Blog« back to blog homeSubscribe to RSS feed
Month: September, 2012
‘Walking Dead’ Writer, Artist Settle Lawsuits
Category: Press | Tuesday, September 25th, 2012 | Comments Off on ‘Walking Dead’ Writer, Artist Settle Lawsuits
Robert Kirkman, author of “The Walking Dead” comics that inspired the hit AMC zombie series, has reached a settlement over payments for the work of their original artist, Tony Moore.
The two childhood friends said they had resolved to “move on in their lives.”
Moore sued Kirkman in February, accusing Moore, a frequent comic collaborator, of tricking him into surrendering his rights to the early issues of “Walking Dead” in 2005 in exchange for payments that never came. Kirkman called the allegations “ridiculous,” and in turn sued Moore.
The gritty, realistic series — well, realistic except for the walkers — became a huge success and inspired the massive cable drama. Its third season will premiere next month.
Kirkman had made a joke months before the lawsuit was filed that Moore’s lawyer suggested could come back to haunt him if the case went to trial. In an interview for the Nerdist podcast, Kirkman was asked by an aspiring comic writer how to find an illustrator, and recommended, with tongue-in-cheek, “trickery and deceit.”
When TheWrap brought the remark to the attention of Moore’s lawyer, Devin McRae, McRae responded: “As the saying goes, in all humor there’s truth. And also, I think from my client’s perspective, Mr. Kirkman is clearly speaking from experience.”
But the conflict is buried now.
“Robert Kirkman and Tony Moore are pleased to jointly announce that they have reached an amicable agreement in their respective lawsuits and all parties have settled the entire matter to everyone’s mutual satisfaction,” the said in a joint statement. “Neither side will be discussing any details but will instead happily and productively spend their time focused on their own work and move on in their lives.”
Source: Tim Molloy, The Wrap
How an ‘Innocence of Muslims’ Lawsuit Could Impact Hollywood (Analysis)
Category: Press, Uncategorized | Friday, September 21st, 2012 | Comments Off on How an ‘Innocence of Muslims’ Lawsuit Could Impact Hollywood (Analysis)
If an actress is able to get past any written agreement she signed and convince a judge that she worked on a film under fraudulent pretenses, more controversy could be around the bend.On Wednesday, Cindy Lee Garcia, an actress featured in the controversial film Innocence of Muslims, sued [3] for allegedly being deceived into working in a “hateful anti-Islamic production.”
The lawsuit against producer Sam Bacile (aka Nakoula Basseley Nakoula) has garnered headlines because the film sparked rioting throughout the Middle East and North Africa. And if there wasn’t a big political/religious dimension to the litigation, it would still command interest because of the inclusion of Google/YouTube as a defendant. Garcia demands that the web giant remove the film from the video site because it allegedly violates her publicity and privacy rights and is damaging her. Takedowns already are controversial. This lawsuit raises the stakes by questioning whether there are circumstances beyond copyright infringement that necessitate a video’s removal.
But there’s another aspect to this case that’s also important and could cause much trouble in Hollywood: the relationship between actors and producers.
When most people agree to do a job, and that job turns out to be different than what is first represented, there’s easy recourse: The person quits.
For actors, it’s not that simple. The work might happen on set, but the performance happens onscreen, after producers, directors and editors tinker with the results of the footage shot. Catch an actor in a candid moment, and many will admit to having had a bad performance saved in postproduction — or complain of a good job ruined by all the tinkering.
Garcia is upset because the film didn’t turn out the way she expected. This is certainly a highly unusual situation. She says she was led to believe via a casting notice that she was working on an “historical Arabian Desert adventure film” and it turned into Innocence of Muslims, which she says caused her to lose her job, contact with her grandchildren and her sense of security. (The film has only been published [4] as a 14-minute “trailer,” so it’s hard to say what it is at this point.)
But it’s also not hard to re-imagine her lawsuit under different guises.
She says in the complaint [6]:
“Defendant Bacile’s representations that he intended to make an ‘adventure’ film, and that Plaintiff would be depicted as a concerned mother, were false. Instead, Defendant Bacile made an anti-Islam propaganda film, in which Plaintiff is falsely made to appear to accuse the founder of the Islamic religion of being a sexual deviant and child molester.”
Now imagine if the complaint said this:
“Defendant Paul Thomas Anderson’s representations that he intended to make a ‘buddy’ film, and that Plaintiff Joaquin Phoenix would be depicted as an up-and-comer, were false. Instead, Defendant Anderson made an anti-Scientology propaganda film (The Master), in which Plaintiff is falsely made to appear to be victim to a cult.”
Or maybe this:
“Defendant Jerry Bruckheimer’s representations that he intended to make an ‘adventure’ film, and that Plaintiff Jake Gyllenhaal would be depicted as a strong male lead, were false. Instead, Defendant made a film (Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time) that caused audiences to laugh at him.”
One of the big questions here is the latitude producers and directors have in straying from the script. How legally protected is something like editing? Perhaps the sacrosanctity of postproduction is not a given, and representations made during the casting process are paramount.
Of course, Hollywood lawyers have imagined such legal nightmares, albeit not the kind that cause anti-U.S. uprisings. That’s why actors typically are made to sign written agreements, which raises the single most glaring thing missing from Garcia’s lawsuit: There’s no mention of the contract she signed. What exactly did she waive rights to?
“Typically, a producer has the right to edit footage and leave an actor’s performance on the cutting-room floor,” says David Stern, an attorney at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell. “Nearly all acting agreements grant such rights to the producer and, further, bar the actor from seeking injunctive relief to stop the distribution and exhibition of a film. Even SAG acting agreements confer these rights to the producer. There is no duty to explain to an actor the political or societal implications of a project. In many films directed by Woody Allen, the actor does not get to see any portion of the script other than the actor’s lines.”
Other attorneys in Hollywood agree.
“Her best claim is false light because she agreed to perform a certain role and then her image was used for something else that damaged her,” says Bryan Sullivan at Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae. “But it depends on what the contract says because the rights granted in them are typically broad and don’t give the actors much input.”
So the first thing that a judge probably would look at is Garcia’s contract. One of the things she’s suing for is violation of her publicity rights. If Garcia didn’t consent to the use of her image, the producer could be liable — not for an inflammatory film (free speech, naturally) but rather for professional negligence.
Assuming there is a contract with standard boilerplate language, Garcia probably will have a tough time winning this case — but maybe not an impossible one. As Sullivan suggests, there might be some wiggle room because of the unusual circumstances. The attorney adds that the key factors will be what was said about the script, what she knew and when she knew it.
If Garcia is able to convince a court that allegedly fraudulent pretenses should nullify whatever contract she signed, it could begin a slippery slope toward more claims like these in Hollywood. Nowadays, final cut goes to the person with the most bargaining power; in the future, it might really end up being with the person with the best lawyers.
Source: Eriq Gardner, Hollywood Reporter Esq.
Liberty Hill Foundation Honors Bryan Sullivan At ChangeLA Event
Category: News | Friday, September 21st, 2012 | Comments Off on Liberty Hill Foundation Honors Bryan Sullivan At ChangeLA Event
On September 15, 2012, Bryan Sullivan received the NextGen Leadership Award from the Liberty Hill Foundation at its annual ChangeLA Event at the W Hotel in Hollywood recognizing Bryan’s philanthropic commitments, progressive activism, and pro bono legal work. The Liberty Hill Foundation noted that “Bryan has maintained a high level of community service by raising funds for progressive nonprofits like Bet Tzedek.
He co-founded BASTA, a Los Angeles non-profit tenants’ rights group that has grown from two to thirty employees. He is a founding board member of the Lion Fund For Children, a pending non-profit organization dedicated to helping sex abuse victims. Bryan is also pro-bono counsel and corporate secretary to I VOTE Nation. Over 200 people attended the event and it raised over $36,000 for The Liberty Hill Foundation.
Gov ordered to submit bill to pay Laufou fire judgement
Category: News, Press | Saturday, September 1st, 2012 | Comments Off on Gov ordered to submit bill to pay Laufou fire judgement
Sources say amount could exceed $8 MIL and counting
The High Court has issued an “alternative writ” directing Gov. Togiola Tulafono to submit for legislative approval, legislation to pay the court judgement of more than $6 million against the American Samoa Government over the fire about a decade ago that destroyed the old Laufou Shopping Center.
The writ was based on a petition filed last week by attorneys for Progressive Insurance Company (Pago Pago) Limited, the insurance company for Laufou.
The writ to respondent Togiola Tulafono, in his capacity as governor, states that it “appears from the verified petition on file in this action that you have failed to perform your legal duty under A.S.C.A 43.1212(c) and that petitioner, the party beneficially interested, has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law,” according to the writ dated Aug. 27, signed by Associate Justice Lyle L. Richmond.
(According to the statute, ASCA 43.1212 titled “Payment of judgment or settled claim” and subsection (c), which states that, if any claim is allowed, settlement made or judgment rendered in excess of $25,000, the governor shall forward legislation appropriating funds for the payment of such amount to the Legislature, at its next regular session, for action. Additionally, the Treasurer is authorized to pay such amount as may be appropriated there-for by the Legislature.)
“Therefore, you are commended on or before Sept. 7, 2012, to forward legislation to the Legislature appropriating funds for the payment of petitioner’s judgement” in the amount of $6 million plus post-judgement interest at 6% from July 24, 2007 to the date of payment.
In the alternative, to show cause before the court on Sept. 14, 2012 “why you have not done so,” the order states.
How much the government will have to pay in total including the post judgement remains unclear but some in the legal community told Samoa News that it is probably over $8 million and counting.
The FY 2013 budget under Special Program budget category appropriates only $1 million for this case, which government calls in the budget document a post judgement case involving tort claims for the fire that destroyed the old Laufou, and following an appeal that vacated a judgement of $6.6 million, the Trial Division of the High Court entered a new judgement for the same amount.
ASG is presently appealing this second judgement but believes it will be prudent to set aside funds to pay the judgement if the Appellate court rules against ASG and therefore $1 million is sought in the budget document.
Progressive’s petition came after the Trial Court earlier this month which denied the government’s motion to alter or amend the judgement in this case. (See details in Aug. 9th edition of Samoa News)
Source: samoanews.com
Early Sullivan obtained the judgment and writ.