If you submit a script to a Hollywood producer who doesn't buy it, but uses the concept, do you have a claim?
On May 4, 2010, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals killed Hollywood by holding that implied contracts for the sale of ideas that were previously protected under California state law (pitch meetings for films) were preempted by the Copyright Act. My post here.
The Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc (before every judge on the court). My post linking to the video of the hearing en banc here.
Yesterday, in Montz v. Pilgrim (9th Cir. May 4, 2011) one year after the original Ninth Circuit three-year panel killed the Hollywood pitch claim, the full Ninth Circuit reversed the panel and held that implied contracts for the sale of ideas under California state law are not preempted by the Copyright Act. Decision below, with two dissents, required reading.
If you care about this area of law, watch the video of oral argument before the Ninth Circuit, it is excellent.
If you want to learn about how Hollywood really works, read one of the great American novels: What Makes Sammy Run? by Budd Schulberg. They say that the novel is so true to life that Hollywood will never make the film. It of course involves theft of ideas, exploitation of writers, unbridled ambition and chicanery.
Montz v Pilgrim Films
http://www.dunnington.com/rdowd_bio.html
Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook 2010 by Raymond J. Dowd from West here
Copyright law, fine art and navigating the courts. Author Copyright Litigation Handbook (Thomson Reuters Westlaw 2019-2020)
Showing posts with label hollywood accounting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hollywood accounting. Show all posts
Thursday, May 05, 2011
Ninth Circuit Reverses Panel in Landmark Hollywood Theft of Ideas Case
Labels:
copyright infringement,
copyright law,
film law,
ghost hunters,
hollywood accounting,
implied contract,
montz v pilgrim,
pitch meetings,
preemption,
theft of ideas
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Licensing Litigation: "Hollywood Accounting" of Licensing Royalties Loses Bigtime: Jury Finds Disney Owes $269.2 Million
Who Wants to Be A Millionaire, per Wikipedia here.
Celadon licensed the show to Disney, seeking a 50-50 profits split. Using "Hollywood Accounting" (link to great Wikipedia article on the practice). Disney managed to pocket $269.2 million that it owed to a licensor, according to a jury.
A percentage of the net profits is considered in Hollywood to be a percentage of nothing, since studios simply make up the math to always eliminate net profits by funnelling these monies to their friends.
Nice to see that a jury saw through it all...
Disney-Celador Lawsuit Verdict: Disney Ordered To Pay 'Millionaire' Makers $269.2 Million
Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook from West here
Celadon licensed the show to Disney, seeking a 50-50 profits split. Using "Hollywood Accounting" (link to great Wikipedia article on the practice). Disney managed to pocket $269.2 million that it owed to a licensor, according to a jury.
A percentage of the net profits is considered in Hollywood to be a percentage of nothing, since studios simply make up the math to always eliminate net profits by funnelling these monies to their friends.
Nice to see that a jury saw through it all...
Disney-Celador Lawsuit Verdict: Disney Ordered To Pay 'Millionaire' Makers $269.2 Million
Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook from West here
Labels:
assignments of copyright,
celador,
copyright law,
copyright litigation,
disney,
hollywood accounting,
licensing law,
licensing litigation,
royalties,
royalty disputes,
television broadcasting
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
