4 ms·

The asset in this case is a license agreement. By choosing to publish the licensed material, they're agreeing to pay royalties. Otherwise it's theft. Otherwise

The asset in this case is a license agreement. By choosing to publish the licensed material, they're agreeing to pay royalties. Otherwise it's theft. Otherwise what's stopping me from selling my Disney BluRays to someone but not the liabilities of adhering to the copyright agreement?

JackFr 6y ago
So it might not be quite that cut and dried. A little digging shows that Alan Dean Foster was contracted to write two novels. Despite writing them, he never held the copyright on those novels. That being said, it’s still quite likely Disney is in breach of contract. But it’s not quite as simple.
- Mtinie 6y ago
  It is if the contract says he’s owed royalties on those works, as it is presented. I can’t imagine he’d have done the work pro Bono for Lucasfilm out of the kindness of his heart, do you? The reasonable interpretation is that someone at Disney is attempting to shore up their revenue this year and is using Mr. Foster’s due proceeds as a way to attempt to make their balance sheet look better.
  - JackFr 6y ago
    I imagine that 100x Alan Dean Foster’s back royalties wouldn’t even be noticeable on Disney’s balance sheet. The only reason I can really think of them doing this is that they don’t actually believe they owe him the money. It’s reasonably clear that he never held the copyright to the works and it’s not public what his actual contract was.
    - webmaven 6y ago
      > I imagine that 100x Alan Dean Foster’s back royalties wouldn’t even be noticeable on Disney’s balance sheet. Disney could be doing this at scale to many authors, this announcement by SFWA may bring a bunch of other complainants out of the woodwork. The other aspect is that while what you say is certainly true of Disney as a whole, the amounts may be more meaningful for some subsidiary or division, (like, you know, their publishing arm) and the exec(s) that head it.
- vmception 6y ago
  That was my understanding. This is work for hire meaning the copyright holder was the prior company and was the only one with an asset that would require a usage license. They chose to pay Alan, which is not a statutory agreement. The copyright holder (the company) is the only one that can levy usage licenses aka royalties that other people need to pay it. Disney became the copyright holder and so Disney is owed royalties from whomever has a usage license that the previous company negotiated. Anything else is a liability that was shed or simply stayed in the now defunct company. If the contract was irreconcilably tied to the company then Disney would opt not to buy the shares and instead by all the assets and network and trademark.
nikanj 6y ago
What's stopping you is your lack of access to white-shoe law firms vs Disney's excellent access to same

JackFr 6y ago

So it might not be quite that cut and dried. A little digging shows that Alan Dean Foster was contracted to write two novels. Despite writing them, he never held the copyright on those novels. That being said, it’s still quite likely Disney is in breach of contract. But it’s not quite as simple.

Mtinie 6y ago
It is if the contract says he’s owed royalties on those works, as it is presented. I can’t imagine he’d have done the work pro Bono for Lucasfilm out of the kindness of his heart, do you? The reasonable interpretation is that someone at Disney is attempting to shore up their revenue this year and is using Mr. Foster’s due proceeds as a way to attempt to make their balance sheet look better.
- JackFr 6y ago
  I imagine that 100x Alan Dean Foster’s back royalties wouldn’t even be noticeable on Disney’s balance sheet. The only reason I can really think of them doing this is that they don’t actually believe they owe him the money. It’s reasonably clear that he never held the copyright to the works and it’s not public what his actual contract was.
  - webmaven 6y ago
    > I imagine that 100x Alan Dean Foster’s back royalties wouldn’t even be noticeable on Disney’s balance sheet. Disney could be doing this at scale to many authors, this announcement by SFWA may bring a bunch of other complainants out of the woodwork. The other aspect is that while what you say is certainly true of Disney as a whole, the amounts may be more meaningful for some subsidiary or division, (like, you know, their publishing arm) and the exec(s) that head it.
vmception 6y ago
That was my understanding. This is work for hire meaning the copyright holder was the prior company and was the only one with an asset that would require a usage license. They chose to pay Alan, which is not a statutory agreement. The copyright holder (the company) is the only one that can levy usage licenses aka royalties that other people need to pay it. Disney became the copyright holder and so Disney is owed royalties from whomever has a usage license that the previous company negotiated. Anything else is a liability that was shed or simply stayed in the now defunct company. If the contract was irreconcilably tied to the company then Disney would opt not to buy the shares and instead by all the assets and network and trademark.

nikanj 6y ago

What's stopping you is your lack of access to white-shoe law firms vs Disney's excellent access to same