Quote from: RidgeTop on Apr 18, 2021, 10:36:32 PM
Hicks, Voodoo, and I discuss:
https://youtu.be/7VAA5BGOXf4
Great discussion!
One thing that stood out; at about 16 minutes VooDoo says that this case isn't unique because of Superman and F13, but there's actually quite a big difference here.
The Superman rights issue had nothing to do with this particular provision; the issue stemmed from whether one of the creators had or had not actually transferred rights to the other back in the 1930s. The estate of one of the original co-creators contended that he hadn't, and so they had the rights to the character. The courts found otherwise.
With F13, it's actually quite muddy whether the provision could be invoked at all. The original script was written because the producer asked the writer to put something together that would ride the post-
Halloween gravy train. This would make the script a work-for-hire, and thus ineligible. However, nothing was ever put onto paper explicitly declaring the script a work for hire, and so the provision was invoked. The appeal seems to be based around clarifying whether a verbal agreement is legally binding.
This is actually the first time (as far as anyone seems aware) that this specific provision has been used pretty unambiguously, following the specific steps laid out in its use. There's no contention this was a spec script, and the Brothers filed their intent well within the guidelines. Disney's entire counter-claim is that the date they gave was too early, not that they aren't allowed to get the rights back.
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Apr 19, 2021, 05:34:06 AM
Well given they've been working on Skulls for at least 4 years, Disney didn't do the homework that Fox didn't do either.
https://twitter.com/DannyTRS/status/1329919692157444096
4 years ago they had time to make and release the film inside the guidelines, though. They only started casting and location scouting in the last few months, when the clock was running down.