If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hollywood Reporter)   MGM sued over Home Video royalties for 1965 film 'What's New Pussycat?' Woah, woah, woah   (hollywoodreporter.com) divider line 23
    More: Interesting, What's New Pussycat, MGM, video cameras, royalties, accounting practice  
•       •       •

1443 clicks; posted to Business » on 23 Mar 2014 at 12:25 PM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



23 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-23 12:44:43 PM
Line em up against wall next to the "job creators".  In cases of overlap shoot them twice.
 
2014-03-23 01:46:33 PM
Maybe I just don't understand what's going on here but as it read to me; people were payed a 20% share of royalties BEFORE; and they STILL are now so OUTRAGE!

If this is true, then STFU that was what was (presumably) agreed upon; you don't get to sue for more now.

On the otherhand, what they might be trying to (poorly) explain is that before you were getting 20% of "everything" profit; now they're only getting 20% of some other partial amount thanks to some accounting shenanigans. If that's the case, I can see why one would be upset.

That said; I'm kind of on the fence about "estates" being due anything; at least after prolonged periods.  The way I see it; it should be how pensions and such work.  When my dad dies; my mother keeps receiving his pension until she goes, then it ends.  If she dies first; and then my dad; it dies with him, in either case I get nothing (directly) from it, and that to me makes sense.  I did nothing towards earning his pension; so I should have no rights to it.  If my great grandpappy were some famous actor; why should I think I have any rights to something he did 50 years before I was born?

At the same time; I can understand why someone's actors estate has reason to want some control over the image / likeness / whatever; such as Tolkien's family with the LotR books turning into movies et al and not wanting his "legacy" tarnished with crappy cartoons and such; at least until the point it goes into public domain; and thanks to Disney, a lot of things in the US never will.

I dunno; I get it; I agree with it; but at the same time I don't.  Why can't thinks just be in black an white, good and evil damnit.
 
2014-03-23 01:56:51 PM
in other news, the common law principle of precedence was thrown out on the grounds of "butthurt"

but since no statutory basis could be found for the action, the concept of "butthurt" was expected to be supported by "it's not fair"
 
2014-03-23 02:42:23 PM

Shan: Maybe I just don't understand what's going on here but as it read to me; people were payed a 20% share of royalties BEFORE; and they STILL are now so OUTRAGE!

If this is true, then STFU that was what was (presumably) agreed upon; you don't get to sue for more now.

On the otherhand, what they might be trying to (poorly) explain is that before you were getting 20% of "everything" profit; now they're only getting 20% of some other partial amount thanks to some accounting shenanigans. If that's the case, I can see why one would be upset.


BEFORE
Bob's House of Video Distributions sold VHS tapes of MGM movies for 20 dollars, giving MGM 4 dollars and pocketing the remaining 16.

AFTER
MGM realized they don't need Bob, started selling the tapes themselves, pocketing all 20 dollars, but telling people like the directors they were still only recieving 4 dollars in revenue for the sale of the tape.
 
2014-03-23 02:59:36 PM
 
2014-03-23 03:33:48 PM
That's unusual.
 
2014-03-23 04:07:16 PM
Don't blame me, I checked it out from the library. Made it about 15 minutes before I turned that suckage off.
 
2014-03-23 04:27:20 PM
My film school project is about a motorcycle gang of Asian women who fall in love with every Jewish writer they meet. It's called "What's New Faster Pussycat Kill Kill"
 
2014-03-23 04:43:43 PM
whoa
 
2014-03-23 05:00:25 PM
i.huffpost.com

And he was sitting there, like he JUST got his 30 day chip from anger management...
 
2014-03-23 06:02:30 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: [i.huffpost.com image 260x190]

And he was sitting there, like he JUST got his 30 day chip from anger management...


"What's New Pussycat" is a really long song.
 
2014-03-23 07:26:29 PM
....watch the magic.
 
2014-03-23 07:50:00 PM
Hollywood accounting. There are no profits.
 
2014-03-23 09:37:48 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Shan: Maybe I just don't understand what's going on here but as it read to me; people were payed a 20% share of royalties BEFORE; and they STILL are now so OUTRAGE!

If this is true, then STFU that was what was (presumably) agreed upon; you don't get to sue for more now.

On the otherhand, what they might be trying to (poorly) explain is that before you were getting 20% of "everything" profit; now they're only getting 20% of some other partial amount thanks to some accounting shenanigans. If that's the case, I can see why one would be upset.

BEFORE
Bob's House of Video Distributions sold VHS tapes of MGM movies for 20 dollars, giving MGM 4 dollars and pocketing the remaining 16.

AFTER
MGM realized they don't need Bob, started selling the tapes themselves, pocketing all 20 dollars, but telling people like the directors they were still only recieving 4 dollars in revenue for the sale of the tape.


Yes, but what MGM probably did was create a wholly owned subsidiary which released the video and paid back to the production company the 4 dollars.
 
2014-03-23 11:49:33 PM
Oblig: NSFW
http://pussycat.ytmnd.com/  NSFW
(autoplay sound)
 
2014-03-24 04:59:59 AM

Shan: If my great grandpappy were some famous actor; why should I think I have any rights to something he did 50 years before I was born?


If your great grandpappy built a house and willed it to his son when he died, who did the same, and so on, at what point do you think your family should lose their ownership rights to that house?
 
2014-03-24 05:50:00 AM
Does anyone under 50 get that headline?
 
2014-03-24 06:30:48 AM

ReapTheChaos: Shan: If my great grandpappy were some famous actor; why should I think I have any rights to something he did 50 years before I was born?

If your great grandpappy built a house and willed it to his son when he died, who did the same, and so on, at what point do you think your family should lose their ownership rights to that house?


The difference being; the house was built for his ownership; versus a product he was paid to "build" for someone else.  I'm not saying rich people need to lose their money at death or anything like that; and like I said the whole thing is a grey area that I both agree with and don't.
 
2014-03-24 08:44:54 AM

John Buck 41: Does anyone under 50 get that headline?


I'm 49, and I get it.
 
2014-03-24 08:56:27 AM

ReapTheChaos: Shan: If my great grandpappy were some famous actor; why should I think I have any rights to something he did 50 years before I was born?

If your great grandpappy built a house and willed it to his son when he died, who did the same, and so on, at what point do you think your family should lose their ownership rights to that house?


That is a horrible analogy btw.  I agree with Shan there should be some kind of cutoff for this type of stuff.  Lets look at someone like Michael Jackson, should his grandson/daughter really have rights to collect money on his work?  His kids now?  Yes they should have rights to the royalties but not after that.
 
2014-03-24 01:35:24 PM

TNel: ReapTheChaos: Shan: If my great grandpappy were some famous actor; why should I think I have any rights to something he did 50 years before I was born?

If your great grandpappy built a house and willed it to his son when he died, who did the same, and so on, at what point do you think your family should lose their ownership rights to that house?

That is a horrible analogy btw.  I agree with Shan there should be some kind of cutoff for this type of stuff.  Lets look at someone like Michael Jackson, should his grandson/daughter really have rights to collect money on his work?  His kids now?  Yes they should have rights to the royalties but not after that.


What you're objecting to is the stupidity of modern copyright law, this is just a contract dispute between the estate of a producer and a movie studio concerning the studio's odious business practices.

You don't need the house analogy, a movie is an asset by itself. Sure it's a work of "art", but it's also a business, governed by a specific set of laws and contracts. Unless the contracts were written to specifically exclude the deceased(and there would rarely be a cause for that), there's no valid reason for them not to receive royalties for the term of the contract. Doesn't matter whether the person(or company for that matter) that had equity is dead, it's an enforceable contract that gives rights to a stream of revenue and has substantial value.

And the reason that revenue goes on for so long after death is that US copyright law is ridiculous, thanks to incessant lobbying by Disney especially and the other movie studios. So, as long as the copyright is renewed, it's protected for the author for 70 years after death, and for corporations, as much as 120 years. That is stupid, but good luck getting that changed, in fact, when Mickey Mouse's expires in 2023, you should expect another lobbying push to extend it further(you didn't think that Hollywood gave all that money to politicians because they actually care about social issues did you?).

The only good news is that next time, at least places like Google may be able to get some traction lobbying against it.

http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

This isn't about copyright law though, or even really that much about future royalties, since I doubt What's New Pussycat generates much revenue these days. Film libraries never used to be worth much because there were limited opportunities to monetize them. But starting in the 1980s with the proliferation of cable channels(and their need for content) and the rise of home video, a lot of money was made in the last few decades from these old movies.. Not surprisingly there have been a number of lawsuits(some detailed in TFA) about unethical studio business practices and self dealing by the movie studios to screw rights holders, this is yet another one.  Somewhere along the line, MGM switched to a more profitable home video distribution model, but "forgot"(or so it is alleged) to adjust the royalties to rights holders.

It is ironic that an industry full of "progressives" routinely engages in business practices(outright theft and fraud, racism, sexism, ageism, etc) that even Mitt Romney wouldn't engage in. But nothing should surprise anyone, when that much money is involved.
 
2014-03-24 04:28:45 PM

Tyrone Slothrop: John Buck 41: Does anyone under 50 get that headline?

I'm 49, and I get it.


Kudos.
 
2014-03-24 05:35:39 PM

Shan: That said; I'm kind of on the fence about "estates" being due anything; at least after prolonged periods.  The way I see it; it should be how pensions and such work.  When my dad dies; my mother keeps receiving his pension until she goes, then it ends.  If she dies first; and then my dad; it dies with him, in either case I get nothing (directly) from it, and that to me makes sense.  I did nothing towards earning his pension; so I should have no rights to it.  If my great grandpappy were some famous actor; why should I think I have any rights to something he did 50 years before I was born?


Why would MGM continue getting money for it as well? Who at MGM that had any involvement in making "What's New Pussycat?" still works at MGM?
 
Displayed 23 of 23 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report