Co-Production Without a Contract: Where It Goes Wrong[
Goodwill doesn't hold up in court. A handshake doesn't establish ownership. And assuming you and your co-producer are on the same page is not the same as documenting what that page actually says.
You don’t have to look far in the list of published IFTA Arbitration Awards to find disputes related to co-production agreements. A significant number of conflicts began exactly like this: two producers who started with a handshake and assumed goodwill would carry them through.
It rarely does. What does often happen is that co-producers start off as friends and end up as foes.
Co-production without any contract, or with a badly drafted contract, doesn't fail because people are dishonest. It fails because the structure was never there to begin with. Contracts map out what the parties intend to do and how the rights, money and risk are being shared – contracts should also map out what happens if there is a conflict.
Here's where things tend to unravel without a fit-for-purpose co-production agreement in place. I’ve also previously written about issues to consider when you are entering into a co-development agreement with a co-producer – you can read about it here.
Why Co-Production Handshake Deals Create Legal Risk
A handshake deal assumes alignment. Meaning, you and your partner share the same vision, the same understanding of who contributes what, and the same expectations about how decisions get made. That assumption is the problem. Assumptions aren't enforceable, and co-production partnerships are rarely as simple as they feel at the outset.
Three areas where informal arrangements tend to create immediate legal exposure:
Ownership becomes contested. Without a written agreement, there's no clear record of who owns what. Crucially, copyright can only be transferred in writing. Without a contract, each party will own what it brings to the project and what it creates during the project. If the project succeeds, both parties may claim greater ownership than the other recognises. If it fails, both may try to produce the same project with a different co-producer. Who owns the rights in that case? Without a contract, establishing ownership will be nigh impossible.
Financial responsibility is undefined. Who covers development costs? Who recoups in which position from gross receipts? Or is the intention to recover development costs from the production budget? What if there isn’t enough room in the production budget or if more parties than initially foreseen need to recoup from gross receipts? When those terms aren't documented, a dispute over money quickly becomes a dispute over the entire partnership.
Creative control is ambiguous. Who has final say on financing, casting, script changes, or distribution strategy? Without a detailed contract, every major decision becomes a negotiation — and negotiations under pressure rarely end cleanly.
What Do Co-Producers Do in a Co-Production Partnership?
The term "co-producer" gets used loosely. What it actually means depends entirely on how the partnership is structured.
In some arrangements, partners share creative and financial responsibility equally — both contribute to development, both invest in production (either financially or be deferring their fees), both participate in key decisions. In others, one partner procures and structures financing while the other brings creative expertise, talent relationships, or broadcaster access. The division of labour can be equal or entirely asymmetric.
But regardless of how the work is divided, what co-producers need to do to protect their interests is the same: define those roles in writing.
Without that clarity, expectations quietly diverge. One partner assumes they have creative approval. The other assumes they're purely a capital provider. By the time misalignment surfaces, the relationship is already under strain. And the conversation that should have happened at the start is now happening under pressure, with money on the table.
How Producer Collaboration Breaks Down Without Written Terms
Producer collaboration starts with shared goals. It struggles to survive ambiguity.
I've worked with partnerships where the initial producer collaboration was strong. Both parties contributed ideas, both secured financing, and both felt equally invested in the project's success. Then a decision point arrived, and the lack of detailed written terms turned collaboration into conflict.
Here's the typical sequence:
Step 1: A creative dispute surfaces. One producer wants to move forward with a specific director. The other disagrees. There's no documented process for resolving creative disputes, so the disagreement escalates.
Step 2: Both partners claim authority. The first argues that they brought the project in, so they should have final say. The second argues that they secured the financing, so creative control should reflect that contribution.
Step 3: Financial questions compound the problem. Both partners assumed an equal split in producer fees and share of gross or net receipts, but one contributed significantly more capital. Should producer collaboration mean equal ownership and financial rewards, or should financial contribution determine the division?
Without written terms establishing decision-making authority and ownership splits, producer collaboration becomes a legal dispute waiting to happen. Get the structure in place before the pressure arrives.
Co-Production Across Borders: Jurisdiction and Ownership Issues
International co-production brings an entirely different layer of complexity. You're not just managing creative and financial terms. You're managing which country's laws govern the agreement, where disputes get resolved, and how ownership is recognised across different legal systems.
I've seen partnerships where one producer was based in the UK, the other in Canada, with production set in France —when a dispute arose over distribution rights, both parties argued they should have exclusive distribution rights in their home jurisdiction. On another project, the parties (both in the UK) didn’t read their contract properly – when a conflict arose it turned out that it was governed by the laws and courts of Saskatchewan. This would have meant applying to the courts of that Canadian province for dispute resolution. Why? Because no-one bothered to read the contract.
● Ownership recognition varies by territory. Copyright law across different countries has different ways of designating who the ‘author’ of the original copyright is and how authorship is shared (by operation of the law) is also different across countries. If your co-production agreement doesn't address how ownership is divided, that ambiguity and potential conflict will typically surface the moment you try to secure financing for your conflict or, at the latest, when you try to licence the rights in your project and don’t end up owning the rights that you thought you own. In other words: this conflict will surface at the worst possible time.
● Tax incentives and treaty co-productions add another layer. Many countries offer financial benefits for qualifying co-productions, but those benefits depend on meeting specific criteria around ownership, creative control, and spending. Without clear terms, you risk losing access to funding you were counting on. Of course contracts an be drafted or amended later on – but if you had an equal co-production structure in mind and suddenly realise that, for example, a portion of the copyright needs to be held in New Zealand or that the UK co-producer needs to be seen to be in control of production in order to qualify for tax incentives – then that might be a bitter bill to swallow half-way through the process.
Cross-border collaboration requires cross-border legal clarity.
When Producer Collaboration Turns Into a Legal Dispute
Most legal disputes between producers don't start as fights. They start as misunderstandings that harden into positions.
One partner believes they were promised a specific credit. The other has no record of that promise. One partner assumes they have approval rights over key hires. The other assumes those decisions are theirs alone. These aren't bad-faith actors. They're people who genuinely remember things differently because nothing was ever written down.
Once a dispute veers towards litigation, the partnership is effectively over. Even if it settles, the trust doesn't recover. The project either gets shelved or limps forward under terms neither party is satisfied with. And the cost isn't just legal fees. It's the time lost, the relationships damaged, and the opportunities that passed while the dispute dragged on.
Legal disputes are almost always more expensive than the contract would have been. I've never met a producer who regretted having clear terms in place. I've met many who regretted not having them.
Example Film Co Production Agreement Template
If you're looking for an example film co production agreement template, the goal isn't to copy and paste. It's to understand what a functional agreement actually covers so you can work with a lawyer to draft terms that fit your specific arrangement.
A template shows you the structure: how ownership is divided, how revenues are allocated, how creative decisions are documented, and how disputes are resolved. But every co-production is different. The financial split that works for one partnership won't work for another. The decision-making process that suits one project might create bottlenecks in yours.
What a film co-production agreement template does is give you a starting point for conversations with your lawyer. It helps you identify the questions you need to answer before the agreement gets drafted:
● Who contributes what?
● Who decides what?
● Who owns what?
● How are costs and revenues shared?
● Who receives which credit?
● What happens if one party wants to exit?
To further guide you through your initial discussions with your co-production partner, I have developed the ‘SMART’ framework – you can read about it on my blog about co-development agreements.
Use it as a guide, not a substitute for proper legal advice. The goal is a contract that reflects your actual partnership, not a generic document that looks professional but leaves critical terms undefined.
Key Clauses Every Film Co-Production Agreement Template Should Include
A film co-production agreement needs to cover more than just who owns what. It needs to anticipate the decisions you'll face throughout the project and establish how those decisions get made. It should be a guide to what happens when things go well and what happens when things don’t go well.
Here's what I advise including:
● Ownership and copyright allocation. Specify how ownership is divided between partners, including rights to the original copyright, as well as the right to produce sequels, remakes, and merch. Don't leave this to implication.
● Financial contributions and revenue splits. Document who contributes what, when payments are due, and how revenues (and losses) are shared. Include provisions for cost overruns.
● Decision-making authority. Define who has final say on creative decisions (casting, script approval, director selection) and business decisions (securing and structuring finance, distribution strategy, marketing spend). Ambiguity here is where most disputes begin.
● Credit and attribution. Producer credits matter professionally and commercially. Specify what credits each party receives and in what order.
● Dispute resolution mechanism. Establish whether disputes go to arbitration, mediation, or litigation, where disputes should be resolved (jurisdiction) and which law governs the agreement.
● Exit provisions. What happens if one party wants to leave the partnership? Can they sell or assign their share? Under what terms?
These clauses aren't bureaucratic formality. They're the scaffolding that holds the partnership together when pressure arrives.
How Formal Co-Production Contracts Protect Long-Term Collaboration
Formal co-production contracts don't undermine collaboration. They protect it.
The entertainment industry is built on relationships, and the best partnerships are built on clarity. When both parties know what they're responsible for, what they control, and how they'll be compensated, collaboration becomes easier. Clear terms create the conditions for trust to develop, not the other way around.
I've worked with producers who resisted formalising their partnerships because they felt it signalled distrust. Then the project gained traction, outside investment came in, and suddenly the parties realised that they were both working on assumptions the other party didn’t share. When parties try to formalise matters when trust has already started to erode or when they’re under intense time pressure, negotiations become adversarial because the stakes have risen, and neither party wants to concede ground they assume they already held.
The best time to establish formal co-production terms is before money, reputation, or creative ego are at stake. Get the structure right early, and the partnership has room to grow.
Next Steps
If you're entering a co-production arrangement and want to make sure your agreement protects both the project and the relationship, I'd be happy to help. Get in touch here for an initial consultation.
NB: I am qualified to advise on matters of English (UK) law. If you need help on U.S. law matters, I'm afraid I won't be able to help you.