18 ms·

DisneyMustPay Alan Dean Foster

993 points by healsdata 6y ago

kqvamxurcagg 6y ago
I'm also curious why the author doesn't simply sue Disney. It seems like a pretty clear case.
michaelmrose 6y ago
If you support Disney Plus I encourage you to report this as an issue via https://help.disneyplus.com/csp https://help.disneyplus.com/csp and if Disney Doesn't pay their way stop paying them.
awinter-py 6y ago
consistently surprised that ADF's non-novelization work isn't better known. not sure if this was me being the right age to form an impression, but the flinx series is an original + fun sci-fi setting. Guessing that given his proximity to the film world, these came very close to production + fame a few times.
- h2odragon 6y ago
  The Spellsinger books would be a great mini series. The furry market would love it.
hedora 6y ago
The law should be changed so that copyright reverts to the original author in cases like this. In this case, Foster was apparently involved in the Star Wars movies as well. Disney should be forced to renegotiate any copyrights and contracts he’s involved with across the franchise. If that happened, I guarantee you that this would be the last time a big corporation would try to pull this sort of thing off. [edit: I wonder if the current law would support this. Disney’s in violation of the contract that assigned them copyright in the first place; surely invalidating the entire contract is a reasonable remedy.]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
crazygringo 6y ago
Obviously this is disgusting, but I'm curious -- if Disney claims it bought the rights but not the obligations of the contract, then who does it claim has the obligations? I'm genuinely curious if George Lucas actually did agree, knowingly or not, to somehow sell Lucasfilm's assets but not it's obligations to Disney? (Even if this isn't actually enforceable.) Are there actually legal grounds that royalties are owed by George Lucas or someone similar? Or is this just entirely inexplicably invented out of whole cloth by Disney?
- ryanlol 6y ago
  > if Disney claims it bought the rights but not the obligations of the contract, then who does it claim has the obligations? That’s not really Disneys problem to figure out, is it?
  - crazygringo 6y ago
    Well if they want to make a plausible, winning argument in court it kinda is, no? At least who the obligations remained with at the time of the purchase -- whether with the original seller, or if LucasFilm was split into multiple separate entities at the time of sale, or what. "Not my problem but I don't know whose" does not tend to be the strongest possible legal argument.
    - ryanlol 6y ago
      I don’t see why this would matter. All Disney needs to show is that they only bought the rights, not the obligations. It’s not their job to figure out who those obligations went to.
aurizon 6y ago
Disney has drunk the potions of malificence, so they stall and stall and refuse to pay and wait for him to pass away. Disgusting treatment of a creative man whose books I have enjoyed for decades
ogre_codes 6y ago
This is insane. There are no words for how criminally stupid this is. Very few people realize how influential Foster was in the creation of Star Wars. Robbing him of what is owed here is heinous.
- Eric_WVGG 6y ago
  I’m fascinated that corps like Disney find it worthwhile to have a legal team whose job is to screw people like ADF out of a rounding error on their balance sheet.
bigbubba 6y ago
Please fix the title of this submission. I know the rule/guideline, but dropping the # renders the title bizarre.
- andybak 6y ago
  or add spaces and punctuation. Either would work.
msandford 6y ago
I don't know why this isn't a criminal copyright violation that the FBI should investigate. Seems pretty cut and dried to me. Obviously not an IP lawyer.
- knodi123 6y ago
  I mean, > There are four essential elements to a charge of criminal copyright infringement. In order to sustain a conviction under section 506(a), the government must demonstrate: (1) that a valid copyright; (2) was infringed by the defendant; (3) willfully; and (4) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain. There ya go. Pretty cut and dry. Disney argues that they acquired those companies' rights without acquiring their obligations, but, that's, uh... that's just not how it works. At all.
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    Yeah, it makes zero sense that Disney could buy something that wasn't for sale in the first place (the rights to the books without any contractual obligations attached, which Lucasfilm did not own and therefore could not sell.)
    - milesskorpen 6y ago
      I guess Disney is saying there are two separate things: the works that were produced, and separately an annuity pegged to some % of sales that Alan was given in return for the works. So they bought the work but didn’t take on the liability. Sorta messed up. In theory, I think that’d make Alan a creditor for whoever owns the remaining parts of the business Disney didn’t buy. There had to be a remaining but if it owns the liability! Not sure it has assets though. Corporations can go bankrupt. I’d hope a court would frown on this (as the court of public opinion will)
      - JackFr 6y ago
        You can’t sever the asset and the obligation in this case because royalties are contingent on licensing the author’s intellectual property. With no licensing agreement, there is no asset. On the other hand, the only wrinkle that might make this interesting at all, is the fact that all the works in question are novelizations of others work, for which either Alan Dean Foster himself had to license or created at the request of the licensor. I don’t think that materially changes things but then I’m not paid like a Disney lawyer.
koolba 6y ago
> The larger problem has the potential to affect every writer. Disney’s argument is that they have purchased the rights but not the obligations of the contract. In other words, they believe they have the right to publish work, but are not obligated to pay the writer no matter what the contract says. If we let this stand, it could set precedent to fundamentally alter the way copyright and contracts operate in the United States. All a publisher would have to do to break a contract would be to sell it to a sibling company. That’s insane. If this were to hold up then any royalty obligation could be shuffled off to a shell entity?!
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  I guess I don't have to feel bad about republishing Disney's IP now. After all, I purchased it from a retailer intermediary and have no contractual relationship with the original publisher.
- burnte 6y ago
  I rather like the idea, actually. I'll set up two LLCs. One will buy a copy of every Disney movie. It will sell the RIGHTS to use those movies to the other, but not the obligations. That second LLC can then make infinite copies of those movies and sell them for profit, legally, under Disney's interpretation.
  - randallsquared 6y ago
    They will, of course, argue that your LLC never bought any right to make and sell copies, so that right could not be passed on in a resale.
    - themaninthedark 6y ago
      I think there was a case in the WTO the US lost that gave Trinidad and Tobago the legal authority to violate US copyright up to a certain amount...
    - burnte 6y ago
      That's their interpretation of the contract. In the sale I have chosen to interpret it differently, much as they have.
gameshot911 6y ago
If this case is as slam-dunk as it appears, why doesn't Alan find a lawyer to sue Disney on contingent?
- bigbubba 6y ago
  The article says Disney has ignored his legal representatives. I don't know how that's possible, but it's what the article says.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - zamalek 6y ago
    Failure to appear in court is sometimes a ruling in favor of the plaintiff. He could go ahead and file the lawsuit.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    It means they haven't yet filed a court case. If you ignore the other side once they file, the courts tend to impose very real consequences.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > The article says Disney has ignored his legal representatives. I don't know how that's possible Do you think there's some kind of law that says you have to respond to someone's legal representatives? Which law do you think that is?
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      No need for the snark. The part that was puzzling me is clarified by the courts evidently not being involved yet.
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        > No need for the snark. I'm not being snarky. Legal representatives never have any power whatsoever, whether courts are involved or not, to make you do anything. Only a court has the power to do that.
jbotz 6y ago
In "The Corporation: the Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power" Joel Bakan asks "if a corporation is a legal person, what kind of person is it?". His answer is: a psychopath. A person without any moral sense who will pursue their goals single mindedly and with no scruples whatsoever. How in the world did we hand over complete power over our economic affairs to such monsters? There is no such thing as a corporation that's not evil... like the scorpion in the fable of the fox and the scorpion, "don't be evil" is contrary to their nature.
- Craighead 6y ago
  Answer: citizens united creating propaganda
- Grimm1 6y ago
  Amoral is the word you're looking for and Joel Bakan is clearly mistaken -- corporations are tabula rasa with a single directive, "grow" they then go on to embody the qualities of the leadership and the regulatory climate under which they exist. It's up to the government and the people to limit their scope, or not if they choose. The mistake America made was legalizing corporate lobbying of the government which enabled regulatory capture, but that is an old mistake and there is no real will to change that other than the normal handwaving and guffawing.
  - pjmorris 6y ago
    > corporations are tabula rasa with a single directive, "grow" they then go on to embody the qualities of the leadership and the regulatory climate under which they exist. Compare with: "viruses are tabula rasa with a single directive, "grow" they then go on to embody the qualities of the climate under which they exist."
    - viridian 6y ago
      Is the coronavirus a psychopath? It seems pretty obvious to me that it too, is amoral rather than immoral.
02020202 6y ago
disney has been doing shady stuff for decades. nothing new.
FlyMoreRockets 6y ago
I really enjoy Mr. Foster's work and in support, I am boycotting Disney until they pay up.
- greenyoda 6y ago
  If they've done it to Foster, they've undoubtedly done it to many others. Even if they're publicly shamed into paying Foster, they'll probably be committing such slimy acts for as long as they can get away with it. So I think I'll need to boycott them for the foreseeable future. Maybe writers can exert more pressure on Disney if they find a law firm that can launch a class action suit? They may settle just to avoid the adverse publicity.
  - chadcmulligan 6y ago
    Disney was founded on this sort of behaviour - the Disney animators strike of 1941 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_animators%27_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_animators%27_strike
  - Moru 6y ago
    I have been boycotting Disney since I was a kid many years ago when I first learned of the Disney way (or not just disney but they are most known for it). Sadly it didn't help much so far, industry is still the same scumbags and people believe that the original authors/creators are getting the lionshare of the money and they keep buying the stuff. While the publishing companies are crying everywhere that copying is stealing. No, I don't copy either but I still have to pay the movietax on new harddrives for my computers... Sigh
thechao 6y ago
Both the state of Florida and the US Marshalls can execute a till tap (or a keeper). They should just roll on down to the swamp & collect. EDIT: Ah; he's being stymied in court, and is worried he'll die before collecting. That's awful.
cosmotic 6y ago
I feel like a law suit would be a good next step. Why go public like this?
- polytely 6y ago
  If you have cancer, like the author has, you might not be around to receive the money once the lengthy process finally ends. And there is the fact that Disney has for all intents and purposes infinite money to spend on a case, while I suspect the author has not.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  Because Disney has not responded to his legal team. Unfortunately ADF has cancer, needs the money now, and may not be alive to collect even should he prevail. It's not uncommon for such suits to be indefinitely delayed for years & years through any number of tactics. A lawyer willing to take on this case in courts would have a lot of expenses, and probably require a significant contingency. The amount of money involved here, when going up against one of the largest companies on Earth, may not be enough to cover the costs that would be incurred, in which case no lawyer would take the case. Even if they do, and ADF prevails, he's looking at the prospect of receiving half, maybe less, than what he is owed.
  - stinkytaco 6y ago
    > Because Disney has not responded to his legal team. This really has no bearing on whether or not to file a lawsuit. If that was the case, the best way to deal with any lawsuit is to simply ignore it. File a suit and Disney has to respond. On the other hand, they certainly can delay this. Even if penalized for doing so, what's that to them? I suspect public pressure is the real motivation here.
    - ineedasername 6y ago
      That was only one consideration, taken out of context you're correct: It does not fit. If this latest gambit doesn't work, it looks like their next step will be to file a lawsuit. But that doesn't have to be the immediate step. Once taken, any somewhat more amicable solution is taken off the table. They've pursued these possibilities: 1) Hey, maybe you've overlooked this, but you haven't been sending me royalty reconciliation statements & payments. (This actually happens without malice: I worked at a scientific publishing company, and when a reprint of an old book happens, or the rights to another book are purchased, the royalty obligations are not always 100% clear, or the 3rd listed author on something is overlooked, or the author is dead and an estate has to be tracked down, or any number of other issue) Next they went to: 2) Okay, we'd like to sit down with our lawyers to figure out the specific contractual issues here and work something out. Now they're at: 3) It seems like you aren't dealing with us in good faith. We represent a large group of creative writers you may need to work with in the future, those creators have a vast number of fans that are your customers. Maybe that public reminder will help your willingness to address this issue. All of the above are options that can play out fairly quickly. A lawsuit is not fast. And as I said, once you go down the lawsuit route, the above options are off the table.
thoughtstheseus 6y ago
Curious. I wonder if they tried to legally carve out the rights when they made the purchase? If you do an asset purchase of a company frequently you have a very clear list of any liabilities you retain.
- chrischen 6y ago
  Logically the beneficiary of the sale can't just void their debts/liabilities and pocket the sale money right? So whomever sold the assets should have been required to pay off their own liabilities/debts from the sale first much like a liquidation sale.
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    There is a legal principle that contractual benefits can be assigned, but not contractual obligations. But it doesn't work like this. It works on a much simpler basis - e.g. if I'm a landlord and receive rental income and I assign that income to a third party, the third party does not automatically become responsible for fixing the roof. It does not mean that I can assign the income to a third party and all responsibilities for the upkeep of the property are magically wiped out, and everyone involved - except the tenant - can use this as an excuse for a party.
    - chrischen 6y ago
      How does bankruptcy for corporations work? If that were true wouldn't companies just liquidate, payout to the founders, and screw over investors? But in reality don't courts require the debtors to be paid off first?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
ggm 6y ago
I read the Star Wars book before the film was released in the UK. An interesting experience, given that novelisation of film usually goes "the other way" experientally. Film-of-novel is of course far more common. In some ways, the book was better than the film. (I read Abyss after the film, which I think was Orson Scott Card. I think the film is better than the book)
- tialaramex 6y ago
  The novel of "The Abyss" gives you more character motivation for Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio's character Lindsey Brigman who designed the deep sea oil platform. You obviously won't have time to do that in a movie, suppose you shoot twenty minutes of a plausible 10-year old Lindsey having formative experiences as a little girl, when you're cutting you will leave every frame of that on the floor to keep more of the incredibly expensive underwater shoot, or the incredibly expensive CG, or the action. So it makes no sense to even shoot it. So I liked that, because I feel the movie does leave her under-motivated as it stands. But the film is pretty amazing, I just think it benefits from the book existing to explain Lindsey better.
- Igelau 6y ago
  2001: A Space Odyssey is visually incredible to watch, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense at parts. The novel that Arthur C. Clarke wrote concurrently is better in that regard.
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    The movie Jurassic Park has impressive visuals but is almost completely lacking the social commentary the book has about [bio]tech startups evading regulators and 'moving fast and breaking things.' The movie also turns the park's operator, John Hammond, into a sympathetic character.
    - scrumbledober 6y ago
      In almost every case, the original novel is better than the movie adaptation. In the case of Jurassic Park not only is the book better, it's almost a completely different story.
sebastien_b 6y ago
Disney should be disallowed from pursuing any copyright infringement cases until it pays up. It’s only logical (their own logic).
sebastien_b 6y ago
Guess by Disney’s logic, I don’t need to pay for my Disney+ subscription. Sweet!
- walrus01 6y ago
  well, I hear a certain torrent indexing site known by the domain name rarbg dot to happens to have many torrents of the Mandalorian.
newbie578 6y ago
This is horrible to read... wtf, something like this should not be happening.. Why doesn’t he sue them immediately, I do not understand what is he waiting for?
phkahler 6y ago
I think one possible solution is to make the rights to an individuals work non-transferable. Why can't this guy simply sue for copyright infringement? He never had a contract with Disney - same argument they seem to be making. But if he holds the copyright to his work they are in violation without a contract. It's an odd thing when publishers want to obtain the actual copyright in a work.
- topkai22 6y ago
  Not sure without lots of details, but this was probably a work for hire from LucasFilm or Fox- The author never held copyright, but had a contractual interest in the copyright.
tootie 6y ago
I'm not in this guy's line of business but signing NDAs before a negotiation seems pretty prudent if the negotiations are going to disclose privileged company business.
- rkagerer 6y ago
  Any negotiations were completed ages back when the original contracts were signed. He's simply trying to enforce their obligations and collect his entitlements. There's no reason to sign an NDA and constrain your rights just to do this. Let's be clear: The NDA is PR-motivated insulation to dissuade him from doing exactly what he's doing now. I wouldn't sign it either.
  - sumtechguy 6y ago
    NDA's in this case are a way to hide shady behavior. This is a 'hey you are not living up to the terms of my contract with you' 'here sign this NDA before we talk to you' 'wahhht?'
modeless 6y ago
Why is this a letter and not a lawsuit?
- Macha 6y ago
  Disney have a lot of very expensive lawyers, and the author sounds like he may not be able to afford to go up against said lawyers given the reason stated for pressing the issue now is that he needs to pay medical expenses.
- aspaceman 6y ago
  Author needs the money soon. Not in 10 years when the lawsuit resolves and he (or his wife) is dead.
- smnrchrds 6y ago
  "Single-digit millionaires have no effective access to our legal system". - Peter Thiel
breck 6y ago
I have no sympathy for either of these parties. End Imaginary Property Laws.
- orange_joe 6y ago
  This actually has nothing to do with "Imaginary Property Laws". And everything to do with contractual agreement. They're obligated to follow the contractual agreement even if the underlying property is (or ought depending on your view) worthless. It seems like a big leap to go from IP isn't real to allowing a massive corporation to reneg its agreements.
- googlryas 6y ago
  You have no sympathy for someone who was told "If you write us a book, we'll give you some money every time we sell one", and then no one gives him the money they promised? Your hn bio says you are a former Microsoft engineer. This is equivalent to microsoft hiring you, you doing some work for them, and them deciding that they don't need to pay you. Somehow, I don't think you would stand for that.
  - breck 6y ago
    Zero sympathy. Just as I would have no sympathy for a carpenter who carves a baseball bat, sells it to a mob boss, and then asks the mob boss for a share every time he extorts someone with it. Imaginary Property laws are unethical. Doesn't matter what part of the transaction you are a part of, the whole scheme is bad. I stopped getting paid by Microsoft when I stopped working there, even though a billion+ people are using some code that I had a hand in writing. That's the way it should be. When a janitor finishes cleaning a room, does she get 10 cents every time someone enters that room for 80 years? No sympathy.
    - oh_sigh 6y ago
      In this case, Lucas Arts is equivalent to the mob and is forcing someone to pay money for their book? > I stopped getting paid by Microsoft when I stopped working there, even though a billion+ people are using some code that I had a hand in writing. That's the way it should be. That's because there was nothing in your contract that you would make royalties for the code you wrote. So of course they wouldn't pay you. But what if they just stopped paying you while you were still working there? > When a janitor finishes cleaning a room, does she get 10 cents every time someone enters that room for 80 years? Again, no, because that's not what the contract says. Do you have a problem with an author writing a book and then selling the book? Or is it just when an author is promised $X in royalties per sale from the company that is actually selling the books that is not ethical?
300bps 6y ago
There are few companies that have been as abusive and predatory to copyright law as Disney. The Mickey Mouse Protection Act is only one example of just pure copyright evil. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
superfunny 6y ago
Why doesn't ADF sell the royalty rights at a discount to a third party who then will fund the lawsuit against Disney with the aim of recovering the full amount? It's like accounts receivable factoring.
- topkai22 6y ago
  Not inconceivable, but a third party is unlikely to be able to garner the involvement of the SFWA or as much public sympathy. The discount is probably below what he can recoup himself. Heck, it’s not inconceivable that the other entertainment unions take an interest in this case. They presumably have a pretty deep interest in Disney not messing with artist royalties
intricatedetail 6y ago
This is greed on a level a psychiatrists should be interested in. Just wow.
reaperducer 6y ago
His agent should get him somehow to be part of the RIAA. They seem to have the right kind of lawyers for this level of bullshittery. I find royalty issues interesting because when I was a kid, my mother worked for RKO Radio Pictures. One of her tasks every so often (quarterly? yearly?) was to send checks to everyone involved in the film King Kong. Some people got hundreds or thousands. Some people got pennies. But everyone got paid. She make sure of that.
Animats 6y ago
That's strange. Disney acquired Lucasfilm outright from George Lucas.[1] Or so they said. There appear to be five remaining active Lucasfilm LLCs, and one that was converted to a company. One of those may retain the liability. [1] https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/disney-to-acquire-lucasfilm-ltd/ https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/disney-to-acquire-lucasfilm...
Taniwha 6y ago
I wonder if he can sue the corporate shell that still holds the obligation to get his IP back ....
ilaksh 6y ago
I assume this is meant to be a twitter hashtag. #DisneyMustPay
ilaksh 6y ago
I guess I should cancel my Disney+ and mention this. I never use it anymore anyway.
ilaksh 6y ago
Yeah I canceled my Disney+ subscript and specified Other for the reason and "#DisneyMustPay Alan Dean Foster" in the box.
- jefurii 6y ago
  Same.
int_19h 6y ago
It's unfortunate that wherever I see this news, it mentions that Foster is the author of Star Wars and Aliens novelizations and some original books in those universes, but there's not a word about his other science fiction works, nor of the Humanx Commonwealth setting uniting most of them. Which is a shame - so many excellent books there, between author's rather wild imagination and talent to put it into words. "Midworld" and "Sentenced to Prism" are two particularly notable examples.
- danmur 6y ago
  I had no idea he wrote Star Wars novels but this thread reminded me of him so I bought a few others to reread :). Hope he can get what he's entitled to.
emeraldd 6y ago
This is the kind of thing that would make me seriously second guess every selling anything to, working for, or otherwise interacting with Disney. As someone with minuscule experience as a writer this is just down right scummy and all but unethical ... Sheesh!
BLKNSLVR 6y ago
An interesting addition to the swirling chaos that is intellectual property rights. Given Disney's fierce defense of their vast IP properties, I'd have thought they would be issuing a humble apology and paying out as necessary in order not to tarnish their desired reputation as a defender of the rights of the creative community. (naively) Ironic.
orionblastar 6y ago
I wonder how many other writers got stiffed by Disney?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
This entire story reminded me on "Flash of Genius" true story about Robert William Kearns engineer, educator and inventor who invented the most common intermittent windshield wiper. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Biy-okZ0l8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Biy-okZ0l8
dandare 6y ago
From the comments: > Maybe there needs to be a special on how Disney hated anyone but White Christians, embraced McCarthyism, and hired nazis. I am looking forward for it. https://www.sfwa.org/2020/11/18/disney-must-pay/#comment-214005 https://www.sfwa.org/2020/11/18/disney-must-pay/#comment-214...
ExcavateGrandMa 6y ago
Am extremely disapointed to read that... though It doesn't surprise me... A nice show from the situation showing what it is really... To be an author/creator in a world of bad asses dumbfuck liars... Something I wrote few months ago... : "This world is a circus from clowns well positioned... getting skilled from original nerds. may this theory be wrong, hoping really :Ð"
unwind 6y ago
This is just horrible, and must stop of course. No idea why they don't just take this to the courts, I thought that would be the primary function of such an organization. As a side note, it was interesting that the fourth comment on the article was by Bruce Perens [1], author of BusyBox and just a very productive and influential open source person. Glad to see him still active. :) [1] https://perens.com/about-bruce-perens/ https://perens.com/about-bruce-perens/
IndySun 6y ago
Where, if at all, does copyleft fit in to this story? Would it help solve such situations in the future?
- webmaven 6y ago
  > Where, if at all, does copyleft fit in to this story? Well, you could imagine an open-source-based software company being sold off, and the buying company claiming they now own the copyright on the software, but are no longer bound by the copyleft licenses of the software that theirs is based on. > Would it help solve such situations in the future? Nope.
bsenftner 6y ago
It is not just this, Disney is a corporate asshole in far too many dimensions to list. I've had the opportunity to work there multiple times, and never pursued them simply because everyone I know there either has or must develop corporate prey/predator attitudes, have a higher up corporate protector, or be destroyed.
zmix 6y ago
The Market(tm) is going to regulate itself...
simonebrunozzi 6y ago
> How many other writers and artists out there are you similarly ignoring? This.
hikerclimber 6y ago
i will not be going to any disney movie from now on. what bastards. I hope disney goes bankrupt.

993 points by healsdata 6y ago

I'm also curious why the author doesn't simply sue Disney. It seems like a pretty clear case.

If you support Disney Plus I encourage you to report this as an issue via https://help.disneyplus.com/csp https://help.disneyplus.com/csp and if Disney Doesn't pay their way stop paying them.

awinter-py 6y ago

consistently surprised that ADF's non-novelization work isn't better known. not sure if this was me being the right age to form an impression, but the flinx series is an original + fun sci-fi setting. Guessing that given his proximity to the film world, these came very close to production + fame a few times.

h2odragon 6y ago
The Spellsinger books would be a great mini series. The furry market would love it.

hedora 6y ago

The law should be changed so that copyright reverts to the original author in cases like this. In this case, Foster was apparently involved in the Star Wars movies as well. Disney should be forced to renegotiate any copyrights and contracts he’s involved with across the franchise. If that happened, I guarantee you that this would be the last time a big corporation would try to pull this sort of thing off. [edit: I wonder if the current law would support this. Disney’s in violation of the contract that assigned them copyright in the first place; surely invalidating the entire contract is a reasonable remedy.]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

crazygringo 6y ago

Obviously this is disgusting, but I'm curious -- if Disney claims it bought the rights but not the obligations of the contract, then who does it claim has the obligations? I'm genuinely curious if George Lucas actually did agree, knowingly or not, to somehow sell Lucasfilm's assets but not it's obligations to Disney? (Even if this isn't actually enforceable.) Are there actually legal grounds that royalties are owed by George Lucas or someone similar? Or is this just entirely inexplicably invented out of whole cloth by Disney?

ryanlol 6y ago
> if Disney claims it bought the rights but not the obligations of the contract, then who does it claim has the obligations? That’s not really Disneys problem to figure out, is it?
- crazygringo 6y ago
  Well if they want to make a plausible, winning argument in court it kinda is, no? At least who the obligations remained with at the time of the purchase -- whether with the original seller, or if LucasFilm was split into multiple separate entities at the time of sale, or what. "Not my problem but I don't know whose" does not tend to be the strongest possible legal argument.
  - ryanlol 6y ago
    I don’t see why this would matter. All Disney needs to show is that they only bought the rights, not the obligations. It’s not their job to figure out who those obligations went to.

aurizon 6y ago

Disney has drunk the potions of malificence, so they stall and stall and refuse to pay and wait for him to pass away. Disgusting treatment of a creative man whose books I have enjoyed for decades

ogre_codes 6y ago

This is insane. There are no words for how criminally stupid this is. Very few people realize how influential Foster was in the creation of Star Wars. Robbing him of what is owed here is heinous.

Eric_WVGG 6y ago
I’m fascinated that corps like Disney find it worthwhile to have a legal team whose job is to screw people like ADF out of a rounding error on their balance sheet.

bigbubba 6y ago

Please fix the title of this submission. I know the rule/guideline, but dropping the # renders the title bizarre.

andybak 6y ago
or add spaces and punctuation. Either would work.

msandford 6y ago

I don't know why this isn't a criminal copyright violation that the FBI should investigate. Seems pretty cut and dried to me. Obviously not an IP lawyer.

knodi123 6y ago
I mean, > There are four essential elements to a charge of criminal copyright infringement. In order to sustain a conviction under section 506(a), the government must demonstrate: (1) that a valid copyright; (2) was infringed by the defendant; (3) willfully; and (4) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain. There ya go. Pretty cut and dry. Disney argues that they acquired those companies' rights without acquiring their obligations, but, that's, uh... that's just not how it works. At all.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  Yeah, it makes zero sense that Disney could buy something that wasn't for sale in the first place (the rights to the books without any contractual obligations attached, which Lucasfilm did not own and therefore could not sell.)
  - milesskorpen 6y ago
    I guess Disney is saying there are two separate things: the works that were produced, and separately an annuity pegged to some % of sales that Alan was given in return for the works. So they bought the work but didn’t take on the liability. Sorta messed up. In theory, I think that’d make Alan a creditor for whoever owns the remaining parts of the business Disney didn’t buy. There had to be a remaining but if it owns the liability! Not sure it has assets though. Corporations can go bankrupt. I’d hope a court would frown on this (as the court of public opinion will)
    - JackFr 6y ago
      You can’t sever the asset and the obligation in this case because royalties are contingent on licensing the author’s intellectual property. With no licensing agreement, there is no asset. On the other hand, the only wrinkle that might make this interesting at all, is the fact that all the works in question are novelizations of others work, for which either Alan Dean Foster himself had to license or created at the request of the licensor. I don’t think that materially changes things but then I’m not paid like a Disney lawyer.

koolba 6y ago

> The larger problem has the potential to affect every writer. Disney’s argument is that they have purchased the rights but not the obligations of the contract. In other words, they believe they have the right to publish work, but are not obligated to pay the writer no matter what the contract says. If we let this stand, it could set precedent to fundamentally alter the way copyright and contracts operate in the United States. All a publisher would have to do to break a contract would be to sell it to a sibling company. That’s insane. If this were to hold up then any royalty obligation could be shuffled off to a shell entity?!

anigbrowl 6y ago
I guess I don't have to feel bad about republishing Disney's IP now. After all, I purchased it from a retailer intermediary and have no contractual relationship with the original publisher.
burnte 6y ago
I rather like the idea, actually. I'll set up two LLCs. One will buy a copy of every Disney movie. It will sell the RIGHTS to use those movies to the other, but not the obligations. That second LLC can then make infinite copies of those movies and sell them for profit, legally, under Disney's interpretation.
- randallsquared 6y ago
  They will, of course, argue that your LLC never bought any right to make and sell copies, so that right could not be passed on in a resale.
  - themaninthedark 6y ago
    I think there was a case in the WTO the US lost that gave Trinidad and Tobago the legal authority to violate US copyright up to a certain amount...
  - burnte 6y ago
    That's their interpretation of the contract. In the sale I have chosen to interpret it differently, much as they have.

gameshot911 6y ago

If this case is as slam-dunk as it appears, why doesn't Alan find a lawyer to sue Disney on contingent?

bigbubba 6y ago
The article says Disney has ignored his legal representatives. I don't know how that's possible, but it's what the article says.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- zamalek 6y ago
  Failure to appear in court is sometimes a ruling in favor of the plaintiff. He could go ahead and file the lawsuit.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  It means they haven't yet filed a court case. If you ignore the other side once they file, the courts tend to impose very real consequences.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > The article says Disney has ignored his legal representatives. I don't know how that's possible Do you think there's some kind of law that says you have to respond to someone's legal representatives? Which law do you think that is?
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    No need for the snark. The part that was puzzling me is clarified by the courts evidently not being involved yet.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      > No need for the snark. I'm not being snarky. Legal representatives never have any power whatsoever, whether courts are involved or not, to make you do anything. Only a court has the power to do that.

jbotz 6y ago

In "The Corporation: the Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power" Joel Bakan asks "if a corporation is a legal person, what kind of person is it?". His answer is: a psychopath. A person without any moral sense who will pursue their goals single mindedly and with no scruples whatsoever. How in the world did we hand over complete power over our economic affairs to such monsters? There is no such thing as a corporation that's not evil... like the scorpion in the fable of the fox and the scorpion, "don't be evil" is contrary to their nature.

Craighead 6y ago
Answer: citizens united creating propaganda
Grimm1 6y ago
Amoral is the word you're looking for and Joel Bakan is clearly mistaken -- corporations are tabula rasa with a single directive, "grow" they then go on to embody the qualities of the leadership and the regulatory climate under which they exist. It's up to the government and the people to limit their scope, or not if they choose. The mistake America made was legalizing corporate lobbying of the government which enabled regulatory capture, but that is an old mistake and there is no real will to change that other than the normal handwaving and guffawing.
- pjmorris 6y ago
  > corporations are tabula rasa with a single directive, "grow" they then go on to embody the qualities of the leadership and the regulatory climate under which they exist. Compare with: "viruses are tabula rasa with a single directive, "grow" they then go on to embody the qualities of the climate under which they exist."
  - viridian 6y ago
    Is the coronavirus a psychopath? It seems pretty obvious to me that it too, is amoral rather than immoral.

02020202 6y ago

disney has been doing shady stuff for decades. nothing new.

FlyMoreRockets 6y ago

I really enjoy Mr. Foster's work and in support, I am boycotting Disney until they pay up.

greenyoda 6y ago
If they've done it to Foster, they've undoubtedly done it to many others. Even if they're publicly shamed into paying Foster, they'll probably be committing such slimy acts for as long as they can get away with it. So I think I'll need to boycott them for the foreseeable future. Maybe writers can exert more pressure on Disney if they find a law firm that can launch a class action suit? They may settle just to avoid the adverse publicity.
- chadcmulligan 6y ago
  Disney was founded on this sort of behaviour - the Disney animators strike of 1941 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_animators%27_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_animators%27_strike
- Moru 6y ago
  I have been boycotting Disney since I was a kid many years ago when I first learned of the Disney way (or not just disney but they are most known for it). Sadly it didn't help much so far, industry is still the same scumbags and people believe that the original authors/creators are getting the lionshare of the money and they keep buying the stuff. While the publishing companies are crying everywhere that copying is stealing. No, I don't copy either but I still have to pay the movietax on new harddrives for my computers... Sigh

thechao 6y ago

Both the state of Florida and the US Marshalls can execute a till tap (or a keeper). They should just roll on down to the swamp & collect. EDIT: Ah; he's being stymied in court, and is worried he'll die before collecting. That's awful.

cosmotic 6y ago

I feel like a law suit would be a good next step. Why go public like this?

polytely 6y ago
If you have cancer, like the author has, you might not be around to receive the money once the lengthy process finally ends. And there is the fact that Disney has for all intents and purposes infinite money to spend on a case, while I suspect the author has not.
ineedasername 6y ago
Because Disney has not responded to his legal team. Unfortunately ADF has cancer, needs the money now, and may not be alive to collect even should he prevail. It's not uncommon for such suits to be indefinitely delayed for years & years through any number of tactics. A lawyer willing to take on this case in courts would have a lot of expenses, and probably require a significant contingency. The amount of money involved here, when going up against one of the largest companies on Earth, may not be enough to cover the costs that would be incurred, in which case no lawyer would take the case. Even if they do, and ADF prevails, he's looking at the prospect of receiving half, maybe less, than what he is owed.
- stinkytaco 6y ago
  > Because Disney has not responded to his legal team. This really has no bearing on whether or not to file a lawsuit. If that was the case, the best way to deal with any lawsuit is to simply ignore it. File a suit and Disney has to respond. On the other hand, they certainly can delay this. Even if penalized for doing so, what's that to them? I suspect public pressure is the real motivation here.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    That was only one consideration, taken out of context you're correct: It does not fit. If this latest gambit doesn't work, it looks like their next step will be to file a lawsuit. But that doesn't have to be the immediate step. Once taken, any somewhat more amicable solution is taken off the table. They've pursued these possibilities: 1) Hey, maybe you've overlooked this, but you haven't been sending me royalty reconciliation statements & payments. (This actually happens without malice: I worked at a scientific publishing company, and when a reprint of an old book happens, or the rights to another book are purchased, the royalty obligations are not always 100% clear, or the 3rd listed author on something is overlooked, or the author is dead and an estate has to be tracked down, or any number of other issue) Next they went to: 2) Okay, we'd like to sit down with our lawyers to figure out the specific contractual issues here and work something out. Now they're at: 3) It seems like you aren't dealing with us in good faith. We represent a large group of creative writers you may need to work with in the future, those creators have a vast number of fans that are your customers. Maybe that public reminder will help your willingness to address this issue. All of the above are options that can play out fairly quickly. A lawsuit is not fast. And as I said, once you go down the lawsuit route, the above options are off the table.

thoughtstheseus 6y ago

Curious. I wonder if they tried to legally carve out the rights when they made the purchase? If you do an asset purchase of a company frequently you have a very clear list of any liabilities you retain.

chrischen 6y ago
Logically the beneficiary of the sale can't just void their debts/liabilities and pocket the sale money right? So whomever sold the assets should have been required to pay off their own liabilities/debts from the sale first much like a liquidation sale.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  There is a legal principle that contractual benefits can be assigned, but not contractual obligations. But it doesn't work like this. It works on a much simpler basis - e.g. if I'm a landlord and receive rental income and I assign that income to a third party, the third party does not automatically become responsible for fixing the roof. It does not mean that I can assign the income to a third party and all responsibilities for the upkeep of the property are magically wiped out, and everyone involved - except the tenant - can use this as an excuse for a party.
  - chrischen 6y ago
    How does bankruptcy for corporations work? If that were true wouldn't companies just liquidate, payout to the founders, and screw over investors? But in reality don't courts require the debtors to be paid off first?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

ggm 6y ago

I read the Star Wars book before the film was released in the UK. An interesting experience, given that novelisation of film usually goes "the other way" experientally. Film-of-novel is of course far more common. In some ways, the book was better than the film. (I read Abyss after the film, which I think was Orson Scott Card. I think the film is better than the book)

tialaramex 6y ago
The novel of "The Abyss" gives you more character motivation for Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio's character Lindsey Brigman who designed the deep sea oil platform. You obviously won't have time to do that in a movie, suppose you shoot twenty minutes of a plausible 10-year old Lindsey having formative experiences as a little girl, when you're cutting you will leave every frame of that on the floor to keep more of the incredibly expensive underwater shoot, or the incredibly expensive CG, or the action. So it makes no sense to even shoot it. So I liked that, because I feel the movie does leave her under-motivated as it stands. But the film is pretty amazing, I just think it benefits from the book existing to explain Lindsey better.
Igelau 6y ago
2001: A Space Odyssey is visually incredible to watch, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense at parts. The novel that Arthur C. Clarke wrote concurrently is better in that regard.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  The movie Jurassic Park has impressive visuals but is almost completely lacking the social commentary the book has about [bio]tech startups evading regulators and 'moving fast and breaking things.' The movie also turns the park's operator, John Hammond, into a sympathetic character.
  - scrumbledober 6y ago
    In almost every case, the original novel is better than the movie adaptation. In the case of Jurassic Park not only is the book better, it's almost a completely different story.

sebastien_b 6y ago

Disney should be disallowed from pursuing any copyright infringement cases until it pays up. It’s only logical (their own logic).

sebastien_b 6y ago

Guess by Disney’s logic, I don’t need to pay for my Disney+ subscription. Sweet!

walrus01 6y ago
well, I hear a certain torrent indexing site known by the domain name rarbg dot to happens to have many torrents of the Mandalorian.

newbie578 6y ago

This is horrible to read... wtf, something like this should not be happening.. Why doesn’t he sue them immediately, I do not understand what is he waiting for?

phkahler 6y ago

I think one possible solution is to make the rights to an individuals work non-transferable. Why can't this guy simply sue for copyright infringement? He never had a contract with Disney - same argument they seem to be making. But if he holds the copyright to his work they are in violation without a contract. It's an odd thing when publishers want to obtain the actual copyright in a work.

topkai22 6y ago
Not sure without lots of details, but this was probably a work for hire from LucasFilm or Fox- The author never held copyright, but had a contractual interest in the copyright.

tootie 6y ago

I'm not in this guy's line of business but signing NDAs before a negotiation seems pretty prudent if the negotiations are going to disclose privileged company business.

rkagerer 6y ago
Any negotiations were completed ages back when the original contracts were signed. He's simply trying to enforce their obligations and collect his entitlements. There's no reason to sign an NDA and constrain your rights just to do this. Let's be clear: The NDA is PR-motivated insulation to dissuade him from doing exactly what he's doing now. I wouldn't sign it either.
- sumtechguy 6y ago
  NDA's in this case are a way to hide shady behavior. This is a 'hey you are not living up to the terms of my contract with you' 'here sign this NDA before we talk to you' 'wahhht?'

modeless 6y ago

Why is this a letter and not a lawsuit?

Macha 6y ago
Disney have a lot of very expensive lawyers, and the author sounds like he may not be able to afford to go up against said lawyers given the reason stated for pressing the issue now is that he needs to pay medical expenses.
aspaceman 6y ago
Author needs the money soon. Not in 10 years when the lawsuit resolves and he (or his wife) is dead.
smnrchrds 6y ago
"Single-digit millionaires have no effective access to our legal system". - Peter Thiel

breck 6y ago

I have no sympathy for either of these parties. End Imaginary Property Laws.

orange_joe 6y ago
This actually has nothing to do with "Imaginary Property Laws". And everything to do with contractual agreement. They're obligated to follow the contractual agreement even if the underlying property is (or ought depending on your view) worthless. It seems like a big leap to go from IP isn't real to allowing a massive corporation to reneg its agreements.
googlryas 6y ago
You have no sympathy for someone who was told "If you write us a book, we'll give you some money every time we sell one", and then no one gives him the money they promised? Your hn bio says you are a former Microsoft engineer. This is equivalent to microsoft hiring you, you doing some work for them, and them deciding that they don't need to pay you. Somehow, I don't think you would stand for that.
- breck 6y ago
  Zero sympathy. Just as I would have no sympathy for a carpenter who carves a baseball bat, sells it to a mob boss, and then asks the mob boss for a share every time he extorts someone with it. Imaginary Property laws are unethical. Doesn't matter what part of the transaction you are a part of, the whole scheme is bad. I stopped getting paid by Microsoft when I stopped working there, even though a billion+ people are using some code that I had a hand in writing. That's the way it should be. When a janitor finishes cleaning a room, does she get 10 cents every time someone enters that room for 80 years? No sympathy.
  - oh_sigh 6y ago
    In this case, Lucas Arts is equivalent to the mob and is forcing someone to pay money for their book? > I stopped getting paid by Microsoft when I stopped working there, even though a billion+ people are using some code that I had a hand in writing. That's the way it should be. That's because there was nothing in your contract that you would make royalties for the code you wrote. So of course they wouldn't pay you. But what if they just stopped paying you while you were still working there? > When a janitor finishes cleaning a room, does she get 10 cents every time someone enters that room for 80 years? Again, no, because that's not what the contract says. Do you have a problem with an author writing a book and then selling the book? Or is it just when an author is promised $X in royalties per sale from the company that is actually selling the books that is not ethical?

300bps 6y ago

There are few companies that have been as abusive and predatory to copyright law as Disney. The Mickey Mouse Protection Act is only one example of just pure copyright evil. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

superfunny 6y ago

Why doesn't ADF sell the royalty rights at a discount to a third party who then will fund the lawsuit against Disney with the aim of recovering the full amount? It's like accounts receivable factoring.

topkai22 6y ago
Not inconceivable, but a third party is unlikely to be able to garner the involvement of the SFWA or as much public sympathy. The discount is probably below what he can recoup himself. Heck, it’s not inconceivable that the other entertainment unions take an interest in this case. They presumably have a pretty deep interest in Disney not messing with artist royalties

intricatedetail 6y ago

This is greed on a level a psychiatrists should be interested in. Just wow.

reaperducer 6y ago

His agent should get him somehow to be part of the RIAA. They seem to have the right kind of lawyers for this level of bullshittery. I find royalty issues interesting because when I was a kid, my mother worked for RKO Radio Pictures. One of her tasks every so often (quarterly? yearly?) was to send checks to everyone involved in the film King Kong. Some people got hundreds or thousands. Some people got pennies. But everyone got paid. She make sure of that.

Animats 6y ago

That's strange. Disney acquired Lucasfilm outright from George Lucas.[1] Or so they said. There appear to be five remaining active Lucasfilm LLCs, and one that was converted to a company. One of those may retain the liability. [1] https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/disney-to-acquire-lucasfilm-ltd/ https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/disney-to-acquire-lucasfilm...

Taniwha 6y ago

I wonder if he can sue the corporate shell that still holds the obligation to get his IP back ....

ilaksh 6y ago

I assume this is meant to be a twitter hashtag. #DisneyMustPay

ilaksh 6y ago

I guess I should cancel my Disney+ and mention this. I never use it anymore anyway.

ilaksh 6y ago

Yeah I canceled my Disney+ subscript and specified Other for the reason and "#DisneyMustPay Alan Dean Foster" in the box.

jefurii 6y ago
Same.

int_19h 6y ago

It's unfortunate that wherever I see this news, it mentions that Foster is the author of Star Wars and Aliens novelizations and some original books in those universes, but there's not a word about his other science fiction works, nor of the Humanx Commonwealth setting uniting most of them. Which is a shame - so many excellent books there, between author's rather wild imagination and talent to put it into words. "Midworld" and "Sentenced to Prism" are two particularly notable examples.

danmur 6y ago
I had no idea he wrote Star Wars novels but this thread reminded me of him so I bought a few others to reread :). Hope he can get what he's entitled to.

emeraldd 6y ago

This is the kind of thing that would make me seriously second guess every selling anything to, working for, or otherwise interacting with Disney. As someone with minuscule experience as a writer this is just down right scummy and all but unethical ... Sheesh!

BLKNSLVR 6y ago

An interesting addition to the swirling chaos that is intellectual property rights. Given Disney's fierce defense of their vast IP properties, I'd have thought they would be issuing a humble apology and paying out as necessary in order not to tarnish their desired reputation as a defender of the rights of the creative community. (naively) Ironic.

orionblastar 6y ago

I wonder how many other writers got stiffed by Disney?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago

This entire story reminded me on "Flash of Genius" true story about Robert William Kearns engineer, educator and inventor who invented the most common intermittent windshield wiper. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Biy-okZ0l8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Biy-okZ0l8

dandare 6y ago

From the comments: > Maybe there needs to be a special on how Disney hated anyone but White Christians, embraced McCarthyism, and hired nazis. I am looking forward for it. https://www.sfwa.org/2020/11/18/disney-must-pay/#comment-214005 https://www.sfwa.org/2020/11/18/disney-must-pay/#comment-214...

ExcavateGrandMa 6y ago

Am extremely disapointed to read that... though It doesn't surprise me... A nice show from the situation showing what it is really... To be an author/creator in a world of bad asses dumbfuck liars... Something I wrote few months ago... : "This world is a circus from clowns well positioned... getting skilled from original nerds. may this theory be wrong, hoping really :Ð"

unwind 6y ago

This is just horrible, and must stop of course. No idea why they don't just take this to the courts, I thought that would be the primary function of such an organization. As a side note, it was interesting that the fourth comment on the article was by Bruce Perens [1], author of BusyBox and just a very productive and influential open source person. Glad to see him still active. :) [1] https://perens.com/about-bruce-perens/ https://perens.com/about-bruce-perens/

IndySun 6y ago

Where, if at all, does copyleft fit in to this story? Would it help solve such situations in the future?

webmaven 6y ago
> Where, if at all, does copyleft fit in to this story? Well, you could imagine an open-source-based software company being sold off, and the buying company claiming they now own the copyright on the software, but are no longer bound by the copyleft licenses of the software that theirs is based on. > Would it help solve such situations in the future? Nope.

bsenftner 6y ago

It is not just this, Disney is a corporate asshole in far too many dimensions to list. I've had the opportunity to work there multiple times, and never pursued them simply because everyone I know there either has or must develop corporate prey/predator attitudes, have a higher up corporate protector, or be destroyed.

zmix 6y ago

The Market(tm) is going to regulate itself...

simonebrunozzi 6y ago

> How many other writers and artists out there are you similarly ignoring? This.

hikerclimber 6y ago

i will not be going to any disney movie from now on. what bastards. I hope disney goes bankrupt.