will have protection from unfair dismissal from the start of 2027.
The current statutory cap on compensation for unfair dismissal, a year’s pay or £118,223, will also be abolished.
This is a big moment in employments rights. Although moving from ‘day one’ to ‘six months’ feels like a welcome compromise, employers must take greater care to get recruitment practices right, assess fit early on and take decisive action when things do not go to plan.
For film and TV companies, who hire staff short term for specific productions, careful thought will need to be given to employment status and termination processes when a production wraps or projects come to an end.
Equally significant is the removal of the compensation cap. Employers are used to the comfort of the statutory cap representing a worst-case scenario for unfair dismissal claims, but such claims will have a higher potential value. In the entertainment industry, where talent, presenters, and behind the camera executives are on significant salaries, this change really will matter.
TRADE UNION EMPOWERMENT
The Act has promised modernisation of trade union legislation, and with this comes a shift of power back to the unions. The Government’s union proposals have largely made it into the final law, with the result that unions will have more freedom to access members and workplaces, call industrial action and secure recognition.
Major changes begin to take effect in February 2026 (with some immediate changes for the public sector before then). In relation to industrial action including strikes, unions will need a simple majority vote to take action, any mandate will last for 12 months, instead of six months, and the notice of industrial action will reduce from 14 to 10 days.
This change to the law is of particular relevance for the film and television industry at the moment, given British Equity’s indication late last month that it may hold a statutory ballot on industrial action if terms cannot be agreed regarding AI. This followed a poll of British Equity members in December, with 75% turnout, where 99% of members indicated that they would refuse to be scanned on set without AI protections.
During 2026, a framework will be introduced giving trade unions stronger rights of access to workplaces from October 2026, both physically and through digital communications with employees.
More detail will follow in Regulations over the coming months.
Union agreements and relationships form an integral part of employment terms and arrangements for many businesses in the entertainment industry. It will be important for employers to fully understand the enhanced union rights and consider how this impacts their own union engagement and industrial relations strategies.
FAMILY FRIENDLY AND LEAVE RIGHTS
Day one rights have been introduced for family and other types of leave, with most expected to come into effect in April this year, or in early 2027.
These include: an entitlement to at least one week of bereavement leave, including for early pregnancy loss; paternity and parental leave rights from day one of employment; and statutory sick pay applicable from the first day of absence.
Rates of pay in respect of such rights remain low or uncertain. Statutory sick pay is capped at £123 per week, and a significant increase is not currently contemplated. The day one rights in respect of maternity and paternity leave do not extend to statutory pay, with employees still needing a period of continuous service for eligibility.
This means immediate costs to businesses are not duly onerous, although employers should note there is an ongoing wider Government review on the parental leave and pay system, although the review stage will not conclude before 2027.
For many employers in the entertainment industry, these reforms won’t mean significant changes, as many already offer over and above statutory entitlements. However, for smaller employers and productions with staff on short or fixed term contracts, it will be important to be aware of the changes and how they may impact policies and different staff groups.
AND THE REST…
The above is a snapshot of three key aspects of the Act likely to be especially relevant to the film, TV and entertainment industries, but there is a raft of further reforms to be aware of.
You can read our overview of the changes here and we will share further insights and webinar offerings as more details emerge.
The takeaway from here is that whilst there are undoubtedly reforms of significance, and employer clients need to use the coming year to get ready for the changes, businesses should not be unduly worried. Being informed and prepared will help the creative sector successfully navigate and manage risk in this new landscape.
Please reach out to our head of film and television and partner, Sarah Lazarides, for more information or training requests about employment law changes and their potential impact.
