11 ms·

My Gravity lawsuit and how it affects every writer who sells to Hollywood

329 points by bmmayer1 12y ago

burnte 12y ago
This is alarming, but not surprising, especially in Hollywood. However, once they amend the complaint, I have a feeling WB will have a hard time arguing that both the contract gives them the rights to the story, and that the contract isn't enforceable or binding. This will be interesting.
- spiritplumber 12y ago
  I had a similar problem a good while ago, on a much smaller scale, when a company that was buying land to put solar panels on it went bankrupt - essentially, they bought the panels, installed them on land that was actually belonging to another company that belonged to the crook's wife, and then declared bankruptcy after setting up some deal with the wife's company whereby it would get first rights to the assets (the panels) which were liquidated for pennies on the dollar. End result, they got free solar panels for their land. I did an electrical design for them, and ended up not getting paid because the debt was with the defunct company, not the wife's company. When I asked for my father's advice, he told me that legal channels are powerless in these cases, and offered to loan me a construction crew to go to the land at night and either steal or destroy as many panels as I felt was fair. Frankly I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often, although I am guessing that it's more of a Mediterranean thing than an Anglosaxon thing. The general consensus among Italians and Greeks to whom I told the story is that this was a fair manner to solve the issue, the general consensus among Americans and Canadians to whom I told the story is that my father proposed a criminal action (This whole thing happened in Italy). Virtue probably lies in the middle, but I wouldn't know what the middle ground for this sort of thing is...
  - sukilot 12y ago
    In your story, fair and criminal are not exclusive. So the cultural bias was more about if you could expect to be punished by law.
    - spiritplumber 12y ago
      Good point. That's the problem - what's honest and what's legal should... well, at least have some correlation!
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - brazzledazzle 12y ago
    This stuff does happen in the US at least. I've only heard stories, but always from the "technically guilty" (e.g. the guys that destroyed/burned things down as retribution). One thing that's consistent in the stories I've heard is that the crooks always failed to carry insurance. Their "cheap" nature extended even to protection policies on their own ill-gotten gains.
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  It sounds like the stories are rather unrelated. The similarities are what, a female astronaut in space has problems? The film is basically a dumb action movie about a woman jumping around the world, while the book is supposedly about a medical issue. Even if the director had saw her book and thought "cool setup, a woman in space", why should that be legally enforceable? Even the author admits there's no copyright claim involved.
  - foxylad 12y ago
    Remember this isn't about copyright - its that the original company had a contract for a film "based on" the book, and the company that bought out the first company is arguing that their film is not connected to the book to get out of honouring the contract. But imagine another studio had made a film with a story so similar to the book; with the exact same title; and screenwritten by the guy who was down to direct the first project. I bet Warner Brothers would have sued them to hell and back, and the inherited contract would have been portrayed as solid as a rock.
dxhdr 12y ago
What's wrong with these people? Why couldn't Warner Brothers reach out to Tess and say "Hey, we're going to produce a sci-fi film based on GRAVITY. We'd like to work with you and are interested in re-negotiating your contract for a new version of the story." You know, acting in good faith. Instead they just screw her, no recognition, no money? How is that the default thought process for a company? This may be vindictive but I hope the court sticks it to Warner Bros in the most painful way possible. Something needs to be done to change the decision making process at that company.
- prawn 12y ago
  "Instead they just screw him..." Just a quick correction, but Tess Gerritsen is female. Otherwise, I agree. Very unfair and they deserve what is (hopefully) coming.
  - dxhdr 12y ago
    Fixed thanks
    - tim333 12y ago
      Indeed you've got to wonder if the studio would have tried to screw over the writer so blatantly if it had been a he.
      - tim333 12y ago
        To the downvoters, re the "What's wrong with these people?" issue don't you think there could be a teensy bit of sexism going on here?
        protomyth 12y ago
        I think most of the downvoters believe the studios are equal opportunity screwers and have demonstrated that fact on far too many occasions. I did not downvote.
- 12y ago
Mandatum 12y ago
I don't believe this is HN-relevant.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- LukeB_UK 12y ago
  Derivative works and licensing are a huge part of the software development industry and open source. Edit: Updated for civility.
  - logicallee 12y ago
    I upvoted you. Actually your parent should remain ungreyed as extremely civil and couched in terms of a personal opinion, which elicited a thoughtful response from you. If you delete your first sentence and downvote complaint we get: Mandatum 31 minutes ago | link I don't believe this is HN-relevant. reply LukeB_UK 28 minutes ago | link Derivative works and licensing are a huge part of the software development industry and open source. reply Which is great insight to the thread.
    - LukeB_UK 12y ago
      Thanks for the input, I've updated my post for civility.
  - Mandatum 12y ago
    Agreed. I guess this is akin to workplace environments and retina displays. It's part of our industry, but I still think it's a stretch considering the lawsuit is over a contract between a writer and a studio vs a programmer and company. Similarities admittedly, however I think there's enough more relevant cases to look at than this. http://www.kansascity.com/news/article8836112.html http://www.kansascity.com/news/article8836112.html http://petapixel.com/2015/01/30/adobe-files-lawsuit-forever-21-pirating-copies-photoshop/ http://petapixel.com/2015/01/30/adobe-files-lawsuit-forever-... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/28/five_years_sun_software_under_oracle/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/28/five_years_sun_softw... http://www.eweek.com/mobile/high-court-wants-govt-views-in-google-vs.-oracle-api-copyright-fight.html http://www.eweek.com/mobile/high-court-wants-govt-views-in-g...
lisa_henderson 12y ago
Everyone should stop for a minute and imagine what would happen if this legal precedent spread to the tech startup world. We might then have situations where a highly experienced programmer might sign up with a startup, and sign a contract with that startup, but then have the contract declared null and void if the startup is acquired. I can imagine a "less likely" and "more likely" way this might play out: 1.) "less likely" would be something bordering on blatant theft -- perhaps the contract specifies options or bonuses, but the parent company, after the acquisition, no longer wants to pay. That would be fairly blatant, though not impossible. 2.) "more likely" would, I think, be issues regarding copyright, which, with software, allows something of a fudge factor, since software is always changing, and no one programmer writes the whole of a large system. I'm thinking of my own startup here: during the years 2000 to 2002 I created a content management system, which then became the basis of a company that was formed in 2002. But the founding documents of that company gave me the right to specific royalty payments for the CMS, even if we eventually agreed to dissolve the company (which we did in 2008). But suppose the company was acquired, and then the acquiring company declared that the requirement to pay royalties was null and void? This is very similar to what apparently happened with Gravity. Worrisome.
- comrade1 12y ago
  But that does happen, in way. The most well-known was Zynga - when they were getting ready to go public they did a claw-back on their outstanding options and shares. They screwed over a friend of mine that was one of the early employees. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204621904577018373223480802 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240529702046219045770183...
  - thanksgiving 12y ago
    Marcus Pincus is a piece of shit by his own admission. We should make a six degrees of separation where anyone who does any partnership or collaboration with that piece of shit immediately deserves a boycott as well. Yes, HN this includes even your god and lord Paul Graham... Zynga CEO Mark Pincus: "I Did Every Horrible Thing In The Book Just To Get Revenues" http://techcrunch.com/2009/11/06/zynga-scamville-mark-pinkus-faceboo/ http://techcrunch.com/2009/11/06/zynga-scamville-mark-pinkus...
AustinG08 12y ago
If only a powerful group like the MPAA would be opposed to such blatant exploitation of a person's creative work... edit: grammar
chrisbennet 12y ago
Even if they honor the contract she will get nothing besides being credited. Her contract states that she gets a percentage of the profits - and the movie will probably never make a profit. Return of the Jedi never made a profit "despite having earned $475 million at the box-office against a budget of $32.5 million" (Wikipedia "Hollywood Accounting") Very sad.
- mdturnerphys 12y ago
  [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
  - cdolan92 12y ago
    Crazy. I wonder what the follow up for Stan Lee's lawsuit was
    - Torgo 12y ago
      In Stan Lee's case, it could be argued it was cosmic justice.
  - thret 12y ago
    Unreal: "A WB receipt was leaked online, showing that the hugely successful movie Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix ended up with a $167 million loss on paper. This is especially unusual, given that the Harry Potter film series is the highest-grossing film series of all time."
    - a3n 12y ago
      And these are the people who are trying to police our moral profiles wrt file downloading. It works because they can. They do it because they've figured that out. It's that simple.
      - chii 12y ago
tptacek 12y ago
Here's the whole ruling: https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/wb-gravity-lawsuit-order-wm.pdf https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/wb-gravity-... It's more complicated (of course) than Gerritsen makes it out to be. The Hollywood Reporter does a decent job of explaining the contours: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/warner-bros-knocks-down-best-768627 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/warner-bros-knocks-... (and, in fairness, it's more complicated than WB makes it out to be as well). Most of the ruling concerns itself with the admissibility of various documents for the purposes of a dismissal ruling, which is complicated by the fact that the court has to stipulate all of the plaintiffs facts as true and still find no cause for a lawsuit in order to grant the motion. From what I can tell, the meat of the ruling is: * Gerritsen didn't have a contract with WB, but with Katja and, presumably, New Line. * Gerritsen's argument depends in part on the notion that Katja/New Line would, absent control by WB, have fought against WB making a picture based on work they'd already licensed. Katja/New Line didn't do that. * Gerritsen might have a legitimate grievance, but it's with Katja/New Line and its previous owners, who were paid by WB. Gerritsen is thus in effect a creditor of Katja's, and if she's owed something, it's owed from the proceeds of the sale, not from WB's own bank account. Or something like that? It's headachey stuff.
- spiritplumber 12y ago
  No, if you buy a company, you buy it lock stock and barrel - that includes outstanding debts, existing deals, and obligations. Otherwise it'd be trivial to make a company go millions in debt, then sell it to an accomplice who would keep the assets and poof the debts. This still happens, of course, but there are fraud laws against it, and successful attempts when they happen generally require wriggling through a lot of loopholes.
  - madsravn 12y ago
    Let's turn it around. If they (WB) feel like they didn't buy it all, they shouldn't have the intellectual property to make a movie based on the book. Seeing it this way, they never bought anything.
thinkcomp 12y ago
Here's the docket and selected documents (blame PACER): http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/28d2o3t22/california-central-district-court/terry-t-gerritsen-v-warner-bros-entertainment-inc-et-al/ http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/28d2o3t22/california-centra...
rsync 12y ago
"I will receive “based upon” credit, a production bonus, and a percentage of net profits." Wait ... I don't know anything about anything and even I know you don't ever stipulate profits in a film rights contract ... right ?
- SG- 12y ago
  That's why there's also a "production bonus", but more importantly credit.
rosser 12y ago
Hollywood is much easier to understand if you look at it as a collection of interrelated financial instruments, that also occasionally makes movies.
- fabulist 12y ago
  This seems like an interesting perspective, would you care to elaborate?
  - logfromblammo 12y ago
    You could watch Mel Brooks in The Producers. The short version is that the system has become so complex that the outputs are becoming less correlated to the inputs. The money coming out is losing its relationship to the motion pictures going in.
lifeisstillgood 12y ago
Her contract stipulated she gets "based upon" and a percentage of net profits. Now I know nothing about Hollywood but I do know that if you have a percentage of the net then everyone you meet sees a great big L on your forehead. Almost no movie makes a net profit. You get a percentage of the gross or you are not taken seriously.
- jonnathanson 12y ago
  "You get a percentage of the gross or you are not taken seriously." Correct, but you also have to be taken seriously to get a percentage of the gross. Not everybody who asks for gross points gets them. Generally speaking, you need to be on the A list, or have a killer agent, or have a property that incites a bidding war between studios.
FrankenPC 12y ago
It seems to me a safer way to sell intellectual property rights would be to place a legal caveat that if the purchasing company is dissolved/acquired for any reason, the contract is null and void and the rights revert back to the original owner.
sethd 12y ago
Sadly, I imagine Tess will be blacklisted from doing future business with the entertainment industry. Hollywood has a history of doing exactly that to those to sue over issues like this.
Zangela 12y ago
To me, that's extractly a move to aviod paying what Tess should have from Warner Brothers. Warner Brothers just took an unspeakable way to gain money, but this could ruin its reputation. Tess should fight for her own right, and stand up for others with similar situations who don't have the backbone to fight.
fubarred 12y ago
Large shops have huge bull's-eyes painted on them. If they act in bad faith, they will eventually lose reputation and business, spectacularly. This is why top VC's aren't going to do things that tiny VC's might try to get away with. Also it's worth nothing that going out-of-your way to be fair isn't just "being nice," it selfishly reduces risk of issues, especially in small, highly-connected industries where reputation is the first consideration. So if we are to take her account at face value, it seems like WB misjudged that word would get around and then lawsuits. (An expensive lesson in hubris.)
- orkoden 12y ago
  Until this eventual case of loss of reputation and business happens, they're laughing all the way to the bank. If it even comes. Lots of horrible and criminal corporations continue to exist and are successful. Your just world theory conform to reality.
blueskin_ 12y ago
Good luck to that guy. A lot of lawsuits over movie plots seem to be frivolous and I've supported the film company more than once, but that one seems to be the exception to the rule.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
amelius 12y ago
Small question. How does one become a Hollywood writer?
- dmckeon 12y ago
  "Hemingway famously said that the best way for a writer to deal with the movie business was to arrange a quick meeting at the California state line: 'You throw them your book, they throw you the money. Then you jump into your car and drive like hell back the way you came.' (quoted in: Hemingway Lives! by Clancy Sigal)

329 points by bmmayer1 12y ago

This is alarming, but not surprising, especially in Hollywood. However, once they amend the complaint, I have a feeling WB will have a hard time arguing that both the contract gives them the rights to the story, and that the contract isn't enforceable or binding. This will be interesting.

spiritplumber 12y ago
I had a similar problem a good while ago, on a much smaller scale, when a company that was buying land to put solar panels on it went bankrupt - essentially, they bought the panels, installed them on land that was actually belonging to another company that belonged to the crook's wife, and then declared bankruptcy after setting up some deal with the wife's company whereby it would get first rights to the assets (the panels) which were liquidated for pennies on the dollar. End result, they got free solar panels for their land. I did an electrical design for them, and ended up not getting paid because the debt was with the defunct company, not the wife's company. When I asked for my father's advice, he told me that legal channels are powerless in these cases, and offered to loan me a construction crew to go to the land at night and either steal or destroy as many panels as I felt was fair. Frankly I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often, although I am guessing that it's more of a Mediterranean thing than an Anglosaxon thing. The general consensus among Italians and Greeks to whom I told the story is that this was a fair manner to solve the issue, the general consensus among Americans and Canadians to whom I told the story is that my father proposed a criminal action (This whole thing happened in Italy). Virtue probably lies in the middle, but I wouldn't know what the middle ground for this sort of thing is...
- sukilot 12y ago
  In your story, fair and criminal are not exclusive. So the cultural bias was more about if you could expect to be punished by law.
  - spiritplumber 12y ago
    Good point. That's the problem - what's honest and what's legal should... well, at least have some correlation!
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- brazzledazzle 12y ago
  This stuff does happen in the US at least. I've only heard stories, but always from the "technically guilty" (e.g. the guys that destroyed/burned things down as retribution). One thing that's consistent in the stories I've heard is that the crooks always failed to carry insurance. Their "cheap" nature extended even to protection policies on their own ill-gotten gains.
MichaelGG 12y ago
It sounds like the stories are rather unrelated. The similarities are what, a female astronaut in space has problems? The film is basically a dumb action movie about a woman jumping around the world, while the book is supposedly about a medical issue. Even if the director had saw her book and thought "cool setup, a woman in space", why should that be legally enforceable? Even the author admits there's no copyright claim involved.
- foxylad 12y ago
  Remember this isn't about copyright - its that the original company had a contract for a film "based on" the book, and the company that bought out the first company is arguing that their film is not connected to the book to get out of honouring the contract. But imagine another studio had made a film with a story so similar to the book; with the exact same title; and screenwritten by the guy who was down to direct the first project. I bet Warner Brothers would have sued them to hell and back, and the inherited contract would have been portrayed as solid as a rock.

dxhdr 12y ago

What's wrong with these people? Why couldn't Warner Brothers reach out to Tess and say "Hey, we're going to produce a sci-fi film based on GRAVITY. We'd like to work with you and are interested in re-negotiating your contract for a new version of the story." You know, acting in good faith. Instead they just screw her, no recognition, no money? How is that the default thought process for a company? This may be vindictive but I hope the court sticks it to Warner Bros in the most painful way possible. Something needs to be done to change the decision making process at that company.

prawn 12y ago
"Instead they just screw him..." Just a quick correction, but Tess Gerritsen is female. Otherwise, I agree. Very unfair and they deserve what is (hopefully) coming.
- dxhdr 12y ago
  Fixed thanks
  - tim333 12y ago
    Indeed you've got to wonder if the studio would have tried to screw over the writer so blatantly if it had been a he.
    - tim333 12y ago
      To the downvoters, re the "What's wrong with these people?" issue don't you think there could be a teensy bit of sexism going on here?
      - protomyth 12y ago
        I think most of the downvoters believe the studios are equal opportunity screwers and have demonstrated that fact on far too many occasions. I did not downvote.
12y ago

Mandatum 12y ago

I don't believe this is HN-relevant.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
LukeB_UK 12y ago
Derivative works and licensing are a huge part of the software development industry and open source. Edit: Updated for civility.
- logicallee 12y ago
  I upvoted you. Actually your parent should remain ungreyed as extremely civil and couched in terms of a personal opinion, which elicited a thoughtful response from you. If you delete your first sentence and downvote complaint we get: Mandatum 31 minutes ago | link I don't believe this is HN-relevant. reply LukeB_UK 28 minutes ago | link Derivative works and licensing are a huge part of the software development industry and open source. reply Which is great insight to the thread.
  - LukeB_UK 12y ago
    Thanks for the input, I've updated my post for civility.
- Mandatum 12y ago
  Agreed. I guess this is akin to workplace environments and retina displays. It's part of our industry, but I still think it's a stretch considering the lawsuit is over a contract between a writer and a studio vs a programmer and company. Similarities admittedly, however I think there's enough more relevant cases to look at than this. http://www.kansascity.com/news/article8836112.html http://www.kansascity.com/news/article8836112.html http://petapixel.com/2015/01/30/adobe-files-lawsuit-forever-21-pirating-copies-photoshop/ http://petapixel.com/2015/01/30/adobe-files-lawsuit-forever-... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/28/five_years_sun_software_under_oracle/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/28/five_years_sun_softw... http://www.eweek.com/mobile/high-court-wants-govt-views-in-google-vs.-oracle-api-copyright-fight.html http://www.eweek.com/mobile/high-court-wants-govt-views-in-g...

lisa_henderson 12y ago

Everyone should stop for a minute and imagine what would happen if this legal precedent spread to the tech startup world. We might then have situations where a highly experienced programmer might sign up with a startup, and sign a contract with that startup, but then have the contract declared null and void if the startup is acquired. I can imagine a "less likely" and "more likely" way this might play out: 1.) "less likely" would be something bordering on blatant theft -- perhaps the contract specifies options or bonuses, but the parent company, after the acquisition, no longer wants to pay. That would be fairly blatant, though not impossible. 2.) "more likely" would, I think, be issues regarding copyright, which, with software, allows something of a fudge factor, since software is always changing, and no one programmer writes the whole of a large system. I'm thinking of my own startup here: during the years 2000 to 2002 I created a content management system, which then became the basis of a company that was formed in 2002. But the founding documents of that company gave me the right to specific royalty payments for the CMS, even if we eventually agreed to dissolve the company (which we did in 2008). But suppose the company was acquired, and then the acquiring company declared that the requirement to pay royalties was null and void? This is very similar to what apparently happened with Gravity. Worrisome.

comrade1 12y ago
But that does happen, in way. The most well-known was Zynga - when they were getting ready to go public they did a claw-back on their outstanding options and shares. They screwed over a friend of mine that was one of the early employees. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204621904577018373223480802 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240529702046219045770183...
- thanksgiving 12y ago
  Marcus Pincus is a piece of shit by his own admission. We should make a six degrees of separation where anyone who does any partnership or collaboration with that piece of shit immediately deserves a boycott as well. Yes, HN this includes even your god and lord Paul Graham... Zynga CEO Mark Pincus: "I Did Every Horrible Thing In The Book Just To Get Revenues" http://techcrunch.com/2009/11/06/zynga-scamville-mark-pinkus-faceboo/ http://techcrunch.com/2009/11/06/zynga-scamville-mark-pinkus...

AustinG08 12y ago

If only a powerful group like the MPAA would be opposed to such blatant exploitation of a person's creative work... edit: grammar

chrisbennet 12y ago

Even if they honor the contract she will get nothing besides being credited. Her contract states that she gets a percentage of the profits - and the movie will probably never make a profit. Return of the Jedi never made a profit "despite having earned $475 million at the box-office against a budget of $32.5 million" (Wikipedia "Hollywood Accounting") Very sad.

mdturnerphys 12y ago
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
- cdolan92 12y ago
  Crazy. I wonder what the follow up for Stan Lee's lawsuit was
  - Torgo 12y ago
    In Stan Lee's case, it could be argued it was cosmic justice.
- thret 12y ago
  Unreal: "A WB receipt was leaked online, showing that the hugely successful movie Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix ended up with a $167 million loss on paper. This is especially unusual, given that the Harry Potter film series is the highest-grossing film series of all time."
  - a3n 12y ago
    And these are the people who are trying to police our moral profiles wrt file downloading. It works because they can. They do it because they've figured that out. It's that simple.
    - chii 12y ago

tptacek 12y ago

Here's the whole ruling: https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/wb-gravity-lawsuit-order-wm.pdf https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/wb-gravity-... It's more complicated (of course) than Gerritsen makes it out to be. The Hollywood Reporter does a decent job of explaining the contours: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/warner-bros-knocks-down-best-768627 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/warner-bros-knocks-... (and, in fairness, it's more complicated than WB makes it out to be as well). Most of the ruling concerns itself with the admissibility of various documents for the purposes of a dismissal ruling, which is complicated by the fact that the court has to stipulate all of the plaintiffs facts as true and still find no cause for a lawsuit in order to grant the motion. From what I can tell, the meat of the ruling is: * Gerritsen didn't have a contract with WB, but with Katja and, presumably, New Line. * Gerritsen's argument depends in part on the notion that Katja/New Line would, absent control by WB, have fought against WB making a picture based on work they'd already licensed. Katja/New Line didn't do that. * Gerritsen might have a legitimate grievance, but it's with Katja/New Line and its previous owners, who were paid by WB. Gerritsen is thus in effect a creditor of Katja's, and if she's owed something, it's owed from the proceeds of the sale, not from WB's own bank account. Or something like that? It's headachey stuff.

spiritplumber 12y ago
No, if you buy a company, you buy it lock stock and barrel - that includes outstanding debts, existing deals, and obligations. Otherwise it'd be trivial to make a company go millions in debt, then sell it to an accomplice who would keep the assets and poof the debts. This still happens, of course, but there are fraud laws against it, and successful attempts when they happen generally require wriggling through a lot of loopholes.
- madsravn 12y ago
  Let's turn it around. If they (WB) feel like they didn't buy it all, they shouldn't have the intellectual property to make a movie based on the book. Seeing it this way, they never bought anything.

thinkcomp 12y ago

Here's the docket and selected documents (blame PACER): http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/28d2o3t22/california-central-district-court/terry-t-gerritsen-v-warner-bros-entertainment-inc-et-al/ http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/28d2o3t22/california-centra...

rsync 12y ago

"I will receive “based upon” credit, a production bonus, and a percentage of net profits." Wait ... I don't know anything about anything and even I know you don't ever stipulate profits in a film rights contract ... right ?

SG- 12y ago
That's why there's also a "production bonus", but more importantly credit.

rosser 12y ago

Hollywood is much easier to understand if you look at it as a collection of interrelated financial instruments, that also occasionally makes movies.

fabulist 12y ago
This seems like an interesting perspective, would you care to elaborate?
- logfromblammo 12y ago
  You could watch Mel Brooks in The Producers. The short version is that the system has become so complex that the outputs are becoming less correlated to the inputs. The money coming out is losing its relationship to the motion pictures going in.

lifeisstillgood 12y ago

Her contract stipulated she gets "based upon" and a percentage of net profits. Now I know nothing about Hollywood but I do know that if you have a percentage of the net then everyone you meet sees a great big L on your forehead. Almost no movie makes a net profit. You get a percentage of the gross or you are not taken seriously.

jonnathanson 12y ago
"You get a percentage of the gross or you are not taken seriously." Correct, but you also have to be taken seriously to get a percentage of the gross. Not everybody who asks for gross points gets them. Generally speaking, you need to be on the A list, or have a killer agent, or have a property that incites a bidding war between studios.

FrankenPC 12y ago

It seems to me a safer way to sell intellectual property rights would be to place a legal caveat that if the purchasing company is dissolved/acquired for any reason, the contract is null and void and the rights revert back to the original owner.

sethd 12y ago

Sadly, I imagine Tess will be blacklisted from doing future business with the entertainment industry. Hollywood has a history of doing exactly that to those to sue over issues like this.

Zangela 12y ago

To me, that's extractly a move to aviod paying what Tess should have from Warner Brothers. Warner Brothers just took an unspeakable way to gain money, but this could ruin its reputation. Tess should fight for her own right, and stand up for others with similar situations who don't have the backbone to fight.

fubarred 12y ago

Large shops have huge bull's-eyes painted on them. If they act in bad faith, they will eventually lose reputation and business, spectacularly. This is why top VC's aren't going to do things that tiny VC's might try to get away with. Also it's worth nothing that going out-of-your way to be fair isn't just "being nice," it selfishly reduces risk of issues, especially in small, highly-connected industries where reputation is the first consideration. So if we are to take her account at face value, it seems like WB misjudged that word would get around and then lawsuits. (An expensive lesson in hubris.)

orkoden 12y ago
Until this eventual case of loss of reputation and business happens, they're laughing all the way to the bank. If it even comes. Lots of horrible and criminal corporations continue to exist and are successful. Your just world theory conform to reality.

blueskin_ 12y ago

Good luck to that guy. A lot of lawsuits over movie plots seem to be frivolous and I've supported the film company more than once, but that one seems to be the exception to the rule.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

amelius 12y ago

Small question. How does one become a Hollywood writer?

dmckeon 12y ago
"Hemingway famously said that the best way for a writer to deal with the movie business was to arrange a quick meeting at the California state line: 'You throw them your book, they throw you the money. Then you jump into your car and drive like hell back the way you came.' (quoted in: Hemingway Lives! by Clancy Sigal)