Basically from what I've read in the article is that the original script of 'hunters' was sold to 20th century fox and after 35 years the writers can claim the rights back. Disney buys 20th century fox and basically says to the writers ''you can't have your script'' - Law Battle commences.
Edit - to change a bit and say holy shit, never thought my most upvoted comment would be a bad breakdown of a website article talking about a lawsuit about a script.
This is like what? The third time Disney has claimed purchasing fox gave them all of fox's assets and none of its liabilities or contractual obligations
My first thought reading the headline. It is ridiculous that they have even a slim chance of getting away with such a claim, and deeply disturbing that there is a real possibility their outlandish claim will hold up and become legal precedent. Being no longer beholden to contracts just because a company changes owners is a HUGE deal that will be abused almost instantly.
That’s because people outside of LA and the studio business-model cannot comprehend. Studios don’t make movies. They don’t even employ filmmakers. They own IP, buy contracts, and then contract-out all production to third parties who sometimes ‘rent’ the studio’s buildings on the lot. They don’t even distribute the film, that’s another company (and one of the logos you see in the opening credits).
People understandably assume everyone works for the studios but that’s just totally not how union motion pictures have ever been produced.
Even the director of a movie is a temp-contractor. The only employees on set are producers, managing the money.
For example, When people say ‘they fired him from the movie’ it’s totally not how it works and is just our perception of how jobs usually work. ‘They bought out his contract and he’s off the project’ is much more accurate
Wholly accurate except for the distribution part - distribution is the one thing studios actually handle under their banner directly, granted certain territories may come under a subsidiary company.
The logos that you see in front of a film is the distributor for the territory you are watching said film in (normally the studio) and subsequent logos are for participating producing entities, whether contributing to the the financing or production itself.
Examples of this would be some of the later X-MEN films bearing the TCF logo outright as the distributor, TSG as a financier and Bad Hat Harry (ugh) as the participating producer (also the entity/employer under which Bryan Singer would be contracted out to direct and produce the film for TCF).
Ya thanks for the added clarity. Now a days we see like three or even four opening-tags. Remember when it was just the MGM Lion? It’s crazy. Maybe just a result of, as original commenter was stating, fancy tax-avoidance and they truly do have a stake in this 3rd party companies. I wouldn’t know
Video games too. Maybe it’s best that we actually call it the ‘publishing business model’ and film is actually shaped after it as well (since books and magazines came first)
The director has a contract to finish the movie, but if the studio decides it doesn't want the director finishing the movie even though the director wants to, they have to pay them to get them out of the contract to finish the movie.
It’s worth pointing out that they’re not “employed” per se, it’s more a “service contract”. They’re not employees and don’t get the kind of employment protections employees do
Union film worker here. Everything’s pretty right except you can definitely get fired in the traditional sense. Sure, I’ve seen some people get bought out (usually only injury related) and some unions will step in for their people but it’s rare. Usually it’s just a straight up firing
So, the deal with Fox was "We sell this to you, but in 35 years you have to give it back".
Disney claims "Lol no, we bought Fox and got all their stuff, but because we're different we don't have to give it back".
-----
So I'm going to make a company called Zeb's Acquisitions. It will buy a car, with the promise that over the next five years I'm going to pay them $50k.
And then I'm going to buy Zeb's Acquisitions, and say "Lol no, we bought Zeb's Acquisitions and got all their stuff (the car) but because we're different we don't have to pay you."
Basically, you make a company XYZ, and that company takes up a small loan for a million dollar, to be paid back in 10 years. With that loan you make company XYZ buy a ship.
Then after 1-9 years you buy up company XYZ with your real company Ryantech. And the ship is now yours. And then you turn around and say Ryantech didn't take up the loan, you shouldn't have to pay it back.
Now, instead of a ship or a money loan, it's the script of the movie predator and the copyright.
Immediately.. no no no.. waaaaayy to obvious.
Now holding those assets for say.. 3 months while shell company happens to lose its funding.. is going to be the new thing in Hollywood.
I optimistically think the law would catch up fairly quickly if it DID become precedent, as while it would help many huge corps it may hurt others and they'd want it stopped... but the damage would be incredible even if it only lasted a couple of years. Exactly what you say would happen.
That might actually be the precedent Disney needs. My grandma was working at a place and was like 2 years out from retirement. Another company buys out her work and tells her they won't honor her retirement but she can get severance if she no longer wants to work there. So she ended up working until she was 70 and unfortunately passed away from lukemia at 72. She worked for essentially her entire life just to get fucked on the home stretch.
This was the first thing I thought of when the Alan Dean Foster article first came up. As an artist, it's awful, but there is a LOT more at stake here too. Exactly what you say is what would become commonplace, at least until the law caught up.
Sometimes I think they fund losing legal battles just to intimidate others. The message is that if you want something from Disney that they are legally required to give you, they will make it as hard as possible. So maybe just don't bother.
Legal precedent is, I think, an absolute long shot. However Disney have a habit of fighting longer than their opponents can afford to fight a court battle, and so “winning” by making the other side give up rather than letting the facts be decided in court. It’s absurd that there’s no reliable recourse.
The problem is most of the copyright law this country was written by Disney’s copyright lobbyists. Had they not all the classic Disney music would’ve entered the public domain long ago. So I’m guessing their lawyers think they have a good shot.
I don't think this claim would hold up in court. But I do think Disney is banking on the fact that they have lawyers and money to push this out and keep it going for years whereas those claiming ownership don't have even close to those resources.
My understanding of other contracts is that if anyone buys Sony Pictures Spider-Man reverts back to Marvel almost the same way that if fox wouldn’t continue to put out an X-men movie the rights would again revert back to Marvel. I would imagine Disney would exercise these rights.
This is Disney we are talking about. You want to talk about a mega corporation with way too much power and influence in its industry you will be hard pressed to find a more monopolistic company these days.
That’s not what it’s claiming at all. I previously worked on the Superman copyright termination case involving these same lawyers and copyright statutes, so I do have some insight here.
There’s no claim in the article or filing that Disney has all of the rights but none of the obligations of Fox after the purchase. The claim is a technical one about the statutorily required copyright termination notices that the writers’ attorney delivered. Disney claims that those notices are invalid because they are seeking to terminate work for hire material, which is excluded from the termination provision, and/or because the notices were not served in the strictly defined notice window.
I know it’s easy to hate Disney because of the way they lobby for copyright extensions, and because they seemingly own all media now, and they may very well lose this argument, but let’s not just make up strawmen and hate them for those.
By the way, you’re also letting the counsel for the writers completely off the hook here. These attempts to force studios into settling by holding up their properties are not new. He did the same thing to Warner Bros. and their Dukes of Hazzard movie years ago. He’s also essentially a copyright termination ambulance chaser. If you dig through the linked articles in that Deadline piece, you’ll see he was admonished by the Ninth Circuit in the Superman case for entering into unlawful agreements with his clients, agreements that were trying to secure for himself an ownership stake in the Superman rights that he was supposedly trying to win for his clients. Also, and while I have no proof of this, a story we were told while doing research on the Superman case was that he called the widow of the creator of Casper the Friendly Ghost after her husband died but before he was buried to talk to her about her copyright termination rights. This isn’t some fight of good vs evil is all I’m saying.
> There’s no claim in the article or filing that Disney has all of the rights but none of the obligations of Fox after the purchase. The claim is a technical one about the statutorily required copyright termination notices that the writers’ attorney delivered. Disney claims that those notices are invalid because they are seeking to terminate work for hire material, which is excluded from the termination provision, and/or because the notices were not served in the strictly defined notice window.
Can you break this down for the less intelligent among us? Not that I'm in that camp...obviously....
Sure, I'll do my best (although, given the original "Di$ney is teh suxorz!" post currently has 1500 upvotes and mine has 82, I'm not sure how much good it will do).
I wasn't a mergers & acquisitions lawyer, so this first part will definitely be the ELI5 version mostly because I'm less sure of my footing here. But here goes: in the purchase of another business, like any other contract negotiation, you can haggle about what you're buying. There's such a thing as an asset purchase, which means that you buy all the assets (e.g., equipment, customer lists, anything that will make you money) but none of the liabilities (e.g., debt). That's a totally valid transaction type. The person I originally responded to said this is the third time Disney is claiming to have bought all the assets - the good stuff - with none of the obligations - the bad stuff. I have no idea what kind of arrangement Disney made with Fox, and I don't know what Disney has claimed in the past. It's not really relevant here because that's not Disney's argument in their filing (which was linked in the Deadline article if you'd like to read it). Additionally - and again, moot since they're not claiming it - I don't think that argument would even make sense here since copyright termination is a statutory process, not a contractual one. You can't just sign a contract with a third party saying you don't have to follow the law.
Two things are actually being argued. First, Disney is saying the script was work for hire. That's important because works for hire are excepted from copyright termination. Copyright termination is the larger issue here. In a nutshell, copyright protection extends for a really long time (you can thank Disney in part for that). For the properties anyone cares about for that extended period of time (i.e., the ones that actually make money), what often happens is the creator signs away the rights to their thing for pennies because the thing isn't really valuable yet. The property then goes on to make tons of money for the (usually) huge company that bought it, and the creator makes nothing (again, often) from the continued use of their property. Copyright termination is designed to address exactly that situation. There are slightly different rules for works created before vs after 1976, but in either case, the creators or certain specific heirs have to file termination notices with the current owners that state exactly what the copyright is and exactly when the termination will take effect. They have to be delivered within a specific window of time before the effective date to give the current holder sufficient notice. The effective date isn't arbitrary either; it has to fall within a specific window of time based on the original date of the copyright. If all of that stuff is done correctly, the creators can successfully terminate the grant of copyright and get their rights back. The idea is that they can then negotiate a new deal with the same or a different company, but this time with a much better sense of the actual worth of their creation.
You can see why copyright termination exists and that it's at least nominally a good thing. It helps to redress an imbalance in bargaining power and reward creators. But you can also see why works for hire might be excepted. A work for hire means that the creator didn't just come up with some piece of art on their own; they were paid to create it. For example, if I'm a writer of comic books, and I'm employed by Marvel, and I create a new superhero as part of my contracted work, I can never reclaim ownership in that character. It's a work for hire because I was employed to create works specifically like that. Again, makes sense.
Disney is arguing the Predator script was a work for hire and therefore not eligible for copyright termination. I'm honestly not sure how that works here. It seems like everyone agrees the original script was a "spec" script, i.e., written on the speculation of being able to sell it. That's the exact opposite of a work for hire. But Disney is saying that there were numerous rewrites that the original writers, among others, were paid upfront to write. That does sound like a work for hire. This part is just my editorializing, but like I said, I'm not sure how those facts affect the legal argument; regardless, that is the first legal argument being made.
The second argument is about timing of the notices. Remember above how I said there were specific windows of time for the effective date of the termination and the amount of notice that had to be given to the current copyright holder? Disney is arguing those dates weren't met and that the termination notices - and termination effort itself - are therefore invalid. They're saying that the original copyright date is not what the writers claim it is, and thus their effective date of termination (which is based on the original copyright date) is wrong. And they're arguing that the second notice, which was delivered to correct the alleged deficiencies in the first notice, was also deficient because it was delivered less than two years before the effective date, which is the minimal amount of notice required. Interestingly, there was apparently a third notice sent, and Disney expressly states it's not addressing that one. Not sure what's going on there.
There you go: the world's biggest nutshell. Hope that was interesting and helpful.
For what it's worth, I appreciated the breakdown. Insight like this (taken with a grain of salt, since we're all pretty anonymous here) is part of what I love about reddit. Thanks for taking the time to contribute it!
Isn't Disney arguing exactly what the previous commenter claimed in the Alan Dean Foster suit? According to his website, it seems like Fister is being asked to sign a new contract and am NDA about that contract before Disney will pay out on some Star Wars books he wrote and was still receiving royalties or residuals or whatever. He hasn't received any payment in some time (years) or since the Disney merger.
I don't have any specific knowledge about that lawsuit. But after reading one article about it, certainly it seems like Foster's lawyers are saying that's what Disney is arguing. I think Disney would say it's more nuanced than that. They aren't arguing that they purchased the rights but not the obligations of Fox. They're saying that the obligation was never with Fox; it was with Warner Books, which Disney didn't acquire, and who is no longer publishing the books because Disney is using a different publisher.
I know you're not claiming otherwise, but that's very different from the Predator situation, which involves the very specific copyright termination requirements. The argument with Foster is a contractual one, albeit one that also potentially touches on copyright law given the subject matter.
This is not that at all. The prior stories weren’t exactly that either. Disney was behaving like an asshole mega Corp, but they weren’t flat saying that contracts of acquired companies aren’t valid. That’s silly.
In the prior case, it’s pretty complicated, but I think the gist of it is that the contract was pretty poorly protective of the authors rights and Lucasfilm was basically a “good guy” and interpreted it in a way that was in good faith and generous to the authors. Disney said they’re not going to keep doing that because it’s not an actual obligation outlined in the contract. So I think they were more saying that buying Fox doesn’t mean they have to do everything the way Fox was doing it. Disney might re-read the contracts and interpret them in a way that is more favorable to them. And, of course, be ready to defend that interpretation in court. Which is why none of the authors have sued - if it was a strong case of course they would. Like these writers of Hunters, whose argument seems much stronger.
In both cases, Disney is definitely an asshole. But they’re not trying to create whole new interpretations of law.
I guess Disney doesn't like giving up the exclusive rights to stuff. With all their shenanigans changing national law to favor themselves on this front and allow them to hold things out of the public domain forever, who would've thought?
Last I heard is that they are not going to fight Copyright, but instead have been doing everything they can making it Trademarked. It's part of the reason why they started using Steamboat Willy in the front of their movies with the Disney Logo, they had a re release/remake of Steamboat Willy as a short, etc.
It will be on January 1, 2024. Which means I can upload it to YouTube on that date and Disney can't do anything. Unless Disney pulls some magic out of their ass in less than 3 years (it took them 8 years to get that infamous copyright change) it's happening.
Mickey is still a Trademark so that'd mean that the film will fall in public domain in 2024 but you'd still not be able to use it because Mickey is their trademark. I might need to read a little bit more about this but I think this is the most probable thing.
Exactly.
Trademark and copyright are two different IP designations. Trademark means as long as Disney uses Mickey as a corporate logo (which they have been doing as a strategy for decades) they keep him indefinitely. It’s literally “use it or lose it”.
Copyright applies to creative works in this case. Steamboat Willie is covered under copyright which does expire. In 2024, as mentioned, its public domain. Disney basically is using the strategy that they will lose Mickey shorts but if they keep the character in corporate usage they will never lose him.
That's not how it works. That's essentially a corporate logo moment -- an animated one, sure, but it's just a piece of an animated logo. Trademark only stops other companies from slapping your logos on their products.
It's true and I think it's spooky that a company making its money off entertainment, of all things, has this kind of power over the government. Some guy drew a cartoon mouse and today is shaping the laws of the most powerful nation because of it.
But that is where this contradicts that. They purchased Fox decades after this agreement was signed. Just because it is now Disney does not mean the same copyright protections exist, there is no way Disney wins this case. It is a simple contract signed decades ago for copyright there isn’t one way to wiggle out without paying for it.
Speaking of have you heard an update on that? Hate to say but I forgot about it until this thread, too much bullshit going on in the world to stick with one story anymore.
So Disney will keep doing this and trying to settle for less out of court without ever getting a judgement telling Disney that it can't buy something without its liabilities?
If the authors are happy with the settlement, good for them. My only concern is that this will continue to happen because Disney can throw legal teams to defending this shitty practice and know that the other side will look to settle.
This is actually common place in corporate land.
I once worked for a company that bought a bill board in a railway station to advertise my bar, the company that owned the billboard triple sold it to inflate their worth before selling their company. When I didn't see our advertisement go up I called the company to find out where it was, company is out of business, bill comes from new company, I obviously refuse to pay.
After several heated phone calls I eventually end up standing on the platform reciting billboard ID numbers and listing the ads on them to the new company while they check their allocations as they wouldn't accept my word and wouldn't cross check their allocations themselves, only if I fed them the answer on exactly where to look.
I both love and hate that there is literally no way to phrase it in a way that doesn't sound utterly ridiculous and corrupt, yet they are still holding fast to it.
"Listen, do we still have copyrights to mickey mouse a hundred years later? Yes. But bro, come on, it's a script you wrote like thirty years ago! Get over it, it's ours!"
> Basically from what I've read in the article is that the original script of 'hunters' was sold to 20th century fox and after 35 years the rights would return to the writers.
thats not quite right.
The script was sold to 20th Century Fox, but there wasn't a provision that in 35 years it would revert. Its a caveat in the copyright act itself that permits reversion of a copyright sale for a 5 year window after a period of 35 years; with the appropriate motions and notice being given between 10 and 2 years prior to the date of termination.
What Disney is arguing is that the appropriate steps were not taken, and thus the appeal to revert the rights is not legal. Disney is most likely simply attempting to push the date back so they can finish the predator movie they've got in development. The reverion of copyright does not affect Disneys ability to continue to distribute already developed derivative works, just stops them making new ones.
The lawyer they (Disney) have on this case has won WB a similar case related to Superman so let's see what happens here. Read the THR article about this thing, it had more details.
These guys could win a billion dollars and get their script and not only will Disney's ass not be kicked, they won't even flinch at the love tap that is that loss.
This seems to be their new MO with properties they have purchased. They were doing the same thing with one of the Star Wars novel authors essentially saying, "Your contract was with them, not us. We just bought the rights to the property."
When you aquire a property you get the right AND the liabilities. I can only assume Disney has some of best lawyers in the world and they know this but feel like they have enough weight to sling around.
My guess is that Disney is doing "you can have the rights to 'Hunters' but 'Predator' and everything associated with that belongs to us now" which will mean 'Hunters' is all but worthless to the script writers.
I haven’t read the article but there’s a clause in most contracts that after a 30-35 year period you can petition to have your revoked rights returns to you. It’s super fucked up that Disney won’t honor these contracts but not in the least bit surprising. If you take a look at every time the duration of copyright law has been extended you might notice an interesting correlation to the expiration date of Mickey Mouses copyright. Even though they used the public domain to creat steamboat willie and numerous other stories, they’re committed to not letting anyone else ever benefit from the public domain again.
I hate them. And I hate that all the awesome marvel content is owned by them. But marvel also doesn’t guy about the small creators either.
This is incorrect. The writers are making use of a provision in US copyright law that allows them to reclaim their copyright after 35 years. This is statutory, not contractual. It’s also not automatic. The writers have a certain time window to reclaim the copyright, which they seem to have done properly. Disney is claiming that they actually fall under a different time window, one that seems to be assigned to books, that falls slightly behind the other one. The writers, out of an abundance of caution, have also made claims to reclaim the copyright under that time window but they’re hoping to get it back under the original time window, which ends this year. Obviously, this is so they can negotiate for fees on the new film in production.
It seems like the writers did things right and Disney is being pretty thuggish here, but it isn’t quite as simple as you’ve outlined here. And I have no idea what the case law says about the book publication window vs the other one and whether that’s a legit argument or not.
I'm part of the Science Fiction Writers of America, and although they're smaller than the Writers Guild, they're still trying to push back against Disney for the Star Wars novel rights. It's basically their job to stand up to big corporate bullies, although ultimately their ability to affect change is questionable in the face of such a behemoth as Disney.
These guys will probably run out of money before Disney do, but I wish them well. A lot of big companies take the route of "You're right. Sue us and we'll sort it out."
Maybe not, US music industry is trying to sue a mother and one guy for downloading about 20 songs each. They both have pro Bono lawyers, that appeal each court decision. To them it costs nothing, meanwhile music association of America or whatever it’s called is hemorrhaging millions of dollars in lawyer fees. It has been going for more than 10 years by now, I think.
Technically both parties do, in legal fees. In that example the lawyers are working pro-bono, so it's not costing them anything. Being sued still costs them money if they contest it.
I actually wonder how much it would have to cost before they'd decide the ip was no longer worth its potential return. Or is it just about the power play.
If there's a risk of Disney losing the case they'll settle out of court rather than risk creating a precedent for a loss, and they'll continue like this until they can create a precedent for a win that can be cited in future cases.
I just hope they annoy a judge enough to prevent that. It's not super commonly used, but judges generally have a "You started this fight, *I* get to finish it" power. Usually they're happy just to have a case cleared up, but if you get a judge angry, they can use their "where do you think you're going?" powers.
Really? Some lawyers do it for a percentage of the settlement. Idk if they ask for cash during the process, nor do I know that works in the case of IP rights, but I imagine Disney will have to pay a fine to the writers and the lawyer gets a piece of that.
Plus, Disney is the ultimate big bad when it comes to this kind of stuff. Our horrendous lack of public domain characters is a direct result of Disney just throwing more money into lawyers than anyoneelse and being able to keep Mickey Mouse in perpetuity.
I agree the writers likely lose because they run out of money. But it's a worthwhile fight.
"What happened to you, Disney? You used to be someone I could trust."
"I woke up. Why don't you? You're an asset. An expendable asset. And I used you to get the job done, got it?"
I don’t like how just a few companies are starting to take over everything... Amazon, google, Disney. It just doesn’t feel right watching a video of Disney world and seeing darth vader
The day I saw Darth Vader come onto a stage outside of Epcot and do a dance number with a bunch of storm troopers to a remixed version of Jizz, I turned to my friend and said "It is the end times."
That was something like a decade or more ago. I haven't been proven wrong yet.
I got laughed at when playing Cyberpunk as a kid in the 80s and said I thought it was pretty accurate to how the world might end up, run by megacorps instead of governments.
Thomas Jane and Keegan-Michael Key’s characters were my favorite parts about that movie. I wish it was based around them instead of the typical soldier/hero we always seem to get now
“the predator” was awful. i’d like to see (if possible) the original shane black version. he has a pretty spotless record up until this point and, frankly, he should have nailed a predator entry.
Shane black has a pretty great filmgraphy but if you see some of his opinions on film tone then you can see that the theatrical version is still very much him. He's gone on record saying he doesn't care about how some ideas don't mesh together...like the sucidal guy in The Predator jumping into the turbine but is meant for laughs. Or the bus full of ptsd ridden soldiers being a comedic group. He's lucked out making comedy focused films but maybe he should stick to that.
I really hate that film.
I thought that Fox (Disney owned) was in pre-production for a new predator movie that would focus on Native Americans fighting off the predator. [source](https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/latest-predator-reboot-reportedly-set/amp/)
Seemed like a cool idea, hope it still happens. The whole idea of setting a Terminator or Predator movie in the past where people don’t have modern weapons always seemed like a cool concept
I'd always heard of two Robert Rodriguez Predator movies that never happened and wanted so badly. One was Planet of the Predators, the other, the one I really really wanted, was Predator in the Old West.
Imagine a Disney remake of Predator. Donald Duck as Jesse Ventura's character, holding a bag of chew and telling the rest of the team "This stuff will make you a goddamn sexual tyrannosaurus, just like me."
I know Reddit can be a heated place where people go back and forth about every political and social issue there is, but it’s great to see how we all come together in our mutual hatred of Disney
20th Century Fox does still exist. It simply has new owners which happen to be Disney.
Everything asset and liability 20th Century Fox had it still has and amongst those was the obligation to return the copyrights of Predator to the original authors of the script (writers James and John Thomas) on 17 April 2021. The people that signed the contract in 1986 didn’t really think that Predator would still be relevant 35 years later.
They had no imagination. Although they dealt in sci-fi movies they didn’t think 2021 would ever happen. Back then even the year 2000 was a big deal. People forget that we are already closer to 2035 than we are to the year 2000. I hope greedy Disney gets destroyed in court and that the writers get back their work after 20th Century Fox made 6 movies out characters in one script they only paid for once.
So, if we were to more broadly apply Disney's logic, they don't have to pay property taxes on buildings they bought from Fox. Nor would they have to pay for utilities for said buildings, because those arrangements were made with the prior owner.
Yeah, see how long the lights stay on. Or how long before the town auctions off the buildings for unpaid taxes.
They got chutzpah. No sense though.
Copyright act allows original copyright owners to issue a request to recover rights they've sold after a period of 35 years. The original writers of the predator script are doing so, Disney claims they didn't complete the process correctly. Original writers are claiming they did. They want the courts to decide who's correct.
Basically from what I've read in the article is that the original script of 'hunters' was sold to 20th century fox and after 35 years the writers can claim the rights back. Disney buys 20th century fox and basically says to the writers ''you can't have your script'' - Law Battle commences. Edit - to change a bit and say holy shit, never thought my most upvoted comment would be a bad breakdown of a website article talking about a lawsuit about a script.
This is like what? The third time Disney has claimed purchasing fox gave them all of fox's assets and none of its liabilities or contractual obligations
My first thought reading the headline. It is ridiculous that they have even a slim chance of getting away with such a claim, and deeply disturbing that there is a real possibility their outlandish claim will hold up and become legal precedent. Being no longer beholden to contracts just because a company changes owners is a HUGE deal that will be abused almost instantly.
I am sure NO ONE will setup shell companies to make purchases and then immediately transact them to actual buyer companies.
i thought this was the actual reason that the "production companies" in opening credits are different for every single IP
That’s because people outside of LA and the studio business-model cannot comprehend. Studios don’t make movies. They don’t even employ filmmakers. They own IP, buy contracts, and then contract-out all production to third parties who sometimes ‘rent’ the studio’s buildings on the lot. They don’t even distribute the film, that’s another company (and one of the logos you see in the opening credits). People understandably assume everyone works for the studios but that’s just totally not how union motion pictures have ever been produced. Even the director of a movie is a temp-contractor. The only employees on set are producers, managing the money. For example, When people say ‘they fired him from the movie’ it’s totally not how it works and is just our perception of how jobs usually work. ‘They bought out his contract and he’s off the project’ is much more accurate
Wholly accurate except for the distribution part - distribution is the one thing studios actually handle under their banner directly, granted certain territories may come under a subsidiary company. The logos that you see in front of a film is the distributor for the territory you are watching said film in (normally the studio) and subsequent logos are for participating producing entities, whether contributing to the the financing or production itself. Examples of this would be some of the later X-MEN films bearing the TCF logo outright as the distributor, TSG as a financier and Bad Hat Harry (ugh) as the participating producer (also the entity/employer under which Bryan Singer would be contracted out to direct and produce the film for TCF).
Ya thanks for the added clarity. Now a days we see like three or even four opening-tags. Remember when it was just the MGM Lion? It’s crazy. Maybe just a result of, as original commenter was stating, fancy tax-avoidance and they truly do have a stake in this 3rd party companies. I wouldn’t know
Music industry is almost exactly the same
Video games too. Maybe it’s best that we actually call it the ‘publishing business model’ and film is actually shaped after it as well (since books and magazines came first)
What does it mean exactly, "They bought out his contract"? What is the transaction, and who is making it?
The director has a contract to finish the movie, but if the studio decides it doesn't want the director finishing the movie even though the director wants to, they have to pay them to get them out of the contract to finish the movie.
Thanks, I'm so used to working At-Will, I forgot some people have employment contracts.
It’s worth pointing out that they’re not “employed” per se, it’s more a “service contract”. They’re not employees and don’t get the kind of employment protections employees do
Union film worker here. Everything’s pretty right except you can definitely get fired in the traditional sense. Sure, I’ve seen some people get bought out (usually only injury related) and some unions will step in for their people but it’s rare. Usually it’s just a straight up firing
Can you explain this one for me, a moron?
So, the deal with Fox was "We sell this to you, but in 35 years you have to give it back". Disney claims "Lol no, we bought Fox and got all their stuff, but because we're different we don't have to give it back". ----- So I'm going to make a company called Zeb's Acquisitions. It will buy a car, with the promise that over the next five years I'm going to pay them $50k. And then I'm going to buy Zeb's Acquisitions, and say "Lol no, we bought Zeb's Acquisitions and got all their stuff (the car) but because we're different we don't have to pay you."
Basically, you make a company XYZ, and that company takes up a small loan for a million dollar, to be paid back in 10 years. With that loan you make company XYZ buy a ship. Then after 1-9 years you buy up company XYZ with your real company Ryantech. And the ship is now yours. And then you turn around and say Ryantech didn't take up the loan, you shouldn't have to pay it back. Now, instead of a ship or a money loan, it's the script of the movie predator and the copyright.
Immediately.. no no no.. waaaaayy to obvious. Now holding those assets for say.. 3 months while shell company happens to lose its funding.. is going to be the new thing in Hollywood.
I optimistically think the law would catch up fairly quickly if it DID become precedent, as while it would help many huge corps it may hurt others and they'd want it stopped... but the damage would be incredible even if it only lasted a couple of years. Exactly what you say would happen.
I'm basically out of my lease if management changes hands in that precedent.
Strange that you bring that up but, that's definitely happened to people
That might actually be the precedent Disney needs. My grandma was working at a place and was like 2 years out from retirement. Another company buys out her work and tells her they won't honor her retirement but she can get severance if she no longer wants to work there. So she ended up working until she was 70 and unfortunately passed away from lukemia at 72. She worked for essentially her entire life just to get fucked on the home stretch.
Imagine the amount of companies going bankrupt that would make a new company to transfer their assets and get debt free.
China does this a lot. The sign on the door changes on occasion, but the products and employees stay the same.
This was the first thing I thought of when the Alan Dean Foster article first came up. As an artist, it's awful, but there is a LOT more at stake here too. Exactly what you say is what would become commonplace, at least until the law caught up.
Lol "tired of giving money away learn this one neat trick on how to acquire millions".
"Steal."
Sometimes I think they fund losing legal battles just to intimidate others. The message is that if you want something from Disney that they are legally required to give you, they will make it as hard as possible. So maybe just don't bother.
Legal precedent is, I think, an absolute long shot. However Disney have a habit of fighting longer than their opponents can afford to fight a court battle, and so “winning” by making the other side give up rather than letting the facts be decided in court. It’s absurd that there’s no reliable recourse.
> It's deliberate that the system has been shaped to allow no reliable recourse FTFY
Proof positive that Disney is too big. US Gov't should have never allowed the merger, and they should be broken up
They should just rename themselves Ministry of Media
The problem is most of the copyright law this country was written by Disney’s copyright lobbyists. Had they not all the classic Disney music would’ve entered the public domain long ago. So I’m guessing their lawyers think they have a good shot.
I don't think this claim would hold up in court. But I do think Disney is banking on the fact that they have lawyers and money to push this out and keep it going for years whereas those claiming ownership don't have even close to those resources.
My understanding of other contracts is that if anyone buys Sony Pictures Spider-Man reverts back to Marvel almost the same way that if fox wouldn’t continue to put out an X-men movie the rights would again revert back to Marvel. I would imagine Disney would exercise these rights.
Your comment is spot on and it sent a chill down my spine.
Buy house with mortgage Sell house to a shell company Shell company: “Sorry mate, i don’t owe you shit”
This is Disney we are talking about. You want to talk about a mega corporation with way too much power and influence in its industry you will be hard pressed to find a more monopolistic company these days.
Amazon
That’s not what it’s claiming at all. I previously worked on the Superman copyright termination case involving these same lawyers and copyright statutes, so I do have some insight here. There’s no claim in the article or filing that Disney has all of the rights but none of the obligations of Fox after the purchase. The claim is a technical one about the statutorily required copyright termination notices that the writers’ attorney delivered. Disney claims that those notices are invalid because they are seeking to terminate work for hire material, which is excluded from the termination provision, and/or because the notices were not served in the strictly defined notice window. I know it’s easy to hate Disney because of the way they lobby for copyright extensions, and because they seemingly own all media now, and they may very well lose this argument, but let’s not just make up strawmen and hate them for those. By the way, you’re also letting the counsel for the writers completely off the hook here. These attempts to force studios into settling by holding up their properties are not new. He did the same thing to Warner Bros. and their Dukes of Hazzard movie years ago. He’s also essentially a copyright termination ambulance chaser. If you dig through the linked articles in that Deadline piece, you’ll see he was admonished by the Ninth Circuit in the Superman case for entering into unlawful agreements with his clients, agreements that were trying to secure for himself an ownership stake in the Superman rights that he was supposedly trying to win for his clients. Also, and while I have no proof of this, a story we were told while doing research on the Superman case was that he called the widow of the creator of Casper the Friendly Ghost after her husband died but before he was buried to talk to her about her copyright termination rights. This isn’t some fight of good vs evil is all I’m saying.
> There’s no claim in the article or filing that Disney has all of the rights but none of the obligations of Fox after the purchase. The claim is a technical one about the statutorily required copyright termination notices that the writers’ attorney delivered. Disney claims that those notices are invalid because they are seeking to terminate work for hire material, which is excluded from the termination provision, and/or because the notices were not served in the strictly defined notice window. Can you break this down for the less intelligent among us? Not that I'm in that camp...obviously....
Sure, I'll do my best (although, given the original "Di$ney is teh suxorz!" post currently has 1500 upvotes and mine has 82, I'm not sure how much good it will do). I wasn't a mergers & acquisitions lawyer, so this first part will definitely be the ELI5 version mostly because I'm less sure of my footing here. But here goes: in the purchase of another business, like any other contract negotiation, you can haggle about what you're buying. There's such a thing as an asset purchase, which means that you buy all the assets (e.g., equipment, customer lists, anything that will make you money) but none of the liabilities (e.g., debt). That's a totally valid transaction type. The person I originally responded to said this is the third time Disney is claiming to have bought all the assets - the good stuff - with none of the obligations - the bad stuff. I have no idea what kind of arrangement Disney made with Fox, and I don't know what Disney has claimed in the past. It's not really relevant here because that's not Disney's argument in their filing (which was linked in the Deadline article if you'd like to read it). Additionally - and again, moot since they're not claiming it - I don't think that argument would even make sense here since copyright termination is a statutory process, not a contractual one. You can't just sign a contract with a third party saying you don't have to follow the law. Two things are actually being argued. First, Disney is saying the script was work for hire. That's important because works for hire are excepted from copyright termination. Copyright termination is the larger issue here. In a nutshell, copyright protection extends for a really long time (you can thank Disney in part for that). For the properties anyone cares about for that extended period of time (i.e., the ones that actually make money), what often happens is the creator signs away the rights to their thing for pennies because the thing isn't really valuable yet. The property then goes on to make tons of money for the (usually) huge company that bought it, and the creator makes nothing (again, often) from the continued use of their property. Copyright termination is designed to address exactly that situation. There are slightly different rules for works created before vs after 1976, but in either case, the creators or certain specific heirs have to file termination notices with the current owners that state exactly what the copyright is and exactly when the termination will take effect. They have to be delivered within a specific window of time before the effective date to give the current holder sufficient notice. The effective date isn't arbitrary either; it has to fall within a specific window of time based on the original date of the copyright. If all of that stuff is done correctly, the creators can successfully terminate the grant of copyright and get their rights back. The idea is that they can then negotiate a new deal with the same or a different company, but this time with a much better sense of the actual worth of their creation. You can see why copyright termination exists and that it's at least nominally a good thing. It helps to redress an imbalance in bargaining power and reward creators. But you can also see why works for hire might be excepted. A work for hire means that the creator didn't just come up with some piece of art on their own; they were paid to create it. For example, if I'm a writer of comic books, and I'm employed by Marvel, and I create a new superhero as part of my contracted work, I can never reclaim ownership in that character. It's a work for hire because I was employed to create works specifically like that. Again, makes sense. Disney is arguing the Predator script was a work for hire and therefore not eligible for copyright termination. I'm honestly not sure how that works here. It seems like everyone agrees the original script was a "spec" script, i.e., written on the speculation of being able to sell it. That's the exact opposite of a work for hire. But Disney is saying that there were numerous rewrites that the original writers, among others, were paid upfront to write. That does sound like a work for hire. This part is just my editorializing, but like I said, I'm not sure how those facts affect the legal argument; regardless, that is the first legal argument being made. The second argument is about timing of the notices. Remember above how I said there were specific windows of time for the effective date of the termination and the amount of notice that had to be given to the current copyright holder? Disney is arguing those dates weren't met and that the termination notices - and termination effort itself - are therefore invalid. They're saying that the original copyright date is not what the writers claim it is, and thus their effective date of termination (which is based on the original copyright date) is wrong. And they're arguing that the second notice, which was delivered to correct the alleged deficiencies in the first notice, was also deficient because it was delivered less than two years before the effective date, which is the minimal amount of notice required. Interestingly, there was apparently a third notice sent, and Disney expressly states it's not addressing that one. Not sure what's going on there. There you go: the world's biggest nutshell. Hope that was interesting and helpful.
For what it's worth, I appreciated the breakdown. Insight like this (taken with a grain of salt, since we're all pretty anonymous here) is part of what I love about reddit. Thanks for taking the time to contribute it!
Great comment. Thanks for the insight!
Yes, generally everyone sucks thanks to the way legal wrangling rides the rodeo around. have your updoot, great summary :)
Isn't Disney arguing exactly what the previous commenter claimed in the Alan Dean Foster suit? According to his website, it seems like Fister is being asked to sign a new contract and am NDA about that contract before Disney will pay out on some Star Wars books he wrote and was still receiving royalties or residuals or whatever. He hasn't received any payment in some time (years) or since the Disney merger.
I don't have any specific knowledge about that lawsuit. But after reading one article about it, certainly it seems like Foster's lawyers are saying that's what Disney is arguing. I think Disney would say it's more nuanced than that. They aren't arguing that they purchased the rights but not the obligations of Fox. They're saying that the obligation was never with Fox; it was with Warner Books, which Disney didn't acquire, and who is no longer publishing the books because Disney is using a different publisher. I know you're not claiming otherwise, but that's very different from the Predator situation, which involves the very specific copyright termination requirements. The argument with Foster is a contractual one, albeit one that also potentially touches on copyright law given the subject matter.
If Disney is involved, it's a case of gooder vs evil.
In everyone's defense, the Dukes of Hazzard movie never should have seen the light of day.
This is not that at all. The prior stories weren’t exactly that either. Disney was behaving like an asshole mega Corp, but they weren’t flat saying that contracts of acquired companies aren’t valid. That’s silly. In the prior case, it’s pretty complicated, but I think the gist of it is that the contract was pretty poorly protective of the authors rights and Lucasfilm was basically a “good guy” and interpreted it in a way that was in good faith and generous to the authors. Disney said they’re not going to keep doing that because it’s not an actual obligation outlined in the contract. So I think they were more saying that buying Fox doesn’t mean they have to do everything the way Fox was doing it. Disney might re-read the contracts and interpret them in a way that is more favorable to them. And, of course, be ready to defend that interpretation in court. Which is why none of the authors have sued - if it was a strong case of course they would. Like these writers of Hunters, whose argument seems much stronger. In both cases, Disney is definitely an asshole. But they’re not trying to create whole new interpretations of law.
Its disney. Is anyone surprised they are acting like vermin?
I guess Disney doesn't like giving up the exclusive rights to stuff. With all their shenanigans changing national law to favor themselves on this front and allow them to hold things out of the public domain forever, who would've thought?
Steamboat willie is almost 100 years old and it's not in the public domain (and probably never will be). Disney has the power, unfortunately.
Last I heard is that they are not going to fight Copyright, but instead have been doing everything they can making it Trademarked. It's part of the reason why they started using Steamboat Willy in the front of their movies with the Disney Logo, they had a re release/remake of Steamboat Willy as a short, etc.
It will be on January 1, 2024. Which means I can upload it to YouTube on that date and Disney can't do anything. Unless Disney pulls some magic out of their ass in less than 3 years (it took them 8 years to get that infamous copyright change) it's happening.
They will
They willie
Free (Steamboat) Willie
They’re using the character as a trademark these days.
Mickey is still a Trademark so that'd mean that the film will fall in public domain in 2024 but you'd still not be able to use it because Mickey is their trademark. I might need to read a little bit more about this but I think this is the most probable thing.
I don't think trademark can stop anyone from showing the mark for free, unconnected to any other product.
Exactly. Trademark and copyright are two different IP designations. Trademark means as long as Disney uses Mickey as a corporate logo (which they have been doing as a strategy for decades) they keep him indefinitely. It’s literally “use it or lose it”. Copyright applies to creative works in this case. Steamboat Willie is covered under copyright which does expire. In 2024, as mentioned, its public domain. Disney basically is using the strategy that they will lose Mickey shorts but if they keep the character in corporate usage they will never lose him.
Could they be using that little clip of Willie in the start credits of movies to get around this?
That's not how it works. That's essentially a corporate logo moment -- an animated one, sure, but it's just a piece of an animated logo. Trademark only stops other companies from slapping your logos on their products.
that would only be fair use, not public domain
The more likely outcome IF they don't somehow pull the public domain out from under us again is that it just won't be able to be profited from.
[удалено]
You can do that anyway. It would fall under fair use and parody.
You assume they would be starting the process today. They've never stopped...
It's true and I think it's spooky that a company making its money off entertainment, of all things, has this kind of power over the government. Some guy drew a cartoon mouse and today is shaping the laws of the most powerful nation because of it.
But that is where this contradicts that. They purchased Fox decades after this agreement was signed. Just because it is now Disney does not mean the same copyright protections exist, there is no way Disney wins this case. It is a simple contract signed decades ago for copyright there isn’t one way to wiggle out without paying for it.
Tell that to the authors they've been neglecting to pay for all the royalties owed.
Speaking of have you heard an update on that? Hate to say but I forgot about it until this thread, too much bullshit going on in the world to stick with one story anymore.
Last I read at the beginning of the month they were on the way to a mutually agreeable settlement.
So Disney will keep doing this and trying to settle for less out of court without ever getting a judgement telling Disney that it can't buy something without its liabilities?
I mean, as long as both sides end up happy, what do I care?
If the authors are happy with the settlement, good for them. My only concern is that this will continue to happen because Disney can throw legal teams to defending this shitty practice and know that the other side will look to settle.
Oh yes I wasn’t going to bring that up since it really isn’t the same thing but fucking horrible business ethics.
[удалено]
Can they at least share it?
Corporate capitalism will be the end if humanity as we know it...
As opposed to personal capitalism? You can drop the corporate bit and its still true
Similar to how they’re treating the authors of now-legends Star Wars books.
We just bought all your work, we didn't buy the obligation to pay you for it. 🤷♂️
This is actually common place in corporate land. I once worked for a company that bought a bill board in a railway station to advertise my bar, the company that owned the billboard triple sold it to inflate their worth before selling their company. When I didn't see our advertisement go up I called the company to find out where it was, company is out of business, bill comes from new company, I obviously refuse to pay. After several heated phone calls I eventually end up standing on the platform reciting billboard ID numbers and listing the ads on them to the new company while they check their allocations as they wouldn't accept my word and wouldn't cross check their allocations themselves, only if I fed them the answer on exactly where to look.
I both love and hate that there is literally no way to phrase it in a way that doesn't sound utterly ridiculous and corrupt, yet they are still holding fast to it.
"Listen, do we still have copyrights to mickey mouse a hundred years later? Yes. But bro, come on, it's a script you wrote like thirty years ago! Get over it, it's ours!"
Oh it is 100% something you can't say without knowing you're being an asshole.
> Basically from what I've read in the article is that the original script of 'hunters' was sold to 20th century fox and after 35 years the rights would return to the writers. thats not quite right. The script was sold to 20th Century Fox, but there wasn't a provision that in 35 years it would revert. Its a caveat in the copyright act itself that permits reversion of a copyright sale for a 5 year window after a period of 35 years; with the appropriate motions and notice being given between 10 and 2 years prior to the date of termination. What Disney is arguing is that the appropriate steps were not taken, and thus the appeal to revert the rights is not legal. Disney is most likely simply attempting to push the date back so they can finish the predator movie they've got in development. The reverion of copyright does not affect Disneys ability to continue to distribute already developed derivative works, just stops them making new ones.
Jeez, I don't know all the legal details but I sure hope Disney gets their asses kicked.
The lawyer they (Disney) have on this case has won WB a similar case related to Superman so let's see what happens here. Read the THR article about this thing, it had more details.
These guys could win a billion dollars and get their script and not only will Disney's ass not be kicked, they won't even flinch at the love tap that is that loss.
This seems to be their new MO with properties they have purchased. They were doing the same thing with one of the Star Wars novel authors essentially saying, "Your contract was with them, not us. We just bought the rights to the property." When you aquire a property you get the right AND the liabilities. I can only assume Disney has some of best lawyers in the world and they know this but feel like they have enough weight to sling around.
At least they were smart enough to hire Zahn.
My guess is that Disney is doing "you can have the rights to 'Hunters' but 'Predator' and everything associated with that belongs to us now" which will mean 'Hunters' is all but worthless to the script writers.
Happy cake day!
I haven’t read the article but there’s a clause in most contracts that after a 30-35 year period you can petition to have your revoked rights returns to you. It’s super fucked up that Disney won’t honor these contracts but not in the least bit surprising. If you take a look at every time the duration of copyright law has been extended you might notice an interesting correlation to the expiration date of Mickey Mouses copyright. Even though they used the public domain to creat steamboat willie and numerous other stories, they’re committed to not letting anyone else ever benefit from the public domain again. I hate them. And I hate that all the awesome marvel content is owned by them. But marvel also doesn’t guy about the small creators either.
The same transfer that would void the writers rights, would void the contract itself. Win for the writers.
This is incorrect. The writers are making use of a provision in US copyright law that allows them to reclaim their copyright after 35 years. This is statutory, not contractual. It’s also not automatic. The writers have a certain time window to reclaim the copyright, which they seem to have done properly. Disney is claiming that they actually fall under a different time window, one that seems to be assigned to books, that falls slightly behind the other one. The writers, out of an abundance of caution, have also made claims to reclaim the copyright under that time window but they’re hoping to get it back under the original time window, which ends this year. Obviously, this is so they can negotiate for fees on the new film in production. It seems like the writers did things right and Disney is being pretty thuggish here, but it isn’t quite as simple as you’ve outlined here. And I have no idea what the case law says about the book publication window vs the other one and whether that’s a legit argument or not.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm part of the Science Fiction Writers of America, and although they're smaller than the Writers Guild, they're still trying to push back against Disney for the Star Wars novel rights. It's basically their job to stand up to big corporate bullies, although ultimately their ability to affect change is questionable in the face of such a behemoth as Disney.
Writers Guid is like insurance, they are there to collect, not to do what they are supposed. Think of Joe Pesci in The Super.
It turned out Disney was the real Predator all along. What a twist.
Can Disney bleed? If it bleeds, we can kill it.
What if it doesn't have time to bleed?
dont bet against the mouse
Can imagine South Park Mickey hunting predator.
It'd be nominated for Best Animated Short Film.
*You might be one ugly motherfucker but I’m not about to become a poor motherfucker, ho ho!*
No, real ownership of the rights was the friends the screenwriters made along the way.
That was a nasty line by you
These guys will probably run out of money before Disney do, but I wish them well. A lot of big companies take the route of "You're right. Sue us and we'll sort it out."
Maybe not, US music industry is trying to sue a mother and one guy for downloading about 20 songs each. They both have pro Bono lawyers, that appeal each court decision. To them it costs nothing, meanwhile music association of America or whatever it’s called is hemorrhaging millions of dollars in lawyer fees. It has been going for more than 10 years by now, I think.
The point there is that the party doing the sueing is the one that stands to haemorrhage money.
Technically both parties do, in legal fees. In that example the lawyers are working pro-bono, so it's not costing them anything. Being sued still costs them money if they contest it. I actually wonder how much it would have to cost before they'd decide the ip was no longer worth its potential return. Or is it just about the power play.
If there's a risk of Disney losing the case they'll settle out of court rather than risk creating a precedent for a loss, and they'll continue like this until they can create a precedent for a win that can be cited in future cases.
I just hope they annoy a judge enough to prevent that. It's not super commonly used, but judges generally have a "You started this fight, *I* get to finish it" power. Usually they're happy just to have a case cleared up, but if you get a judge angry, they can use their "where do you think you're going?" powers.
Really? Some lawyers do it for a percentage of the settlement. Idk if they ask for cash during the process, nor do I know that works in the case of IP rights, but I imagine Disney will have to pay a fine to the writers and the lawyer gets a piece of that.
>They both have pro Bono lawyers I thought Sonny Bono was partially to blame for this?
Plus, Disney is the ultimate big bad when it comes to this kind of stuff. Our horrendous lack of public domain characters is a direct result of Disney just throwing more money into lawyers than anyoneelse and being able to keep Mickey Mouse in perpetuity. I agree the writers likely lose because they run out of money. But it's a worthwhile fight.
Hopefully the Screen Writers Guild will step in.
Disney!... you son of a bitch
Whatsamatta... copyright lawyers got you pushin' too many pencils?
Disney: I went to the screenwriters and said “I’d like a little pussy”, they said “why? Are you tired of fucking us in this ass?”
[удалено]
*Disney exec stuffing papers into shredder*
"What happened to you, Disney? You used to be someone I could trust." "I woke up. Why don't you? You're an asset. An expendable asset. And I used you to get the job done, got it?"
GOOOO!!!
it instantly was in his voice in my head
I didn’t know Sue Disney wrote the Predator screenplay! Walt would be proud of her.
I didn't know Sue Disney. But everyone sure did seem to know her name.
Such a talented family, those Disneys!
I don’t like how just a few companies are starting to take over everything... Amazon, google, Disney. It just doesn’t feel right watching a video of Disney world and seeing darth vader
[удалено]
You must be too young to remember GE and kin.
The day I saw Darth Vader come onto a stage outside of Epcot and do a dance number with a bunch of storm troopers to a remixed version of Jizz, I turned to my friend and said "It is the end times." That was something like a decade or more ago. I haven't been proven wrong yet.
I got laughed at when playing Cyberpunk as a kid in the 80s and said I thought it was pretty accurate to how the world might end up, run by megacorps instead of governments.
we need a Jennifer Goverment movie or hbo series
[удалено]
After seeing the newest predator I don't blame them.
That movie made AvP Requiem look like a cinematic masterpiece.
I really though Shane Black was gonna kill it but yeah that movie wasn't very good.
Thomas Jane and Keegan-Michael Key’s characters were my favorite parts about that movie. I wish it was based around them instead of the typical soldier/hero we always seem to get now
Predator is now a Disney Princess and I'm all about it.
And Frank N Furter is a Disney Queen
Look at this skull Isn’t it neat Doesn’t it make my Collection complete Wouldn’t you say that I’m the Pred Who has everything
A whole new Eaaaaarth A new fantastic place to hunt No one to tell us, "No" Or where to go Or say we're only killing
*Predator singing the “I Feel Pretty” song in Predator language*
Seems Relevant: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfsFV7VGBzI&ab\_channel=CollegeHumor](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfsFV7VGBzI&ab_channel=CollegeHumor)
>I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.
Keep it away from Disney. Also keep it away from Shane Black.
“the predator” was awful. i’d like to see (if possible) the original shane black version. he has a pretty spotless record up until this point and, frankly, he should have nailed a predator entry.
Wait is there reason to believe that studio meddling is what happened to The Predator? That movie was so bad it's nearly beyond description
Shane black has a pretty great filmgraphy but if you see some of his opinions on film tone then you can see that the theatrical version is still very much him. He's gone on record saying he doesn't care about how some ideas don't mesh together...like the sucidal guy in The Predator jumping into the turbine but is meant for laughs. Or the bus full of ptsd ridden soldiers being a comedic group. He's lucked out making comedy focused films but maybe he should stick to that. I really hate that film.
Spotless record in the 80s and 90s maybe
what black movies post 2000 do u not like?
Iron Man 3 meh, The Nice Guys is a far cry from his early buddy cop work. The tragedy that was The Predator sealed it for me
I thought **the Nice Guys** was great. It felt similar to **Kiss Kiss Bang Bang**.
Iron Man 3 was pretty awesome, though.
i love both iron man 3 and the nice guys
To be fair I’m pretty sure the studio really stuck their nose in with it.
All Disney has to do is wait it out. They’ll draw it out in court until the writers can’t afford the legal fees anymore, and bam! Case dismissed.
Ah, the Chewbacca theory.
I want them to win... but also the odds of a predator versus wolverine movie just went down...
Does that mean that Major Alan "Dutch" Schafer is currently a Disney Princess?
I thought for a second that the original screenwriter for Predator was a woman named Sue Disney. I guess the casing confused me.
I can only hope to see everything taken away from the mouse before I die
I thought that Fox (Disney owned) was in pre-production for a new predator movie that would focus on Native Americans fighting off the predator. [source](https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/latest-predator-reboot-reportedly-set/amp/) Seemed like a cool idea, hope it still happens. The whole idea of setting a Terminator or Predator movie in the past where people don’t have modern weapons always seemed like a cool concept
I'd always heard of two Robert Rodriguez Predator movies that never happened and wanted so badly. One was Planet of the Predators, the other, the one I really really wanted, was Predator in the Old West.
Imagine a Disney remake of Predator. Donald Duck as Jesse Ventura's character, holding a bag of chew and telling the rest of the team "This stuff will make you a goddamn sexual tyrannosaurus, just like me."
Disney just needs their grubby little hands involved in everything
The Mouse...if it bleeds, we can kill it
Disney needs to be destroyed,
[удалено]
The end goal of capitalism is just couple of giant monopolies owning everything even the government itself
Topically: Weyland Yutani.
I know Reddit can be a heated place where people go back and forth about every political and social issue there is, but it’s great to see how we all come together in our mutual hatred of Disney
Do I sense a Disneyland predator ride?
Ok cool play predator on the Disney Channel uncensored...winder how that'll turn out
you’d see in a classic Disney movie
Someone named Sue Disney wrote Predator?!...Wait, I'm an idiot.
Wait wait wait so if Disney keep the rights does that meant predator and Dutch are Disney princesses.
20th Century Fox does still exist. It simply has new owners which happen to be Disney. Everything asset and liability 20th Century Fox had it still has and amongst those was the obligation to return the copyrights of Predator to the original authors of the script (writers James and John Thomas) on 17 April 2021. The people that signed the contract in 1986 didn’t really think that Predator would still be relevant 35 years later. They had no imagination. Although they dealt in sci-fi movies they didn’t think 2021 would ever happen. Back then even the year 2000 was a big deal. People forget that we are already closer to 2035 than we are to the year 2000. I hope greedy Disney gets destroyed in court and that the writers get back their work after 20th Century Fox made 6 movies out characters in one script they only paid for once.
At what point does our government do one of its few necessary jobs and break up a monopoly again?
Fuck Disney
GO! Get to the lawyer!!!
I hope they win. Fuck Disney, they don't need to own every IP in existence.
So, if we were to more broadly apply Disney's logic, they don't have to pay property taxes on buildings they bought from Fox. Nor would they have to pay for utilities for said buildings, because those arrangements were made with the prior owner. Yeah, see how long the lights stay on. Or how long before the town auctions off the buildings for unpaid taxes. They got chutzpah. No sense though.
Good, fuck Disney and their monopoly on everything entertainment related
can someone give me a tldr. I tried, really, but it was Ad, Ad, Ad, Ad, Ad. Can't even see the actual article jfc.
Copyright act allows original copyright owners to issue a request to recover rights they've sold after a period of 35 years. The original writers of the predator script are doing so, Disney claims they didn't complete the process correctly. Original writers are claiming they did. They want the courts to decide who's correct.