Slashdot Mirror
The Lawsuit of the Rings
securitas writes "The New York Times' Ross Johnson reports that Lord of the Rings trilogy director, Peter Jackson, is suing New Line Cinemas for underpaying him by as much as $100 millon. The lawsuit filed Feb. 28 alleges that New Line committed fraud. Jackson 'reportedly receives about 20 percent of the gross revenue realized by New Line for the trilogy, minus expenses such as taxes.' Jackson's lawyer confirmed that of the more than $4 billion that New Line collected from revenues, merchandise and licensing, Jackson has received 'almost $200 million to date from New Line for the trilogy.' If the opening line doesn't make you want to read the article, I don't know what will: 'What if Frodo Baggins, instead of confronting the evil empire in "The Lord of the Rings," just got himself a lawyer and sued?'"
From TFA:
Well, that's a silly question...between 'professional courtesy' and 'conflict of interest', no lawyer would ever take the case against the evil empire.... ^_^
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
I guess this doesn't look good for PJ to make The Hobbit with New Line.
Well, the movie wouldn't have been as good, though we probably would have seen more riots on TV, with the police whacking/tear gassing geeks dressed up as elves and hobbits. It certainly would have made the evening news more entertaining anyway.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
...He would have lost the case because Sauron would be able to afford better lawyers.
Truely cripped...
Everyone knows Sauron has the best lawyers in the land.
At least he was smart enough to get a percentage of the gross. The author of Forest Gump was promised a percentage of the profit. The studio claimed that there was no profit. Some of the most creative people in Hollywood are the accountants.
[Insert pithy quote here]
"Justice IS Tenacious" - a new inscription from our collection of lawyer rings. The tradition of giving lawyers rings upon admittance to the Bar began in England in the early 1400's. These simple bands were inscribed in Latin around the outside with a verse that referred to a legal ideal. Our's reads "Justice Tenax" (Justice is Tenacious). The original of this ring can be found in the collection of the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple, London. Ring is cast in sterling silver or in 14 kt. gold and completely hand finished and hand polished. Gold rings available with an antique finish if requested. Gift box included. Lawyer Of The Rings
The bikini - security through obscurity since 1943
It has nothing to do with whether or not he *needs* the money. If it's in his contract he's entitled to it, period.
How many folks out there would appreciate their employers under-paying them because "they had already been paid enough", or some such non-sense?
So let me get this straight.... he doesn't deserve what the contract you signed with him says because he can already choke all the worlds hippos with his cash?
"Nassty New Line Cinemas...we hates them!"
"I told you they were tricksy...I told you they were false..."
^_^
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
What if Frodo Baggins, instead of confronting the evil empire in "The Lord of the Rings," just got himself a lawyer and sued?
Possession is 9/10 of the law. Even had Frodo been able to get a restraining order in time, even a +5 vorpal restraining order ain't gunna stop a pack of Nazgul from performing an early morning BATF raid at Bag End.
Real life example: Someone I know(tm), had a large (~$30,000) amount taken by the IRS over a disputed tax account. Just taken, as in dissappeared from bank accounts. Someone at the IRS actually said verbatim, "Yeah we're probably wrong, but we have your money. Now try and get it back."
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan
I think this lawyer from New Line sums it up pretty well....
"Peter Jackson is an incredible filmmaker who did the impossible on 'Lord of the Rings,' " this lawyer said. "But there's a certain piggishness involved here. New Line already gave him enough money to rebuild Baghdad, but it's still not enough for him."
Jackson was quoted as saying "yessss. my precioussss 100 million dollarsss." and then proceeded to devour a live sea bass.
Says one of New Line Cinema's lawyers FTA:
"..there's a certain piggishness involved here. New Line already gave him enough money to rebuild Baghdad, but it's still not enough for him."
Why does it matter if he already has tons of money? How is that an argument to not give him what you owe him? You can rip him off because he's rich already?
There are 2 kinds of people in this world. Those that can keep their train of thought,
Well, it's not about how much money he has, but how much he legally contracted for with New Line Cinemas. The real problem is that this sort of thing goes on all the time, such as with musicians getting bilked out of some of the money they are owed for royalties. Peter Jackson simply has enough money to be able to effectively sue for what he is owed. Your ordinary musician usually can't even see the books to see how much they are really owed, let alone be able to effectively sue for back royalties.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
From TFA:
"Peter Jackson is an incredible filmmaker who did the impossible on 'Lord of the Rings,' " this lawyer said. "But there's a certain piggishness involved here. New Line already gave him enough money to rebuild Baghdad, but it's still not enough for him."
I think that statement falls under the Ad Hominem fallacy category.
Ronald said nothing. He flung himself from the room, flung himself upon his horse, and rode madly off in all directions.
this lawyer said. "New Line already gave him enough money to rebuild Baghdad, but it's still not enough for him."
It doesn't matter if new line gave him $1 or $1 billion. If it is not what his contract says he gets then it doesn't matter if it is too much money. Shouldn't a lawyer be keenly aware of that.
As for what he should get. It seems that he is complaining that the rights to the toys he made were sold below market value to a sister company of newline. If he wanted to get revenue from the toys he should have added a clause in his contract. On the one hand I am disgusted at newline trying to hide money, on the other I don't feel all that bad for Peter Jackson not getting $100M in toy sales.
Just another example of huge conglomerates not serving the country's best interest anymore. Time to start revoking some corporate charters if you ask me!
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
"Peter Jackson is an incredible filmmaker who did the impossible on 'Lord of the Rings,' " this lawyer said. "But there's a certain piggishness involved here. New Line already gave him enough money to rebuild Baghdad, but it's still not enough for him." Sure it's a lot of money. But his contract was for more. I like how they think they have paid him enough and NOT what his contract was for. And then turn around and say it's piggishness
yea, it really sucks when people get the compensation they deserve for producing great works! the nerve of that man! movie producers deserve all the money in the world. all that work they have to do surely justifies the stranglehold they have on the creative medium known as movies.
if you read the article (which it appears you neglected to, surprise surprise) Mr. Jackson claims that new line basically sold away the merchandise rights without taking bids, which would have resulted in millions of more dollars being made. a poor business decision no doubt, since it resulted in significantly lower profits.
the writeup itself is also flawed, as the NYT is using an anonymous quote from one of the parties involved, ostensibly the defense, which is against its own policies regarding anonymous quotes.
turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
Lawsuits in Hollywood are hardly personal. PJ may be taking it personally, but the corperate zombies at a Hollywood studio only look at making more money.
This lawsuit will get taken care of then it will pave the way for The Hobbit if NewLine thinks they can make even more money. Money money money. It may even get resolved by promising PJ that he can produce/direct The Hobbit and take an even bigger stake in the profits...or something.
It's all red tape and shady book-keeping anyway. Arthur Anderson and the accounting they did for Enron were amatuers compared to Hollywood accountants.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
It doesn't take creative accounting to make zero profit. MANY MANY small businesses are run like this so as to minimize the tax impact.
My point is that it's not just Hollywood. It is a preferred method for many people all across America.
Now, having said that, negotiating for a cut of the net profit is just a bad idea. For anything. By doing so, you give the payor the opportunity to let his costs get out of control without any negative consequences.
Hobbiton: Wealthy hobbit Frodo Baggins today filed a lawsuit against the Dark Lord Sauron claiming damages from an army of orcs, as well as personal injury from the so-called "One Ring."
The charges brought up against Sauron include: The invasion of Rohan and Gondor via orcs, trolls, and evil men; the scouring of the Shire; the corruption of Saruman the White and the subsequent turning of Isengard into a fortress of evil; and, last but certainly not least, the use of a Ring of Power to twist the mind of the young hobbit.
Frodo's legal counsel, one Tom Bombadil, believes that the prosecution has a very good chance of winning. "La de da," Mr. Bombadil sang, "all of my elves are very happy and joyous! And we love singing too! La la la..." At that, this reporter proceded to stab him several times with a nearby broadsword.
In court today, the defense for Mr. Sauron called forth one Smeagol, more commonly known as Gollum. When asked whether Mr. Baggins could be trusted, Gollum commented, "They STOLES it from us! Filthy, tricksy hobbitses! They STOLES my preciousssss!" Sauron's defense then proceded to testify that, due to the fact that Mr. Baggins' father was, in fact, recruited as a "burglar" by the late Thorin Oakenshield, and the fact that he did indeed steal the ring from Mr. Gollum, Frodo's entire testimony concerning the ring was suspect. Frodo's counsel did not offer a rebuttal.
Sauron's lawyers declined to comment on any of the charges being brought up before them, except with a very cryptic, "One Countersuit to rule them all..."
Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
Its called marketing, I mean seriously, none of you actually beleive they lose money doing it? I mean they are BUYING services from a subsidiary of their own freaking company. Thats why half the "Box Office Bombs" actually end up making money for these assholes, they never spent the money to begin with, they just transfered it around.
The day companies like New Line legitimatly dont cook the books and underpay directors and writers etc, is the day the earth will be consumed by 500,000 mile tall aliens as a snack.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
What if Frodo Baggins, instead of confronting the evil empire in "The Lord of the Rings," just got himself a lawyer and sued?
Hmm, who would have been cast?
Frodo: Joe Pesci
Sam: Chris Farley
Merry: Adam Sandler
Pippin: Ben Stiller
Gimli: The Pat character from SNL
Legolas: Calista Flockheart (Ally McBeal)
Gandalf: Jack Nicholson
Aragorn: Antonio Banderas
Boromir: Ahnold
Elrond: Christopher Walken
Saruman: Crispin Glover
Arwyn: never happen, because this was a hokey non-character to begin with...
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2121636
If it wasn't Peter Jackson, people would be raising all sorts of "greedy pig" ruckus.
Doubt it. Because even as greedy a pig as the director might seem for making well into nine digits and still wanting more, the studios are EVEN GREEDIER PIGS for trying to keep the director's money for themselves.
If there's no Little Guy to root for in this case, there's at least still The Smaller of Two Giants.
If an actor is shorted and receives $50k instead of $75 is it fine for them to sue?
I wish I could be shorted like that
I seem to remember most characters in Middle Earth didn't recognise what hobbits were at all. Hobbits don't travel much and so outside of the Shire they were bascially unknown. I'm not even a Tolkien geek and I know this.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
AIUI the essence of his suit is that the company gave merchandising etc. deals to members of the same conglomerate when they could have made more money on the film by opening them up for competition. If he wins we should see more contracts being opened up for everyone to bid on, and possibly more separation of the big media conglomerates.
I am trolling
I love the quote where they say they gave Jackson "enough money to rebuild Baghdad, but it wasn't enough". They try to make him sound greedy, to cover up the fact that he's basically suing them for... being greedy.
It seems to me that there is a big problem with media integration today. The big media empires are interested in merchandising an idea to death. They take a popular (and sometimes unpopular) story and transform it into every medium possible: books, movies, TV shows, music, Musicals, toys, icecapades, etc. Just look at what disney does to its movies. You will see it spun-off in every possible way within their own company to make money (Disney Channel, RadioDisney, Disney Books, etc.)
And while I don't really have a problem with this, I just fear that it ultimately creates a dirth of new ideas that take off because the large media empires favor existing popular concepts rather than take a chance on something new. This coupled with media consolidation is a bad thing, as it means the outlets for new and creative ideas are few and far between.
There really shouldn't be any mixed feelings. We should not call Peter Jackson greedy, we should not say that New Line "bet the farm" - because honestly, if the movie tanked they would still be around. All you have to do is look at the facts: Peter Jackson had a contract, New Line is trying to violate that contract, hence New Line is in the wrong. The one line their lawyer said about Jacksons "Piggishness" is flagrant and I would hope to get better out of a lawyer. New Line, if anything is the greedy bastards here. Jackson just wants his due. He helped make New Line 4 Billion dollars.
Imagine this - you have a contract with your boss that any new inventions you make, you get 2.5% of the gross profit (remember no gross profit = no paycheck). You make your boss an invention that gets him 10 billion dollars. You are entitled to 250 million. They want to give you half of that because they think half is more then enough... How would you feel? Also remember, it was your reputation on the line.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
...and ignoring that there may well be a big breach of contract here, ask yourself this, "would it be okay if a corporation used open source code in a product and released 75% of the source? Would that be enough?"
I think now you see that it is a matter of the contract, the fine print, etc., and not some inane knee-jerk response of "he got enough".
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
If it's in his contract he's entitled to it, period.
I RTFA and it is a little weak on detail, but it appears that PJ got what he was entitled to.
The article seems to be saying that New Line sold off merchandising rights to companies within the Time Warner family rather than sell to the highest bidder.
The suit contends that NL would have made more money, and therefore PJ would have recieved a higher cut, if the merchandising rights were sold on the open market.
For everyone who posted that a contract is a contract, it would seem that if NL never promised to sell to the highest bidder, then NL met all the terms of the contract and PJ got what he deserved.
How many folks out there would appreciate their employers under-paying them because "they had already been paid enough", or some such non-sense?
I wonder if I could sue our sales department for not generating enough revenue?
Can you believe this quote by the lawyer. Note, "New Line already gave him enough money.." this implies:
1. New Line can retroactively decide what you get.
2. this vertical integration is techically an interesting idea where every department justifies its existence by "charging" other departments for providing a service they are already paid to do.
3. a case of the kettle calling the pot black. Warner obviously wants to make buckets of money, and wants to make more, who doesn't?
4. It is now not unusual for actors/directors etc to take a pay cut or not get paid at all, for a percentage of the profits.
Little old ladies spill orc-draught on their laps and sue McDurthang's.
Constant environmental-impact lawsuits from Fangorn every time someone does as much as mow their lawn or trim a bush.
Pippin sues "The Prancing Pony" for lodging payment, saying "Nazgul stabbing my pillows in the night was a traumatic lodging experience".
Sam, didn't you know that Shelob was the last of an endangered species? PETA is now suing you!
Unfair labor practice suits by Fellowship hobbits who were denied their "elevensies" breaks during journey.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
What do you mean? Lawyers sue the US government all the time.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
This kind of thing happens all the time. It's really rediculous, I mean, if you pay someone $200 million dollars, and hold back another billion, obviously they are going to have the resources to sue you. It would be quite annoying, though. Waiting years to get your personal A380 or whatever you were planning on spending all that money on.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
The MPAA goes on and on about how P2P is hurting the artists....but they never mention what really goes on. If PJ can't get paid, what hope for the smaller musicians/actors?
No sig today...
The suit charges that the company used pre-emptive bidding (meaning a process closed to external parties) rather than open bidding for subsidiary rights to such things as "Lord of the Rings" books, DVD's and merchandise. Therefore, New Line received far less than market value for these rights, the suit says.
Most of those rights went to other companies in the New Line family or under the Time Warner corporate umbrella, like Warner Brothers International, Warner Records and Warner Books. So while the deals would not hurt Time Warner's bottom line, they would lower the overall gross revenues related to the film, which is the figure Mr. Jackson's percentage is based on.
I think he's within his rights, because it sure sounds to me like he's being treated unfairly according to the contract he has with New Line. Whether he makes $200M or $300M is immaterial, it's the company thinking they can get away with ripping him off.
And what if $100M (or whatever) is the difference between PJ financing his own films completely independently, away from all this corporate BS?
"Look, Smithers! I'm Davy Crockett!"
The lawyer makes it sound as if New Line was some kind of magnanimous benefactor, "giving" Jackson money because he was a great filmmaker and an all-around good guy.
I wonder if we can not freely start copying and sharing our LoTR DVDs, since we have already "given" New Line enough money to rebuild Baghdah, New York, London, Paris, Moscow and Tokyo (by this lawyer's math - if 300 or 400 million are enough to rebuilt Baghdad, imagine what 4 billion can't do).
a lot of people rightly believe that nobody is 'entitled' to obscene wealth
By knowing how to read and write and having access to a computer capable of posting that comment, you have put yourself in the top 2% in the world. From the viewpoint of 95% below you, you are obscenely rich.
It's all a matter of perspective.
Using your logic the studio could have simply sold the entire movie to a company with in the Time Warner family of companies for a dollar and he would have received .20 cents.
Did Time Warner delibrately sell off the merchandising rights to a family company in an attempt to hide revenue?
If open market bids would have been higher than the sale they made, then yes they likely did try and hide the money.
This is of course in bad faith of the contact, however depending on what's in the contact may be perfectly legal.
I agree with you about wealth concentrating in a few hands, and I also agree it's not a good thing.
But for a large corporation to decry paying an individual for the amount they contracted for -- one can hardly say this has anything to do with social equality. It's about corporate greed and profiteering.
Personally, I think those several billion dollars would have not been generated were it not for his (and his companie's) work.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The article seems to be saying that New Line sold off merchandising rights to companies within the Time Warner family rather than sell to the highest bidder.
The suit contends that NL made more money, and therefore PJ would have recieved a higher cut, if the merchandising rights were sold on the open market.
Not exactly. According to this article at Slate, the issue is that the "pre-emptive bidding" process used to sell the rights within Time Warner allowed New Line to suppress the total amount of money they made on the films. It appears that Peter Jackson contends that they shortchanged him and were able to hide it by using this method of selling the rights.
The article is short on details. Without the exact wording of the signed contracts all we have here is an imperfect conversation.
I'm not surprised though, that this type of tactic is being used on purpose all of the time.
eTrade SUCKS
Slashdot has some serious double standards.
/.
Actually, it's not as much a double standard as it is some misconception on your part. We (as slashdot users) are not the borg. Please do not lump me in with the majority of users. That's not even to be trollish, I'm just sick of stereotypical geek values being assumed to be mine by the public.
most of you guys have no problem at all taking from the rich and justifying it because they're rich
That's pretty much a universal way of thinking and certainly is not limited to
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Remember kids, when you pirate movies the artists loose money, because of piracy Peter Jackson has lost $100m... oh wait...
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Apart from that, isn't it too precious to hear a lawyer complaining about "piggishness".
you had me at #!
From the article:"Peter Jackson is an incredible filmmaker who did the impossible on 'Lord of the Rings,' " this lawyer said. "But there's a certain piggishness involved here. New Line already gave him enough money to rebuild Baghdad, but it's still not enough for him."
Wow, that statement demonstrates astonishing hypocrisy. He's essentially arguing that as long as someone gets a lot of money, they aren't owed anything more, regardless of contract. As if the contract really said "20%, or as much as we feel is enough".
Well, I am happy to apply this logic across the board. Newline got enough money in my opinion. So I feel it's a bit piggish for them to suggest anyone in the whole world should fork over more money to watch any of the films they've released.
You heard it straight from the Newline lawyer: ignore the law and download at wi
ll.
Cheers.
A better version of this analogy would be:
Imagine this - you have a contract with your boss that any new inventions you make, you get 2.5% of the gross profit (remember no gross profit = no paycheck). You make your boss an invention that earns 12 billion dollars.
Your boss contracts out the marketing and sale of this invention. A competative contract would give your boss 10 billion dollars, of which he would own you 250 million. But instead of getting the most competative contract, he awarded the contract to his wife and is only paid 5 billion, so he only pays you 125 million.
You are short 125 million, but he got the other 5 billion through his wife.