Long story short, after acquiring Lucasfilm and Fox, Disney stopped paying royalties to an author who had published books for them, claiming that when Disney acquired Lucasfilm and Fox it only bought their rights, but did not actually inherit their obligations.
QuoteStar Wars Writer Alan Dean Foster and SFWA Call Out Disney for Not Paying Royalties
Alan Dean Foster is a veteran Star Wars and Aliens author who stopped receiving his royalty payments when Disney acquired Lucasfilm and Fox.
Alan Dean Foster and the Science Fiction Writer's Association of America are calling out Disney for failing to pay royalties to Foster for his novelizations of Star Wars: A New Hope (1977), Star Wars: Splinter of the Mind's Eye (1994), Alien (1979) and Aliens (1991) and Alien 3 (1978).
The royalty payments which had been coming from the publishing houses stopped after Disney acquired Lucasfilm (owner of Star Wars) and Fox (owner of the Alien franchise), according to Foster's letter published on the SFWA's website. When Foster's agent Vaughne Hansen tried to get in contact with the publishing branch of Disney to solve the issue, she met with a legal wall that refused to talk about the missing payments unless Foster agreed to sign a non-disclosure agreement.
While NDAs are standard before discussing creative projects to discourage leaks, they are not standard for issues such as paying royalties as they put the claimant in a very weak position: Should they disclose that the conversations were even taking place, or what the content of those conversations was, they would be liable to Disney.
The process to even obtain the royalty statements reportedly became so frustrating that Foster and Hansen contacted the SFWA to help. The SFWA's lawyers contacted Disney, who came back stating that Disney "had acquired the rights but not the obligations." However, US contract law is structured to ensure that any party who buys a contract or property from any other party is acquiring both the rights (in this case, the right to continue publishing and selling Alan Dean Foster's books, which have never been out of print) and the obligations (the royalties owed to the creator as agreed in the original contract).
"There's multiple reasons why their language is absurd and extremely concerning for the larger implications," said Mary Robinette Kowal, president of the SFWA. "We are very concerned about the way that this will affect all writers and all creators. We do have a form that will be on the website along with the text of the statements. If you are having a similar problem, please let us now."
Bill Nye also sued Disney for 37 million dollars of back royalties for his show Bill Nye the Science Guy, encountering the same kind of stalling legal strategy. Winnie the Pooh also came under fire after Disney allegedly failed to pay the family of comic book artist Stephen Slesinger the royalties owed, although that case was thrown out after an 18 year battle.
"Every creative person is at risk if a company that owns the rights to your work and is supposed to pay you royalties on whatever your work is, prints of your art for example, sells it to another company in France or someplace else and then they don't pay you," said Foster. "You have to have some recourse. It's not right. It's not complicated, morally or ethically, and I don't think it's complicated legally. It just needs to be addressed."
Jesus Christ. Couldn't he have warned the moviemakers that Alien 3 was gonna suck? He had plenty of time.
Eh, a few phone calls from the Mouse to Capitol Hill and the matter will be fixed quickly, with bipartisan support.
Even for evil megacorp standards, that "legal" reasoning sounds way too absurd. :hmm:
Quote from: celedhring on November 19, 2020, 06:39:10 AM
Even for evil megacorp standards, that "legal" reasoning sounds way too absurd. :hmm:
Still a better law story than GOP.
QuoteHowever, US contract law is structured to ensure that any party who buys a contract or property from any other party is acquiring both the rights (in this case, the right to continue publishing and selling Alan Dean Foster's books, which have never been out of print) and the obligations (the royalties owed to the creator as agreed in the original contract).
That is a very sweeping statement and as phrased, not strictly accurate.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2020, 12:55:25 PM
QuoteHowever, US contract law is structured to ensure that any party who buys a contract or property from any other party is acquiring both the rights (in this case, the right to continue publishing and selling Alan Dean Foster's books, which have never been out of print) and the obligations (the royalties owed to the creator as agreed in the original contract).
That is a very sweeping statement and as phrased, not strictly accurate.
I presume the terms of the contract might also need to be read in conjunction with governing legislative provisions. The law stuff.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2020, 12:55:25 PM
QuoteHowever, US contract law is structured to ensure that any party who buys a contract or property from any other party is acquiring both the rights (in this case, the right to continue publishing and selling Alan Dean Foster's books, which have never been out of print) and the obligations (the royalties owed to the creator as agreed in the original contract).
That is a very sweeping statement and as phrased, not strictly accurate.
Where it's not accurate do the obligations just disappear, or do they stay with the seller?
Disney brutally fucking over creative people is a very old tradition by this point. They are a pretty gross company totally devoid of ethics.
I used to just think of them as overly greedy and unethical. Of course with how the production of the live action Mulan Film they even crossed the line into being morally depraved.
Are there any lows low enough that this company will not stoop to? I once thought so, now I am not so sure.
Quote from: HVC on November 19, 2020, 03:34:48 PM
Where it's not accurate do the obligations just disappear, or do they stay with the seller?
First point, somewhat of a quibble, is that there is no such thing as US (national) contract law; contract law is state law and there is some variation. Copyright law, which presumably is implicated here, is national.
Bigger point is that deals are structured all the time so that the buyer acquires assets without liabilities. That's the whole point of doing an "APA" (Asset purchase agreement) as opposed to a stock acquisition or full merger. Now there are limits to this and some liabilities stick to the related assets. That could be true here - you probably can't acquire IP rights without taking on obligations associated with those rights but it's hard to know for sure without more detail.
Quote from: HVC on November 19, 2020, 03:34:48 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2020, 12:55:25 PM
QuoteHowever, US contract law is structured to ensure that any party who buys a contract or property from any other party is acquiring both the rights (in this case, the right to continue publishing and selling Alan Dean Foster's books, which have never been out of print) and the obligations (the royalties owed to the creator as agreed in the original contract).
That is a very sweeping statement and as phrased, not strictly accurate.
Where it's not accurate do the obligations just disappear, or do they stay with the seller?
One of the points of negotiation is to allocate risk around who has what obligation after the sale of property or the assignment of a right under a contract.
So it all depends on the terms of the contract, the nature of what is being sold, what statutory obligations apply (think for example of environmental protection enforcement legislation that tags all former owners with liability). If there were simple answers and general rules of thumb as suggested by the quoted post, hundreds of thousands of commercial lawyers would be out of a job.
And then where would that leave those of us who litigate their mistakes. :(
The US is not the EU, where you can't separate IP from royalties*. Unless the royalties are part of your contract, you won't get them. Now, I have no idea how could Disney separate assets and obligations set in that particular agreement with the author, unless there was some language about it in the contract.
*I'm kinda simplifying here, some royalties (there are different kinds) have to be in your contract in the EU, too.
Thanks CC and Minsky
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2020, 04:52:53 PM
Quote from: HVC on November 19, 2020, 03:34:48 PM
Where it's not accurate do the obligations just disappear, or do they stay with the seller?
First point, somewhat of a quibble, is that there is no such thing as US (national) contract law; contract law is state law and there is some variation. Copyright law, which presumably is implicated here, is national.
Bigger point is that deals are structured all the time so that the buyer acquires assets without liabilities. That's the whole point of doing an "APA" (Asset purchase agreement) as opposed to a stock acquisition or full merger. Now there are limits to this and some liabilities stick to the related assets. That could be true here - you probably can't acquire IP rights without taking on obligations associated with those rights but it's hard to know for sure without more detail.
Surely there have to be some protections against a transaction that transfers your house without transferring your mortgage? You can't finance the acquisition with someone's else's receivables, can you?
Quote from: DGuller on November 19, 2020, 07:45:21 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2020, 04:52:53 PM
Quote from: HVC on November 19, 2020, 03:34:48 PM
Where it's not accurate do the obligations just disappear, or do they stay with the seller?
First point, somewhat of a quibble, is that there is no such thing as US (national) contract law; contract law is state law and there is some variation. Copyright law, which presumably is implicated here, is national.
Bigger point is that deals are structured all the time so that the buyer acquires assets without liabilities. That's the whole point of doing an "APA" (Asset purchase agreement) as opposed to a stock acquisition or full merger. Now there are limits to this and some liabilities stick to the related assets. That could be true here - you probably can't acquire IP rights without taking on obligations associated with those rights but it's hard to know for sure without more detail.
Surely there have to be some protections against a transaction that transfers your house without transferring your mortgage? You can't finance the acquisition with someone's else's receivables, can you?
One of the reasons to get a lawyer involved in a real estate transaction is to ensure your property only has the encumbrances (or lack of them) that you bargained for, including a having all mortgages removed from title before you take it. It is routine but important work. Not something that happens automatically.
And don't call JR Shirley
I guess my point is that it feels fundamentally wrong to me that two parties can enter into a transaction to benefit at the expense of the third party, who may not even be aware that a transaction is being negotiated that they will pay for. The only time it makes sense is in the case of bankruptcy, but even then the creditors have a say in the proceedings instead of being quietly fleeced. Acquiring company's assets without the attaching liabilities that were essentially payments for the asset feels like something you do in 1990ies Russia.
Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2020, 09:49:08 AMAcquiring company's assets without the attaching liabilities that were essentially payments for the asset feels like something you do in 1990ies Russia.
With an APA, at least in the UK, it isn't that liabilities disappear, rather they stay with the seller.
Land is totally different here and there's no analogy between land law and anything else :lol:
My guess is that you can transfer this sort of intellectual property rights by assignment in an asset purchase, and that both the party assigning the right, and the party to whom the right is assigned, will ultimately be liable for paying royalties (as in: the purchaser can only purchase with the requirement to pay royalties, but if they fail to do so, the seller remains ultimately liable). Though who knows, that's for M&A lawyers to fight over. 😄
Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2020, 09:49:08 AM
I guess my point is that it feels fundamentally wrong to me that two parties can enter into a transaction to benefit at the expense of the third party, who may not even be aware that a transaction is being negotiated that they will pay for. The only time it makes sense is in the case of bankruptcy, but even then the creditors have a say in the proceedings instead of being quietly fleeced. Acquiring company's assets without the attaching liabilities that were essentially payments for the asset feels like something you do in 1990ies Russia.
Not sure what you are talking about. The third party isn't losing or paying anything.
Quote from: DGuller on November 19, 2020, 07:45:21 PM
Surely there have to be some protections against a transaction that transfers your house without transferring your mortgage? You can't finance the acquisition with someone's else's receivables, can you?
Sure it's called a "mortgage" :)
The whole point of the mortgage is that it creates a lien and secured interest that attaches to the asset. It can't be sold without discharging the mortgage assuming that that the lender takes the proper steps.
Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2020, 09:49:08 AM
I guess my point is that it feels fundamentally wrong to me that two parties can enter into a transaction to benefit at the expense of the third party, who may not even be aware that a transaction is being negotiated that they will pay for. The only time it makes sense is in the case of bankruptcy, but even then the creditors have a say in the proceedings instead of being quietly fleeced. Acquiring company's assets without the attaching liabilities that were essentially payments for the asset feels like something you do in 1990ies Russia.
The assumption in the statement is that the transaction is "at the expense" of the third party.
Let's say you have B(uyer), S(eller), T(hird Party)
S has an income generating asset worth $1 million, S owes T an income stream liability arising out that asset with an NPV of $800,000
S sells the asset to B for $1 million. S no longer has the asset but it does have $1 million in cash which is just as good. The transaction is not at the expense of T because S still has the same means to pay the liability just in different form.
Ah but what if the cash is dividended away or transferred out in salary or other means? Then it's off to bankruptcy land and preference claims and claims of fraudulent conveyance and the like.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2020, 01:53:52 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2020, 09:49:08 AM
I guess my point is that it feels fundamentally wrong to me that two parties can enter into a transaction to benefit at the expense of the third party, who may not even be aware that a transaction is being negotiated that they will pay for. The only time it makes sense is in the case of bankruptcy, but even then the creditors have a say in the proceedings instead of being quietly fleeced. Acquiring company's assets without the attaching liabilities that were essentially payments for the asset feels like something you do in 1990ies Russia.
Not sure what you are talking about. The third party isn't losing or paying anything.
The first party is Publisher A. Publisher A has an intellectual property, which it acquired with the help of Schmuck A (the third party), who in return is owed royalties. Publisher B (the second party) buys out Publisher A. Publisher B says to Schmuck A that it was Publisher A who owed them the royalties, an entity that doesn't exist anymore (because Publisher B bought it, but who cares?) As a result of a business transaction between Publisher A and Publisher B, Shmuck A pays for it by losing his royalties.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 20, 2020, 02:47:17 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2020, 09:49:08 AM
I guess my point is that it feels fundamentally wrong to me that two parties can enter into a transaction to benefit at the expense of the third party, who may not even be aware that a transaction is being negotiated that they will pay for. The only time it makes sense is in the case of bankruptcy, but even then the creditors have a say in the proceedings instead of being quietly fleeced. Acquiring company's assets without the attaching liabilities that were essentially payments for the asset feels like something you do in 1990ies Russia.
The assumption in the statement is that the transaction is "at the expense" of the third party.
Let's say you have B(uyer), S(eller), T(hird Party)
S has an income generating asset worth $1 million, S owes T an income stream liability arising out that asset with an NPV of $800,000
S sells the asset to B for $1 million. S no longer has the asset but it does have $1 million in cash which is just as good. The transaction is not at the expense of T because S still has the same means to pay the liability just in different form.
Ah but what if the cash is dividended away or transferred out in salary or other means? Then it's off to bankruptcy land and preference claims and claims of fraudulent conveyance and the like.
The liability is not tied to S, though, is it? It's tied to the company that S owned, which he sold in its entirety (except for all the liabilities, apparently). S can't be liable for the liabilities of his LLC, either before or after it was wholly acquired and dissolved, right? The royalties were tied to the corporation which magically disappears into ether, leaving behind its assets but not its liabilities.
DDGuller, can a corporation just "magically disappears into ether, leaving behind its assets but not its liabilities" in your state? Don't you guys have bankruptcy laws and the like? The assets of S include the million dollars that S got from B, and if his corporation starts to spend that money T is going to force them into bankruptcy when S's assets go below what S owes T. If S goes bankrupt T won't get the full $800,000, but the purpose of bankruptcy laws is to protect T's interests as much as possible.
Quote from: grumbler on November 20, 2020, 10:10:33 PM
DDGuller, can a corporation just "magically disappears into ether, leaving behind its assets but not its liabilities" in your state? Don't you guys have bankruptcy laws and the like? The assets of S include the million dollars that S got from B, and if his corporation starts to spend that money T is going to force them into bankruptcy when S's assets go below what S owes T. If S goes bankrupt T won't get the full $800,000, but the purpose of bankruptcy laws is to protect T's interests as much as possible.
S doesn't owe T anything. The corporation Shell Co LLC owed T the royalties, S merely owned Shell Co LLC before he sold it to Disney. It was Shell Co LLC that owed the royalties to T, may it rest in peace. S doesn't have a corporation anymore, he sold it, he just has the money that Disney paid him for Shell Co LLC.
What I am describing does sound like bankruptcy, except without the part where the creditors take over the ownership of the assets. That strikes me as extremely Wild West, so that's why I'm trying to clarify the legal situation.
Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2020, 10:18:15 PM
S doesn't owe T anything. The corporation Shell Co LLC owed T the royalties, S merely owned Shell Co LLC before he sold it to Disney. It was Shell Co LLC that owed the royalties to T, may it rest in peace. S doesn't have a corporation anymore, he sold it, he just has the money that Disney paid him for Shell Co LLC.
What I am describing does sound like bankruptcy, except without the part where the creditors take over the ownership of the assets. That strikes me as extremely Wild West, so that's why I'm trying to clarify the legal situation.
I'm not sure I understand how Shell Co LLC just "disappeared." S sold it to B, so the debts it had went to B. If S didn't sell Shell Co LLC to B, then it exists and received the million dollars that B paid for the asset T has an interest in.
Corporations, even LLCs, don't just "vanish." They can be dissolved by the state where they were incorporated (usually at the request of the owners), but even that process requires that all creditors be satisfied, or else they can force bankruptcy proceedings.
Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2020, 09:42:07 PM
The liability is not tied to S, though, is it? It's tied to the company that S owned, which he sold in its entirety (except for all the liabilities, apparently). S can't be liable for the liabilities of his LLC, either before or after it was wholly acquired and dissolved, right? The royalties were tied to the corporation which magically disappears into ether, leaving behind its assets but not its liabilities.
My example has only 3 parties - S, B, and T. You just added a fourth party and imagined some connections between them.
In my example, S is defined as the party owning the asset and owing the liability. Doesn't matter if it is an entity or natural person because entities have personality under state law.
You are hypothesizing a different example where DG LLC - a single member LLC controlled by the human person DG - owes a liability and owns an asset, DG LLC sells the asset but DG the person takes the money. That's a fraudulent conveyance and T can sue DG and claw the money back.
Okay, let's get back to the actual entities in the article. Disney acquired Lucasfilm. Some writers were owed royalties by Lucasfilm. Disney says "tough shit, the royalties were owed by a company called Lucasfilm, it's Disney now, Disney owes you bupkis". The first question is, are the writers now fucked out of royalties which they used to get, and the only reason they will stop getting them is because one company was acquired by another? If the answer to the first question is yes, then how is this different from my latest example, whether it involves three or four parties?
Lucasfilm still exists, doesn't it?
Quote from: The Brain on November 21, 2020, 04:10:58 AM
Lucasfilm still exists, doesn't it?
Unlike LucasArts, yes. :(
Quote from: The Brain on November 21, 2020, 04:10:58 AM
Lucasfilm still exists, doesn't it?
So they still exists and they're the ones owing royalties? The writers should just redirect their "where's my money" requests to Lucasfilm? If so, then that was the part that I was missing, and that made it sound implausible.
Quote from: DGuller on November 21, 2020, 09:21:53 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 21, 2020, 04:10:58 AM
Lucasfilm still exists, doesn't it?
So they still exists and they're the ones owing royalties? The writers should just redirect their "where's my money" requests to Lucasfilm? If so, then that was the part that I was missing, and that made it sound implausible.
My understanding is that Disney's position is that Lucasfilm no longer owes royalties (from before they bought it). I don't know if the royalty obligations were kept by the previous owner of Lucasfilm (and if so, where he put them), generously donated to the public domain, or simply taken out back and shot. None of them seems very likely, but rumor has it that Disney's legal team is better even than the President's, so who knows.
My understanding is that everything we know about this we only know through ADF and the SFWA, none of whom are lawyers and thus none of whom may understand Disney's actual position.
That doesn't make Disney's position any better; in fact, it makes it worse. Disney's position is apparently that they don't even need to publicly address the issue of very public non-payment of debts.
Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2020, 11:59:28 PM
Okay, let's get back to the actual entities in the article. Disney acquired Lucasfilm. Some writers were owed royalties by Lucasfilm. Disney says "tough shit, the royalties were owed by a company called Lucasfilm, it's Disney now, Disney owes you bupkis". The first question is, are the writers now fucked out of royalties which they used to get, and the only reason they will stop getting them is because one company was acquired by another? If the answer to the first question is yes, then how is this different from my latest example, whether it involves three or four parties?
The answer is I don't know because I don't know what the contracts look like. I don't know what the royalty obligation is or who or what entity owes it.
If Lucasfilm LLC owes royalties and Disney stripped assets out of Lucasfilm LLC without fair comp to defraud creditors, then Disney could be held liable., But I don't know if those are the facts.
In a case like this the first thing a lawyer does on intake is look at ALL the relevant contracts and the facts,
By the way, the "assets but not liabilities" purchase thing is familiar to me because I was a subscriber (a lifetime subscriber, in fact) to Strategy and Tactics magazine way back when dinosaurs roamed the earth. TSR "bought" SPI by loaning money while demanding that SPI put up all of it's intellectual and physical property as collateral. Facing bankruptcy, SPI took the loan and paid the most pressing of its creditors. Eleven days after making the loan, TSR foreclosed and took possession of all of SPI's properties, but none of its assets. Subscribers to S&T were just out of luck (as were the businesses that SPI owed money to). SPI itself filed for bankruptcy and apparently no one considered the TSR move as illegal asset stripping. Business creditors got a couple of pennies, and customer creditors got bupkis.
But that's not what happened here with the acquisition of Lucasfilm. Lucasfilm was bought by Disney, not foreclosed on.
Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2020, 11:59:28 PM
Okay, let's get back to the actual entities in the article. Disney acquired Lucasfilm. Some writers were owed royalties by Lucasfilm. Disney says "tough shit, the royalties were owed by a company called Lucasfilm, it's Disney now, Disney owes you bupkis". The first question is, are the writers now fucked out of royalties which they used to get, and the only reason they will stop getting them is because one company was acquired by another? If the answer to the first question is yes, then how is this different from my latest example, whether it involves three or four parties?
I suspect the main reason the writers are not getting paid by Disney is because the writers waived their rights as creators of the IP when they contracted with LucasFilm. That leaves them with only those contractual rights.
If you can share the relevant contractual terms of the deal the writers had then we would all be in a better position to answer your question.
The answer to your question is almost certainly not the one you asserted as being because "one company was acquired by another". If that was the case and this was a share sale then nothing would have changed. The writers would still need to rely on their contractual rights. You keep missing the distinction between an asset sale and a share purchase.
I strongly suspect you are playing dumb so we no longer accuse you of being an accountant. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 21, 2020, 01:23:22 PM
I suspect the main reason the writers are not getting paid by Disney is because the writers waived their rights as creators of the IP when they contracted with LucasFilm. That leaves them with only those contractual rights.
Yes, that's how every IP contract works. In the EU some IP rights (and the acompanying royalties) can't be legally waived by the authors but that's not the case in the US. That means that in practice (absent union contracts like the ones in the film industry) you only get the royalties that are covered in the contract (since there will be clause stating that you waive everything else).
But that means there has to be a clause allowing Lucasfilm to stiff the author after moving the license to Disney.
FWIW, I went and checked and the books in question are still being published by the same publisher that published them pre-takeover (Random House). So that part of the chain hasn't changed.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 21, 2020, 01:23:22 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2020, 11:59:28 PM
Okay, let's get back to the actual entities in the article. Disney acquired Lucasfilm. Some writers were owed royalties by Lucasfilm. Disney says "tough shit, the royalties were owed by a company called Lucasfilm, it's Disney now, Disney owes you bupkis". The first question is, are the writers now fucked out of royalties which they used to get, and the only reason they will stop getting them is because one company was acquired by another? If the answer to the first question is yes, then how is this different from my latest example, whether it involves three or four parties?
I suspect the main reason the writers are not getting paid by Disney is because the writers waived their rights as creators of the IP when they contracted with LucasFilm. That leaves them with only those contractual rights.
If you can share the relevant contractual terms of the deal the writers had then we would all be in a better position to answer your question.
The answer to your question is almost certainly not the one you asserted as being because "one company was acquired by another". If that was the case and this was a share sale then nothing would have changed. The writers would still need to rely on their contractual rights. You keep missing the distinction between an asset sale and a share purchase.
I strongly suspect you are playing dumb so we no longer accuse you of being an accountant. :P
I'm neither playing dumb nor asserting anything. I'm trying to figure out what the legal situation is, because given what was said earlier in the thread, it sounded to me like that it was Wild West capitalism. That's why I was trying to clarify in many different ways what the situation really was. This wasn't a legal debate, this was me trying to understand something.
Can't we just get past this law-talking mumbo jumbo and agree that Disney is scum, and the Mouse is really nothing more than an evil corporate mob boss?
Quote from: DGuller on November 21, 2020, 03:53:59 PM
I'm neither playing dumb nor asserting anything. I'm trying to figure out what the legal situation is, because given what was said earlier in the thread, it sounded to me like that it was Wild West capitalism. That's why I was trying to clarify in many different ways what the situation really was. This wasn't a legal debate, this was me trying to understand something.
It has been explained to you by at least three different people. If you are not playing dumb you are tragically slow on the uptake.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 21, 2020, 04:16:41 PM
Can't we just get past this law-talking mumbo jumbo and agree that Disney is scum, and the Mouse is really nothing more than an evil corporate mob boss?
Yes - the most evil corporate mob boss :)
Quote from: celedhring on November 21, 2020, 03:02:46 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 21, 2020, 01:23:22 PM
I suspect the main reason the writers are not getting paid by Disney is because the writers waived their rights as creators of the IP when they contracted with LucasFilm. That leaves them with only those contractual rights.
Yes, that's how every IP contract works. In the EU some IP rights (and the acompanying royalties) can't be legally waived by the authors but that's not the case in the US. That means that in practice (absent union contracts like the ones in the film industry) you only get the royalties that are covered in the contract (since there will be clause stating that you waive everything else).
But that means there has to be a clause allowing Lucasfilm to stiff the author after moving the license to Disney.
Perhaps. That sort of clause may have seemed a tradeoff worth making for the writers at the time as it may have seemed that LucasFilms was here to stay. It could also be that writers had a limited duration of compensation.
Either way there is a contractual explanation for what is occurring.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 21, 2020, 04:16:41 PM
Can't we just get past this law-talking mumbo jumbo and agree that Disney is scum, and the Mouse is really nothing more than an evil corporate mob boss?
No way man. Law is Life!
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 21, 2020, 04:18:35 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 21, 2020, 03:53:59 PM
I'm neither playing dumb nor asserting anything. I'm trying to figure out what the legal situation is, because given what was said earlier in the thread, it sounded to me like that it was Wild West capitalism. That's why I was trying to clarify in many different ways what the situation really was. This wasn't a legal debate, this was me trying to understand something.
It has been explained to you by at least three different people. If you are not playing dumb you are tragically slow on the uptake.
I guess I am tragically slow on the uptake then, but you know, you could be nicer in pointing that out. People tragically slow on the uptake are also sometimes curious about how legal issues work.
Certainly more so than ordinary folk.
Quote from: DGuller on November 21, 2020, 05:33:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 21, 2020, 04:18:35 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 21, 2020, 03:53:59 PM
I'm neither playing dumb nor asserting anything. I'm trying to figure out what the legal situation is, because given what was said earlier in the thread, it sounded to me like that it was Wild West capitalism. That's why I was trying to clarify in many different ways what the situation really was. This wasn't a legal debate, this was me trying to understand something.
It has been explained to you by at least three different people. If you are not playing dumb you are tragically slow on the uptake.
I guess I am tragically slow on the uptake then, but you know, you could be nicer in pointing that out. People tragically slow on the uptake are also sometimes curious about how legal issues work.
Seems he forgot he had several years of training.
Quote from: DGuller on November 21, 2020, 05:33:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 21, 2020, 04:18:35 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 21, 2020, 03:53:59 PM
I'm neither playing dumb nor asserting anything. I'm trying to figure out what the legal situation is, because given what was said earlier in the thread, it sounded to me like that it was Wild West capitalism. That's why I was trying to clarify in many different ways what the situation really was. This wasn't a legal debate, this was me trying to understand something.
It has been explained to you by at least three different people. If you are not playing dumb you are tragically slow on the uptake.
I guess I am tragically slow on the uptake then, but you know, you could be nicer in pointing that out. People tragically slow on the uptake are also sometimes curious about how legal issues work.
Bullshit. You were trying to establish your point that Western commercial law was like 1990s Russia. Evan after several people pointed out that the premise of your observation was flawed.
If you want to be treated nicely, then back down after saying stupid things.
:unsure:
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 23, 2020, 10:55:35 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 21, 2020, 05:33:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 21, 2020, 04:18:35 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 21, 2020, 03:53:59 PM
I'm neither playing dumb nor asserting anything. I'm trying to figure out what the legal situation is, because given what was said earlier in the thread, it sounded to me like that it was Wild West capitalism. That's why I was trying to clarify in many different ways what the situation really was. This wasn't a legal debate, this was me trying to understand something.
It has been explained to you by at least three different people. If you are not playing dumb you are tragically slow on the uptake.
I guess I am tragically slow on the uptake then, but you know, you could be nicer in pointing that out. People tragically slow on the uptake are also sometimes curious about how legal issues work.
Bullshit. You were trying to establish your point that Western commercial law was like 1990s Russia. Evan after several people pointed out that the premise of your observation was flawed.
If you want to be treated nicely, then back down after saying stupid things.
I was trying to establish what the Western commercial law really was like, because the explanations given made it sound to me like it was 1990s Russia (which I was sure was not the case, hence attempt to clarify). The point of my questions was either to clarify the explanation or my understanding of them, not to make any claims.