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

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 12:42 AM UTC

spiritplumber wrote: post #26

burnte wrote: post #2

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.

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…

Post by thanksgiving » Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 12:53 AM UTC

teej wrote: post #46

ubernostrum wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you miss the part where this was a contract issue? Where the author of the book said, literally, "Yeah, Gravity is a great film, but it's not based on my book"? She's trying to argue that a contract she made with one company would somehow jump across multiple acquisitions, mergers and organizational changes and begin binding a different company that made a movie she admits wasn't based on her book. And that's why…

I think it's completely rational to assume that mergers and acquisitions would assign all assets, liabilities, and obligations to the purchasing entity. Given the history of Hollywood Accounting, I think it's also rational to assume that WB is trying to use legal loopholes to weasel their way out of obligations. That being said, I thought the bulk of WBs case wasn't that they weren't beholden to her contract, but tha…

Post by thanksgiving » Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 1:00 AM UTC

comrade1 wrote: post #12

lisa_henderson wrote: post #5

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…

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/SB100014240529702046219045770183...

Post by protomyth » Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 1:15 AM UTC

tim333 wrote: post #53

tim333 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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?

Post by petegrif » Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 1:20 AM UTC

objclxt wrote: post #34

arobertson wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it is well known that the studios use various accounting methods to hide profits, why do the people in the industry still accept contracts based on profits?

Nobody takes net points. Plenty of people take points on the gross, which is fine. Studios know that talent has wised up to net points, but that doesn't stop creative accounting from screwing you over in other ways. For example, one of Peter Jackson's main grievances when he sued New Line was that he had been promised a cut of the revenue from merchandising right sales. New Line sold the merchandising rights to its o…