Hi all,
working on a thesis about copyright law and came across this little snippet from Jon Avner of Probstein & Weiner, an entertainment law firm based in New York City and Los Angeles. Does anyone know who the director is that he is talking about?
Original found at Can I Show It's A Wonderful Life?
working on a thesis about copyright law and came across this little snippet from Jon Avner of Probstein & Weiner, an entertainment law firm based in New York City and Los Angeles. Does anyone know who the director is that he is talking about?
Quote:
| First, here's a myth to break: everyone in show biz is a millionaire. Fact: the amount of actors, directors, writers, producers, etc. who are flat broke or at near poverty level is staggering. Including many well known celebrities of the past. They far out number the few who are wealthy, they have very little money and, out of the hundreds we have either represented or known personally, most are not pleased with the fact that not only can they not provide for their families today, but they will certainly not be able to provide for them when they are gone. Some time ago, a very well known writer and director came to us. He was once considered on par with Orson Welles. He was now living on social security in a small two bedroom cottage in Studio City filled with filmcans and other memories of his once glorious past. All of a sudden, there was a revived interest in his work. He wanted to market his works again with added materials, footage, anecdotes, etc. Almost like today's DVD film versions. He found a small reputable company that wanted to market these works not a big organization but small and reputable. They entered into a written licensing agreement. The only filed copyrights, however, were on the scripts which the writer/director duly filed and renewed but there were no filed copyrights on the final works (the company that actually produced the final works was long out of existence and never filed copyrights or renewals). But, based upon a proper interpretation of the copyright laws, the parties knew that all rights to the work belonged to the holder of the original work, viz. the writer/director. And, as per the usual licensing agreement, he was paid an advance and then thousands of dollars were spent on creating the added materials, improving the original masters, special packaging, promotion etc. and finally they were prepared to manufacture and distribute them all over the world. Neither the small reputable company nor the writer/director expected to make millions they just thought they could re-introduce this "auteur's" work to a whole new generation and, at the same time, make a small profit. On the other end of the country; however, was an individual who claimed he as a "collector" he actually ran an organization that duplicated and sold whatever he claimed was in the public domain. When he heard that not only was there a renewed interest in this writer/director's work but that there was a plan to market it he went to work. He knew that the writer/director had valid copyrights on the scripts (he at one time actually spoke to thewriter/director to see if he could get a license) but he felt that he could get away with marketing the works, which themselves had no copyright filings (as stated above, the company that actually produced the final works was long out of existence and never filed copyrights or renewals). His interpretation of the copyright law was that if the work is in the public domain, then he, being part of the public, had the right to do whatever he wanted with the works, which included the right to sell it to the public. Somehow, he obtained copies of the works second and third generation. Using these copies as "masters", he manufactured and distributed the works all over the place flooding the market with his cheaper versions which, because they were poorly produced, created a negative reaction and, in effect, destroyed the whole campaign of the writer/director and the small reputable company as distributors decided to drop the product. What the public wound up with was cheap versions which could hardly be utilized, without the added materials by the writer/director. This story does not have a happy ending. Although, we were able to go to court and win an infringement action - the market was already destroyed by then. This "collector/company" dragged out the proceedings for almost 5 years (we had to commence another suit just to collect on the judgment that we won that second suit also dragged on for another two years). Our law firm suffered a huge loss. And so did both the writer/director and the small reputable company: they had elected to recover actual damages as the statutory damages at that time was quite small but the court ruled that they were only able to recover their actual out of pocket expenses and not lost profits. The court also held that even though this was a case of "piracy" and willful infringement at its worst, punitive damages were not available under the Copyright Law (that aspect of the decision was upheld by the circuit court). The small reputable company almost went bankrupt the writer/director died shortly thereafter, virtually penniless and with a deep resentment towards "collectors" who helped create the renewed interest in his work but at the same time destroyed his ability to market what was rightfully his property not theirs. |
Original found at Can I Show It's A Wonderful Life?
