Sam Taylor-Johnson To Direct ‘Fifty Shades Of … 
Inside AMPAS Board Of Governors’ Meeting: Conflict Of … 
Glenn Geller To Run Current Programming For CBS & CBS … 
Shailene Woodley’s Mary Jane Role Cut From ‘The … 
‘Star Wars’ Cast Breakdown Unveiled 
CAA Signs Florian Henckel Von Donnersmarck, Oscar-Winning … 
UPDATE: Dan Abrams Named New ‘Nightline’ Anchor … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘The Voice’ Finale On Par … 
Joy Bryant Returns To Longtime Agent Steve Alexander At … 
ITV Pays $30M For Controlling Stake In ‘Hatfields … 
Hot Trailer: ‘Anchorman 2′ 
2ND UPDATE: Charlie Sheen Fired Selma Blair From … 
Time Warner Cable Sued For Passing Lakers-Dodgers Costs On … 
Jonah Hill Signs For Management With LBI 
TOLDJA! ‘Dumb And Dumber To’ Proves No-Brainer … 
Salma Hayek’s Animated Passion Project ‘The … 
Relativity Moves Scott Cooper’s ‘Out Of The … 
Hot Trailer: ‘The Lego Movie’ 
Comedy ‘I Didn’t Do It’ Gets Series Order … 
Liv Tyler To Co-Star In Damon Lindelof’s HBO Pilot … 
DreamWorks Animation Launches Effort To Re-Position Itself … 
This sneak peek of the disputed Watchmen movie just went up online. No, not on Warner Bros’ site, but on News Corp’s MySpace, the sister company to 20th Century Fox which as of last week appears to be winning its lawsuit for distribution rights to the film because of copyright infingement. I’ll post a status update after the video:
- WB Vows To Fight Fox Over ‘Watchmen’: Both Sides At Impasse; No WB Plans To Move Release Date
- WATCHMEN RULING: Where Was Larry?
- SHOCKER! Federal Judge To Side With Fox In Warner Bros ‘Watchmen’ Film Lawsuit
- ‘Watchmen’ Contracts & Court Documents
- SAVE US! Warner’s ‘Watchmen’ In Legal Peril After Judge Won’t Dismiss Fox Suit
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
I thought Myspace is always showing preview clips from ALL new movies anyway. Or do they only show movie clips from Fox? If so, I never really noticed.
Because MySpace is in line with WB targeted demographic for the release of the film? I think you’re reading a little too much into this.
A. Because nobody in the US would see it if it was on Bebo.
Well, in answer to the question posed by your headline, I’d say it’s because someone posted it on Myspace. According to the list of corresponding videos from this same individual they have also posted trailers for Twilight, Terminator: Salvation, and The Fast and the Furious sequel.
Not sure there’s any significance in this being on myspace.com but I will say that it looks amazing and would be a shame if Fox and WB can’t sort out their differences.
Even though Myspace is owned by News Corp., as far as I know it’s still run as if independently-owned… and so they negotiate their own partnerships, ad deals, etc.
Why? It’s quite obvious as to why. They now own the distribution rights to the movie and have much to gain from all of this noise. Simple.
Fox, if they had a rightful claim, should have come forth in a timely manner to assert their claim to the rights of Watchmen, but they didn’t. I cannot count the many times Warner Bros. has attempted to launch, and aborted, the production of The Watchmen. This was done openly, and was well reported among the media and public, with no interference, written warning, or legal action forwarded by Fox, et al. Warner openly went as far as hiring writers, and directors, in addition to commissioning film scripts for the production…and yet, Fox said nothing with reference to their so-called ownership claim to the rights of Watchmen, this…over years of film development on this production by Warner Brothers? Instead, Fox allowed Warner Bros. to raise finances for The Watchmen film, spend millions on production development, special effects R&D, costumes, sets, actors, filming, marketing, and advertisements, etc.–then after the film was well into production, they, Fox, claim ownership???
This was, is, a willful corporate tactic by Fox, one formed of malicious tampering, and corporate espionage of a kind. Fox’ claims were not filed in a timely basis…thus, Warner has, in my view, a multi-billion dollar counter claim against Fox, et al, for damages, should they choose to file it, in respect to the loss of their investment in The Watchmen movie, related product tie-ins/product licensing, advertisement and marketing campaigns, etc., all due to Fox tampering…by illegally using the courts, to do so–again, this based upon Fox’ foreknowledge of said ownership claims, or at least, foreknowledge that they should have had about said ownership, prior to Warner commencing production on Watchmen–rights that they failed to inform Warner Bros., et al, about; thus creating a situation of uniformed ignorance, where they, Fox–it could be argued, intentionally allowed…in order to lay in-wait to file this suspect lawsuit for the purposes of manufacturing a crime, were there was none, before–so they could demand a financial settlement (pay-out).
According to established law, a judge is not allowed to assist in a crime…or to allow a entity or person/persons, to cause the court to render its assistance in perpetrating a crime, or collecting a debt with respect to any alleged crime as perpetrated by one criminal, in the form of a theft, against another. This judge however, is willfully ignoring established case law in that regard. For instance, if a Prostitute robs a John of drug money, the John should not be allowed to recover his lost money, with the court’s assistance, or by any other means, as it was/is… money generated by illegal means. Or more to the point, if a young woman, age 17, enters a Over 21 Club…and a man 21 plus…meets her on premises, buys her drinks, and sleeps with her, that male, should not be later made a target of a statutory rape civil suit, since he would have every reason to believe that the young woman he met and slept with, was at least 21 years of age. The point is, he would have been the victim of a lure…one that entapped the male into committing a crime without his informed foreknowledge, that he indeed…was committing a crime. Once again, the alleged victim, entrapping the alleged defendant, into unknowingly committing a crime. Such is the case here, with Fox and Warner Bros. Fox’ failure to assert their legal claims, in a timely basis, before a crime was committed, and before their rights were infringed upon, knowing that such a situation was unfolding, but failng to take steps to inform Warner of the truth of the matter, should deprive them, Fox, of all legal standing in court, as this is a case of unlawful and predatory entrapment for the express purposes of filing a legal claim for monetary gain at a later time, using the courts as a third party participant in the commission of that crime, for the purposes of securing said monies, illegally, through an apparent legal means, that being the courts.
This should be the primary basis of Warner’s counter claims. Further, the court should grant Warner a substantial monetary award on any counter claims that they may file in this case–claims that they should file immediately, as a shot across Fox’ bow.
that’s exactly right.
@Media Messiah:
It’s pretty clear you’re not a lawyer and don’t understand the law. Even a first year law student knows that, in most states, statutory rape is a strict liability crime, meaning there is no “mens rea” requirement. In other words, it’s always a crime for an adult to have sex with a minor, even if the adult reasonably believed that the minor was an adult, even if they met at a bar or other place where only adults are allowed, etc. (There may be exceptions if, say, someone was pointing a gun at the adults head and forcing them to do it, or something like that, but if an adult willingly has sex with someone who is a minor, the fact that they every reason to believe that person was an adult doesn’t excuse them from the crime of statutory rape.)
Your legal reasoning with respect to Watchmen is equally flawed: Warners was required to acquire all of its rights before it started filimg, Fox was not required to assert its ownership claims before Warners started filming. It may be the case that Fox unreasonably delayed bringing its claims, but everything in the pleadings seems to indicate that Fox adequately put Warners on notice of its ownership claims in plenty of time. Under the statute of limitations, parties usually have ample time to (1) discover they potentially have a legal claim; (2) research its merits; and (3) attempt to negotiate a settlement out of court. If the law required parties to bring their claims right away, we’d have a much more clogged court system, and lots of folks with meritorious claims would get shut out.
To: Not A Lawyer
Informed intent to commit a crime, versus being illegally lured to commit said crime, without one’s willful intent to commit said crime or knowledge that they are a participant in a crime, that said victim has staged in order to implicate an otherwise innocent party, so they can later sue for monies…are two separate things. Fraud is fraud…and a judge cannot assist in forwarding a crime…where one party financially benefits from perpetrating said crime against another individual or individuals for purposes of profiteering. That is the law, not speculation. Yes, in such a case, one could argue fraud…the same as the reverse claim, where if a male should use fraud to elicit sexual consent from a woman, that can be considered a form of rape. As for the first example, there is no jury anywhere, including a Grand Jury, that would indite someone under such circumstances in a criminal court setting, likewise…a civil jury would likely decide in favor of the defendant. A lawyer can argue said points in court if allowed by a judge, in which case, if the argument is allowed, case law can be set, and often is. As per, Fox and Warner’s situation, there is established legal precedent for my stated argument that you cannot get around.
This is a case of entrapment by Fox. It happens all the time in the industry. Often times when a person or company feel that they have a case against another person or entity, they often allow that person or entity to fully manufacture or sell a product, including the subject of intellectual property, before coming forward to assert their rights–their way of forcing a hefty financial settlement after the damage has been done. Again, this is done all the time in the industry. The difference here, is that Fox should have known whether or not it had rights to Watchmen once Warner went public with its intent to make the film–at which point, Fox should have informed them of their belief that they, in fact, own the copyrights. They didn’t, thus…this is entrapment…and if they were not aware of their ownership rights at the time, that again, is Fox’ fault. Fox should have acted as soon as they learned there was an issue, which would have been some years ago…meaning, they should have acted within a timely basis, and or, within the statute of limitations once they learned that Warner Bros. was publishing press releases stating their intent to make the film. Once again, that was many years ago…and Fox said nothing, nor did they file a court case??? Since Warner was extremely public about making Watchmen, many years ago, Fox had the obligation to make its legal claims known at the time, if they believed they were the rightful copyright holders of Watchmen, if not to Warner, but to themselves. As you know, that can become an issue in court, why one has not acted in a timely basis in filing a lawsuit in regard to the statute of limitations. Fox has no excuse here–a company as large as theirs had to have known well in advance that Warner was publicly voicing its intent to make The Watchmen…but Fox did not act to stop them until the movie was actually filming, and mid-way through production???
This is a simple case of malfeasance by Fox. Others should not be punished for Fox’ willful criminal actions or ineptitude in running their business. The judge in this case is either bought, or an incompetent buffoon. Why Warner’s legal staff has not acted upon this information is grounds for their termination.
Fox’ negotiation ploy, is in essence, blackmail and extortion under the guise of legal negotiation. This amounts to someone allowing another party to sell a piece of merchandise at a garage sale that they co-own…and then later asserting that the purchaser stole the very merchandise which they bought right in front of the plaintive–who said nothing to stop the sale…nor did they make an effort to assert their rights???
As for myself, I am not a lawyer, but I did deal with 3 crooked lawfirms, two well known Hollywood lawfirms, and was central in winning a million dollar plus legal settlement–a case in which I was forced to instruct the lawyers in, including devising and employing legal tactics that I personally designed–all this, amid said lawfirms claiming what they could not, or would not act. My argument to them was that there is always a legal argument that one can forward in court and successfully win, and I was proven right. Ever heard of The Twinkie Defense???
let’s try that again…
“Because MySpace is in line with WB targeted demographic for the release of the film? I think you’re reading a little too much into this.”
…that’s exactly right.
@Media Messiah:
Your legal argument is incomprehensible.
The statute of limitations for copyright infringement is three years from the “last infringing act.” Even in the Ninth Circuit, there’s a strong presumption that claims brought within the limitations period are proper (other circuits go farther and hold that “laches” never applies to copyright claims because Congress laid out a specific limitations period in the copyright statute, but this case is in the Ninth Circuit, so that law applies here.)
But the kicker is that you seem to be arguing against a position that WB doesn’t even dispute, i.e. that Fox timely notified WB of its claims before the cameras began to roll.
The only dispute is on the interpretation of certain contracts (WB’s interpretation is that Fox gave up all rights, Fox’s interpretation is that they retained at least some rights). Uncivilsociety.org has the pleadings, you might want to check them out to understand the facts alleged by each party.
I think you’re reading too much into this…myspace is one of the best places to promote a film release, especially Watchmen. Makes sense that this sneak would be there…has nothing to do with the Fox vs. WB suit.
To: Not A Lawyer
Perhaps you are correct(?), but if I was representing Fox as the point person of its legal team, I would have asked for an injunction to stop the production from commencing in the first place. If you have a valid legal claim that you hold the sole, or partial, rights to disputed material(s)…and the financial means to assert your right in court, then it seems to me that you have a responsibility to do so in regard to seeking all available legal remedies to you…before allowing matters to reach such a stage as this?
The soul of this case is clearly to be found in those closed door negotiations between the two studios. If Fox was offering or talking a settlement deal to…and with…Warner Brothers, at any time during those negotations, then Warner would have the active belief that indeed they had the right, or would have the rights, to proceed with the production. Should that be the case, the judge should force both sides to settle, end of lawsuit, end of case.
@Media Messiah:
You’re still espousing a bizarre view: placing all of the burden on the copyright holder (and the courts) to prevent infringement. Why shouldn’t the infringer, the one who’s actually doing something wrong, have any obligation here?
For example, suppose you wrote a book (“The Autobiography of Media Messiah”) and a few years later you read in Variety, or on this blog, that WB had decided to make a film adaption of it. So you write WB a letter and say that you own the copyright in The Autobiography of Media Messiah, and that they don’t have your permission to make a film adaption. They write back and say they believe they own the rights so they’re going to ignore you and go ahead and film it anyways.
Your position seems to be that, if you don’t race into court and seek an injunction before they start filming, you lose your right to prevent WB from stealing your work. That’s an odd position: it creates a strong incentive for the copyright infringer — the wrong-doer — to game the system in order to get away with copyright infringement.
The way the law actually works is much more fair: a copyright holder generally has three years to assert a claim of infringement. That gives copyright holders time to discover they have a claim, research the merits of the claim, and try to negotiate a settlement out of court. If all of that fails, then the copyright holder might decide to take the costly (in terms of both time and money) step of filing a claim in court. If the copyright holder waits more than three years, they’ve exceeded the statute of limitations and can’t bring the claim.
But under your analysis, WB could deprive you of the benefit of the three-year statute of limitations by simply rushing their film adaption of your book into production. Why should the burden be on you, to take the difficult step of getting a court to issue an injunction before shooting even begins, in order to preserve your right to the copyright in your own book? Why shouldn’t the burden be on WB, who has no right to your book, to do adequate research and realize they don’t have the right to your book, before they start filming?
Finally, you suggest the court should “force both sides to settle.” What more, exactly, do you think the court should do? It interpreted the contracts in dispute, and said that, at the very least, Fox had the distribution rights to Watchmen. WB think the court got it wrong, and that it has exclusive rights. But the court looked at the actual contracts in dispute and found otherwise. So what more could the court do to get WB to settle at this point?
I’m not lawyer, but I oversaw the development and production of nearly sixty produced projects for television and cable, and chain of title is either clear or not clear, and any decent legal department will PRO-ACTIVELY prevent a deal being made on a title that is not cleared.
WB producing a movie based on rights they didn’t clearly own is just sheer incompetence on a massive scale. Even the crappy little $5 mil cable movies I worked on put enormous emphasis on having a clear chain of title before even commencing a writer or spending a dime at all. Remakes/sequels based on movies/tv shows from the 1960s-70s are especially complicated, since rights reversions could be divvied up into literary estates.
We did a cable movie remake once where it took us a year and a a half to identify the SIX living heirs who owned the domestic remake/sequel rights (the original studio still owned the foreign), and we could only find five of them as the sixth was a drug addict and homeless. Our legal department said NO GO until our brilliant producer suggested putting the amount of money we negotiated with the five other rights-holders into escrow for the homeless guy. Everyone signed off, and we finally hired a writer, and the movie got made with an A-level cast with a multiple Emmy winning director, and of course the network just threw the film away.
Sorry for the digression. WB legal f’d up, and it is the perogative of Fox to stomp them into the ground for it. This business ain’t a charity, and you don’t steal someone else’s toy without expecting them to squawk.
I just saw a Japanese trailer for Watchmen. I love the lone gunman shot. So one of the heroes killed Kennedy? Nice history revision. This looks great!!!
Warner’s argument in court will be this. Fox had a chance to make this film if they really wanted to, before this film went into turn around, but they didn’t…thus, the rights were sold to parties elsewhere. The judge has said that in his view, Fox has distribution rights, but, he did not say that Warner does not own the actual movie and the print masters of the film, and the rights to them…which by implication, he is clearly suggesting that Warner is the sole owner of said rights, and did in fact, acquire those rights successfully. Hence, there would have to be a settlement, but if Fox wants a stake in the film, they have to assume some cost, at least half of the cost for production, prints, promotions and advertisements, etc. Absent of that, they aren’t seriously negotiating and it seems what they are really up to, is trying to interfer with, and obstruct, Watchmen’s release, because they view it as something that can undermined their X-Men franchise, beginning with, but not limited to…Wolverine…this summer’s X-Men, spin off film. This is just a corporate game of industrial espionage, using the courts to forward that agenda. And yes, as I said in a prior post, the judge is now suggested that both sides settle the case in court. And if the judge has to, he should order a one time, 50 to 100 million dollar pay-out to Fox from Warner…and end the case unilaterally–from there, allowing the appeals courts to deal with the matters at hand.
@Media Messiah:
You’re making several mistakes. First, you conclude that, because the judge rule that Fox has distribution rights, Warner owns all other rights. Not so. The judge has not yet ruled on any of the other rights — that is still an open question.
But even if Warner did own all of the other rights, you continue espousing the odd position that it’s appropriate to place all of the burden on the copyright infringer, rather than the copyright holder.
Let’s assume, for the moment, that Fox has the distribution rights to Watchmen, while WB has the rights to the print masters of the Zach Snyder version. WB can’t distribute the film because Fox holds those rights, but Fox can’t distribute the movie either since WB owns the rights to the prints. So if Fox *wants* to distribute the film, it needs to negotiate an agreement with WB. But you suggest that Fox should be *forced* to pay half of the production/advertising/etc. costs, or *forced* by the judge to pay WB a one-time payment of $50-$100 million. What if Fox doesn’t want a stake in the film? Maybe Fox thinks they’d end up losing money. Or maybe Fox thinks that, with the state of the economy, the money is better spent elsewhere. Or maybe Fox even thinks, as you suggest, that the release of Watchmen in March would compete with other Fox films and end up causing Fox to lose lots of money on those films. Why aren’t any of those reasons legitimate? Why should Fox be forced to buy a stake in a film that it told WB not to make in the first place because WB didn’t have all of the rights to begin with? The whole point of having “rights” is that you have a choice — the choice to exercise them, or the choice to not exercise them. But you’re turning that on its head — you’re saying that, if Fox has the distribution rights, that means they should be forced to distribute the film, and forced to pay WB $50-$100 million. What basis do you have for taking away their freedom of choice?
Hello, Not A Lawyer
As far as forcing hands in cases, judges do it all the time. They like to use the term, “Splitting The Baby” and they act on it, more often, than not. Fox seems to be demanding to be made partner here in this movie? If they are in fact insisting on having distribution rights for this movie, then they are also saying that they wish to distribute the movie, if not, they should demand a buyout of their rights, or ask for damages, if, as you suggest, they are not interested in partnering with Fox. There have been some talk that WB did, and does in fact, have the right to make the film, so…if that is the case…something has to break, here. I think the courts will be compelled to side in favor of the WB if Fox claims that they wish to block distribution of the film entirely, or even partially, rather than assuming the role of distributor and partner in the production, I think they will undermine their position as serious players here in this case, thus, the judge may compel WB to pay Fox damages and allow the release through the WB as a judgement…should both sides agree to a trail or settlement negotiations with him as the sole arbiter.
Fox assumes zero risk here financially, while the WB has assumed all the financial risk. The point is, if Fox wants the distribution rights, and if WB has the rights to make the film, then…Fox has to agree to a fair deal for distribution for a film the size of Watchmen given the market expectations–meaning, they have to agree to either buy into the production, and or, invest sizable amounts of money into distribution with up to 2,500 to 3,500 film prints plus–just for North America alone. Absent of that, the judge would have to agree, if would not be fair to the WB for Fox to either refuse to distribute the film, or dstribute it in limited release…again, given the expense of the budget of the film and the level of anticipation for said property…Fox would be viewed as simply attempting to interdict the competition for financial (protectionism like) reasons, and that won’t play well in court.
@Anonymous:
I’m not sure if I fully understand your position, but it seems to be in line with Media Messiah’s earlier stance, namely, that a copyright infringer can impose obligations on a copyright holder, simply by spending lots of money to do something they don’t have a right to do.
For the moment, let’s assume you’re initial premise is correct, i.e. that WB owns the right to the Zach Snyder version of Watchmen, and Fox owns the distribution rights to any film version of Watchmen (Zach Snyder or otherwise). You state:
if Fox wants the distribution rights, and if WB has the rights to make the film, then…Fox has to agree to a fair deal for distribution for a film the size of Watchmen given the market expectations–meaning, they have to agree to either buy into the production, and or, invest sizable amounts of money into distribution with up to 2,500 to 3,500 film prints plus–just for North America alone.
What you’re saying, then, is if Fox wants to hold on to the rights it already owns (the distribution rights), it has to buy in for a stake of the film made by WB. Why is that fair? WB, of its own free will, went ahead and made an expensive film even though they didn’t have the right to distribute it — why should that be rewarded, by forcing Fox to become a partner in the film against its will? What if WB had spent $10 billion on the film (a truly ludicrous amount)? Under your rationale, Fox would be required to pay WB $5 billion or lose its distribution rights! That’s not how “rights” work — as I said in my earlier post, rights are about freedom of choice. Choosing to not exercise a right doesn’t mean that you therefore lose that right. I’ll ask you the same question I asked Media Messiah: what basis do you have for saying that Fox should be deprived of their freedom to choose whether or not to exercise their distribution right?