Slashdot Mirror
Wheel of Time TV Pilot Producers Sue Robert Jordan's Widow For Defamation
An anonymous reader writes The tale of the late-night Wheel of Time pilot that aired in a paid infomercial slot on FXX has taken another odd turn. Producers Red Eagle Entertainment LLC and Manetheren LLC have filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for central California against Harriet McDougal (widow of James Rigney, who wrote the Wheel of Time novels under the pen name Robert Jordan), her company, Bandersnatch Group Inc., and twenty unnamed other persons ('Does 1-20'). The suit alleges that McDougal's statements about her lack of involvement in the pilot's production constitute breach of contract, slander, and interference with contractual relations and prospective economic relations; the suit demands declaratory relief and a jury trial.
Engineer : There was chaos and the god created the universe in 8 days or so . So I was needed first , to build design etc.
.. who do you think created the chaos ?
Doctor : But then he created eve from adams rib so I had to be there for the surgery and the etc.
Lawer : Haha
What a bunch of wool-headed fools! *crosses arms beneath breasts*
It isn't when you consider that the plaintiff's goals may well have nothing to do with 'recovering damages', insomuch as they're probably doing it to shut her up and at the same time please/placate their investors.
Fuck them and their SCO-spirited kin in either case.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
This is a clear case of not caring. On one hand the 'pilot' was a blatant attempt at working around their contract, and while I don't think it was as terrible as some think (as basic cable goes), was clearly an afterthought. On the other hand, it's hard to care at all about his wife's position. She was the one who delayed the ebook release for reasons that only cavemen can relate to, and she continues to generally pop up in annoying and unhelpful ways. Generally its' greedy people fighting over the monies, don't give a crap who wins or loses, the rest of us already have lost.
Getting sued for being honest about not doing something is a bit much though, even for USA.
According to the plaintiffs, she was not being honest. There is also the matter that, according to the plaintiffs, she was paid (indirectly through her husband's estate) and contractually bound to keep her mouth shut. I have no idea what "the truth" is, but I don't think it is black and white. If she doesn't want to abide by the terms of the contract, she should at least be compelled to disgorge the money she was paid.
They're doing it to prevent her from reclaiming the film and television rights, and selling them to someone else. It's always been about the money for them, for the last 7 years. It's a damn shame that people ever believed that they were fans that intended on doing something worthwhile with the rights.
Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
Having met her, spoken with her, and knowing people that know her well, that's not a fair assessment. She genuinely cares about the material. She was the editor for it all, and she knows it better than anyone other than perhaps Jim's assistant Maria. Saying she's just his wife / widow is very unfair, and saying that she's unhelpful is just untrue. That said, the ebook delay was inconvenient to many of my friends, but there's just something about holding hard bound epic fantasy that enthralls me, and makes me not care for the ebooks.
Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
From Good eReader
There is also the matter that, according to the plaintiffs, she was paid (indirectly through her husband's estate) and contractually bound to keep her mouth shut.
Contracts don't work indirectly like that. Either you agree to the terms directly or you don't. As all legal organizations including the SCOTUS recognized, a valid contract requires free consent.
Either she was a party to the contract with it's nondisparagement clause, and agreed to keep her mouth shut about all production details, or she was not part of the contract and the company is in the wrong. Her statement was that the show made during her husband's life and with her husband's contract was done "without my knowledge or cooperation," which is quite likely since her then-living husband likely took care of his own business deals.
Some portions of a contract may survive a death and transfer to estates. Others automatically dissolve completely (such as partnership agreements between two people) or require affirmation that the new parties accept the new terms of a new, successor agreement. Binding nondisparagement terms do not transfer to other people.
On its face it looks like the company made an agreement with a now deceased individual. The question is one of contract law. If she signed the contract then she was bound and shouldn't have said anything. But if she didn't sign the agreements, she should be adding a counter-claim.
Can they produce such a contract? Do they have a nondisparagement agreement that SHE signed? That's the key to the entire dispute.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
According to the CEO of Red Eagle Entertainment:
1. Their rights were about to expire.
2. They did it without FXX's knowledge which was achieved by purchasing a late-night infomercial time slot.
3. He claims it was high budget but the results, if you've watched the pilot, says otherwise...In other words is was terrible beyond measure.
He also goes on to claim that they plan to do a blockbuster quality movie adaptation and boldly says that he plans to directly challenge the Game of Thrown series on HBO.
To me it seems like Red Eagle Entertainment has some serious grandiose delusions most especially if their contract is about to expire, if not already, and have gone to battle with the wife of the author which will likely end with them losing any chance of further working with Robert Jordans' literature ever again...
Still, if she inherited the copyright ownership, she inherited her way into the lease agreement. She has become the official head of the franchise. Just because a CEO changes does not mean that the company is no longer under any obligation to fulfill its contracts. And since she in the official in charge of this entity, it is far more like a ceo role than an individual. I am not certain, but if she was found to have officially stated this in her role as the head of the WoT universe, instead of just as an individual, I could see that holding some weight in court.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
IANAL in the USA, but my theory is this.
The contact was probably between Universal Studios and Bandersnatch Group and it included a non-disparagement agreement. From the article here (http://www.tor.com/blogs/2015/02/wheel-of-time-pilot-harriet-statement) it looks like she was speaking in her capacity as the CEO of Bandersnatch Group.
-- Note: These Comments are Generated by ME! Not You! ME!
The estate is a separate legal entity from any person. Contracts that flow into the estate remain binding upon the estate. Ergo, she doesn't need to have signed it; it's still binding upon the estate.
The distinction that people seem to be missing is that nobody is squelching her freedom of speech as an individual, but rather as a beneficiary of the estate. Again, remember that the estate is its own legal entity. She's not being sued as J. Random Person, but rather as somebody who profits from that estate. As a beneficiary, she's also subject to its contracts. If she breaches those contracts, she's subject to suit in her capacity as beneficiary, and can be forced to disgorge her profits from the estate.
(Note: I practice in probate law.)
Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
"3. He claims it was high budget but the results, if you've watched the pilot, says otherwise...In other words is was terrible beyond measure."
Master of understatement there.
I've seen better stuff done by highschoolers in the early 1980s with a budget of less than $50 in only a week.
(No lie, it was some friends of mine.)
This was obviously a simple attempt at securing a cash grab and was done in bad faith and what I suspect is very questionable validity in the first place.
(ianal)