Of passing industry interest (both on a creative and a financial level)

As I try and try and try to hammer into my students' heads, you have to pay attention to the business side of things, too...


The Lawsuit of the Rings

By ROSS JOHNSON
Published: June 27, 2005

What if Frodo Baggins, instead of confronting the evil empire in "The Lord of the Rings," just got himself a lawyer and sued?

The real-life corollary is going on now in Hollywood where Peter Jackson, one of the film industry's most powerful and popular directors, is suing New Line Cinema, the subsidiary of Time Warner that financed and distributed his Oscar-winning "Lord of the Rings" film trilogy.

In his lawsuit, Mr. Jackson claimed that New Line committed fraud in its handling of the revenues generated by 2001's "The Fellowship of the Ring," and as a result, he was underpaid by millions.

The suit does not specify a damage award. But in an interview last week, his lawyers said that, after New Line applied its contract interpretation from "Fellowship" to the other two movies, Mr. Jackson was underpaid by as much as $100 million for the trilogy.

Lawsuits in Hollywood are as common as hobbits in Middle Earth. What makes Mr. Jackson's suit draw such widespread interest here, other than his clout in the industry and the amount at stake, is one specific allegation about New Line's behavior. 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.

read more here


(yes, it requires free registration. If you don't know about bugmenot yet, what rock have you been hiding under?)


warning: go into this with an understanding that it's not about right or wrong, or creative vs suits, but greed. There is no sum of money great enough to satisfy anyone. If there's blood in the water, everyone wants a chunk of meat, too. And that's not always a bad thing, so long as you keep it all in perspective and acknowledge that the house pretty much always gets the larger cut, and that's just how the game gets played.

a slight glimmer of sanity...

another blurb from the AP wire:

No Ten Commandments in Courthouse
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer.


WASHINGTON - A split Supreme Court struck down Ten Commandments displays in courthouses Monday, ruling that two exhibits in Kentucky cross the line between separation of church and state because they promote a religious message.

The 5-4 decision was the first of two seeking to mediate the bitter culture war over religion's place in public life. In it, the court declined to prohibit all displays in court buildings or on government property. Justices left legal wiggle room, saying that some displays - like their own courtroom frieze - would be permissible if they're portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation's legal history.

But framed copies in two Kentucky courthouses went too far in endorsing religion, the court held.