Podcast: Play in new window | Download
50 Cent’s two-minute cameo in the horror film “Skill House” turned into a full-blown legal battle over credits, contracts, and control. In this episode of The Briefing, Weintraub entertainment and IP attorneys Scott Hervey and Tara Sattler break down what went wrong—and what Hollywood can learn from it.
Show Notes:
Scott:
Picture this, Curtis 50 Cent Jackson, hip hop legend and media mogul, steps on to the set of a new horror flick, Skill House. He films a quick two-minute scene, gets billed as a producer, and then next thing you know, he’s in court, trying to stop the film’s release, claiming his name and likeness were used without his permission. But the producers say, Hold on, wait a minute, we had a deal. Welcome to the Briefing by Weintraub Tobin, where we dissect the legal showdowns Shaking Up Hollywood.
I’m Scott Hervey, and I’m joined today by my partner, Tara Sattler. Today, we’re going to unravel this messy dispute on today’s installment of The Briefing. Tara, welcome back to The Briefing.
Tara: It’s always great to be here, Scott, and welcome back. I know you’ve been gone for a little bit.
Scott: Yeah, that’s right. We pre-filmed about four or five episodes, and they weren’t our standard deep dive into current cases. I’m happy to dig back into this one. This I wrote while I was away on vacation because I found this case from the start to be incredibly interesting.
Tara: God, since I work with a lot of studios and production companies, this case is absolutely my worst nightmare.
Scott: Oh, mine too. I work with a bunch of studios and production company as well. When I read this case, I broke out in cold sweat. This is the thing that keeps you up at night.
Tara: Yeah, it really is. It’s a wild ride. A 50 Cent, a horror film, a missing signed contract. Let’s get into it.
Scott: Yeah. So let’s start with the factual history of the dispute, Tara. Why don’t you give our listeners a Some background on what’s going on here.
Tara: Yeah, absolutely. So this case revolves around Skill House, a horror film that was released on July 11th, 2025, earlier this summer. Curtis Jackson, also known as 50 Cent, appears in the film for just over two minutes, but is prominently featured as a producer in its marketing. 50 Cent and his company, NYC Viive LLLC, filed a lawsuit against the film’s production company, Skillhouse Movies, LLC, its producer Ryan Cavenagh and GenTV, LLC, alleging unauthorized use of his name, likeness, voice, trademarks, and other intellectual property. 50 Cent then sought a preliminary injunction to stop the film’s release, claiming it would cause irreparable harm to his brand and reputation. The defendants, however, argued that 50 Cent agreed to participate in and promote the film in exchange for a back-end profit share of 10%, among some other terms.
Scott: Right. So the core issue, or one of the core issues, is whether there was an agreement. What’s the backstory on that, Tara?
Tara: So in the summer of 2022, 50 Cent and Cavenagh started discussing his involvement in Skillhouse, which is Gen TV’s first feature film. On June 26th, 2022, 50 Cent Council, Stephen Sava, emailed Production Council Neil Sacker, confirming they were good to go on the terms, including producer credit, 10% of the back-end profits, social media promotion with approval rights, product placement for 50 Cent Cognac and champagne brands, and a small acting role. Kavanaugh confirmed these terms, and on July second, 2022, Sacker sent a binding term sheet and certificate of employment, which included $100,000 in fixed compensation and a clause barring 50 cent from seeking injunctive relief in relation to the film. The parties exchanged some revisions on those documents, and by July 30th, Sacker sent what he called the final version of the agreement. But here’s the catch. Neither side can produce a signed copy. So Kavanaugh claims that 50 Cent signed it on set on August second, 2022, in front of witnesses. But 50 Cent and his team deny that.
Scott: That’s pretty messy. I see how this all plays out because this happens. This just happens. But it’s messy. No signed agreement. But the parties kept working together.
Tara: Yeah, they did, even without a signed contract. So 50 Cent filmed his scene, and his team continued discussions about promotion and payment terms. For example, on August 15th, 2022, 50 Cent commented positively about a film flip, and he later discussed product placement with Kavanaugh. But by April of 2025, 50 Cent’s team claimed they hadn’t been paid, and on June 2, 2025, he filed the injunction to block the film’s release, citing federal and state trademark infringement, unfair competition, false advertising, and violations of his right of publicity.
Scott: So let’s get to the court’s legal analysis. Let’s talk Can you talk a little bit about why the court denied 50 Cent’s request for a preliminary injunction that would have injoined the distribution and exploitation of the feature film.
Tara: Yeah. The Court’s decision was issued on July 11th, 2025, by Judge Hernan D. Vera, and it hinged on the winter factors for preliminary injunction. Those are likelihood success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest. The court really focused on the first factor, the likelihood of success factor, and found that 50 Cent didn’t clear the bar. The key issue was whether 50 Cent consented to the use of his name and likeness. The defendants provided evidence like emails and text from 50 Cent’s counsel suggesting mutual assent to the agreement’s material terms, even if it signed. For example, Sava’s good to go email and subsequent negotiations showed Jackson’s team was on board. The court also noted that Jackson’s actions, like filming his scene and discussing promotion, supported the defendant’s claim that an agreement really did exist.
Scott: Right. Based on the facts, this seems to be the right decision. 50 Cent published numerous posts on his social media accounts about his involvement in the film. 50 Cent is a very, very successful businessman, and I’m sure he and his team carefully vet all of his projects, which is probably why it was hard for the court to believe that he not only performed his scene, but that 50 Cent and his entire team spent two and a half years marketing and promoting a film he never actually agreed to be in.
Tara: While not having a signed agreement isn’t best practices, it didn’t sink the defendant’s case here.
Scott: Right. I mean, let’s point out it is not best practices, and most studios require a signed contract or some form of a signed agreement, whether it’s a certificate of engagement or long form before anybody starts rendering work. But you’re right, it didn’t sink the case. The court emphasized that a contract can be formed through mutual assent, even without a signature, as long as the parties agree on material terms. This isn’t the first time a court hearing a contract dispute involving an actor’s participation in a project upheld an oral agreement.
Tara: Right, Scott. I think you’re talking about the 1993 case, Mainline Pictures versus Basinger, which is often cited as a landmark decision in Hollywood regarding the enforceability of oral contracts.
Scott: Oh, definitely. Yeah, that’s exactly what I was talking about. In that case, Mainline Pictures versus Basinger, Kim Basinger was ordered to pay $8. 9 million to Mainline Pictures for backing out of an oral agreement to star in the film Boxing Helena. The court found that Basinger’s verbal commitment, coupled with actions like reviewing the script and meeting the director, formed a binding contract even without a signed document. This case set a precedent that oral agreements in Hollywood can be enforceable if there’s clear evidence of mutual assent. In the scale house case, the court applied a similar logic. Although no signed contract was produced, the defendant’s evidence, emails, text, and 50 Cent participation on set, suggested mutual assent to key terms like his role and promotional duties. Just as in Basinger, the court didn’t require a signed contract to find that 50 Cent likely agreed to the use of his name and likeness, undermining claim of unauthorized use. The Basinger precedent gave the court confidence to deny 50 Cent injunction, as it showed that oral or implied agreements can hold up when supported by consistent conduct and communications.
Tara: Basinger looms large here, and it really shapes the takeaways for this case.
Scott: Right. The Basinger case reinforces the skill house ruling, I guess it’s core lesson. In Hollywood, you don’t always need a signed contract to be bound. Both cases show that courts will look at a party’s actions and their communications to determine intent. In Basinger, it was her meetings and her verbal commitments. In Skill House, it was 50 Cent’s participation in the filming and the promotional discussions and his social media activity. This connection underscores why studios now, well, they probably always always have, but they certainly do insist on signed contracts before services are rendered. Basinger sent shockwaves through the industry, and Skillhouse is a reminder that Lucid agreements can still lead to legal battles.
Tara: Absolutely. Here, the defendants’ declarations and exhibits, like email exchanges and Kavanaugh’s claim that 50 Cent did sign the agreement on set, created enough doubt about 50 Cent’s claims. So the court didn’t need to rule definitely on the contract’s existence. It just found that 50 Cent couldn’t show a likelihood of success or even serious questions on the merits, which is fatal for a preliminary injunction. So because of this, the court didn’t even address the other winter factors like irreparable harm.
Scott: Right. And that brings us to the two key lessons or two key takeaways from this case.
Tara: Yeah. The first one is fairly obvious, which is the importance of having some type of signed agreement before any non-employee We render services on any type of creative project.
Scott: Right. So this case is a textbook example of what can go wrong when you let any form of talent, whether that’s an actor or a writer or a director or a producer, start working without a signed agreement, without any form of a signed agreement. Now, most studios have a strict no signed agreement, no work policy, because it avoids exactly this dispute. Here, 50 Cent filmed the scene and engaged in promotional discussions without, or at least allegedly, without a signed deal, leading to a he said, he said battle over whether an agreement actually existed. If the defendants had insisted on a signed contract before 50 Cent stepped on set, or if they held on to that signed contract, once 50 Cent signed it on set, they could have avoided this litigation, or at least had a stronger defense. The absence of a signed agreement left both sides relying on emails, text, and conflicting declarations, which muddied the waters and prolonged the dispute, and that means money. Studios enforce this policy to lock in terms protect against claims like the ones that 50 Cent made, which could have derailed the movie’s release.
Tara: Yeah, absolutely. It really could have. Here it seems that 50 Cent may have had a signed certificate of engagement, even though no one could find a copy of it.
Scott: Right. I mean, it’s a fairly standard practice, as we both know, in the entertainment industry, to have a producer, a director, a writer, sometimes even an actor, sign a certificate of engagement before a full long form agreement is signed. A certificate of engagement is itself a binding agreement that sets out the key material terms relating to that talent, that artist’s engagement. In addition, certificates also generally include an arbitration provision, a waiver of injunctive relief, and other core requirements for a written contract.
Tara: Yes, they definitely We certainly do. That actually brings us to the second lesson that we learn here, which is the importance of the waiver of injunctive relief provision.
Scott: Right, absolutely. In the entertainment industry, it’s standard practice to include a provision in, well, not just talent agreements, but you see them in almost every single agreement related to anything that appears on camera or has anything remotely to do with the production of either a television or a motion picture or any type of creative output. That’s a term that waives the right to seek injunctive relief. This case shows why that provision is enforceable. The defendants argued that the unsigned final agreement included a cause barring 50 cents from seeking injunctive relief, which would have blocked this motion outright if the court had found the agreement enforceable. This clause protects production companies and studios studios and distributors from last minute attempts to halt a film’s release, which is a lot about leverage, and it can cost millions of dollars and disrupt distribution schedules. Without such a clause or without a signed agreement to enforce it, producers, studios, distributors face the risk of a lawsuit like this one where a plaintiff can try to gain leverage by threatening to pull the plug at the 11th hour. Even though 50 Cent’s injunction failed, the clause’s presence in the draft agreement maybe influenced the court’s view on the party’s intent.
Tara: Yeah, I think that’s right, Scott. What are the takeaways for the entertainment industry from this case?
Scott: Yeah. This case is a wake-up call. First, always get agreement signed before work begins. No exceptions. A handshake deal email or email chain isn’t enough when millions of dollars are on the line. Second, include clear waivers of injunctive relief in contracts, including certificates, to shield against attempts to block a project’s relief. Parties. Finally, keep really good records of negotiations and have someone designated to collect and retain and distribute agreements that are signed on set. The defendants evidence of mutual assent saved them here, but a signed contract, if they would have had some type of coordinator on set who Kavanaugh could have said, Here, hold this and scan it into our system, That would have made this case or their defense a slam dunk. For talent, this case shows the risk of proceeding without clear, executed agreements. You might lose leverage to control how your name and likeness would be used.
Tara: Absolutely, Scott. I agree with all those takeaways. This dispute is really a reminder that in the entertainment industry, the fine print can make or break a project.
Scott: Right. Well, that’s all for today’s episode of The Briefing. Thanks to Tara for joining me today. Thank you, the listener or viewer, for tuning in. We hope you found this episode informative and enjoyable. And if you did, please remember to subscribe, leave us a review, and share this episode with your friends and colleagues. And if you have any questions about the topics cover today, please leave us a comment.