Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Peter Jackson lawsuit

Expand Messages
  • saraciborski
    Of minor interest perhaps: there is an article in the Business Section of today s New York Times about a lawsuit that Peter Jackson has filed against New Line
    Message 1 of 6 , Jun 27, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Of minor interest perhaps: there is an article in the Business Section
      of today's New York Times about a lawsuit that Peter Jackson has filed
      against New Line Cinema for underpayment of revenues generated by FotR.
      It does have (presumably reliable) figures on the gross revenue for the
      three movies and an amusing quote from someone at New Line who says
      Jackson is being piggy since he already has enough money from the
      trilogy to rebuild Baghdad.

      Sara Ciborski
    • David Bratman
      ... Ah, Lawsuits of the Rich and Famous. How mythopoeic. I see that this is all about the interpretation of reckoning the profit on subsidiary rights, e.g.
      Message 2 of 6 , Jun 27, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        At 01:10 PM 6/27/2005 +0000, Sara Ciborski wrote:
        >Of minor interest perhaps: there is an article in the Business Section
        >of today's New York Times about a lawsuit that Peter Jackson has filed
        >against New Line Cinema for underpayment of revenues generated by FotR.

        Ah, Lawsuits of the Rich and Famous. How mythopoeic. I see that this is
        all about the interpretation of reckoning the profit on subsidiary rights,
        e.g. selling tchochkes at Burger King.

        What a difference from the relationship between Tolkien and his publishers,
        which improved once LOTR was published and they started making money.


        >an amusing quote from someone at New Line who says
        >Jackson is being piggy since he already has enough money from the
        >trilogy to rebuild Baghdad.

        As opposed to poor New Line, with too little to offer a beggar on the
        street. Does your heart bleed for them?

        DB
      • jack@greenmanreview.com
        ... He s *not* being piggy *if* New Line Cinema cheated on its payments. That s known as breaking a contract. Certainly they wouldn t be the first distributor
        Message 3 of 6 , Jun 27, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          > Of minor interest perhaps: there is an article in the Business Section
          > of today's New York Times about a lawsuit that Peter Jackson has filed
          > against New Line Cinema for underpayment of revenues generated by FotR.
          > It does have (presumably reliable) figures on the gross revenue for the
          > three movies and an amusing quote from someone at New Line who says
          > Jackson is being piggy since he already has enough money from the
          > trilogy to rebuild Baghdad.
          >
          > Sara Ciborski

          He's *not* being piggy *if* New Line Cinema cheated on its payments. That's known as
          breaking a contract. Certainly they wouldn't be the first distributor of content, be it
          CDs, books, or film, who skimmed the profits!
        • saraciborski
          ... That s known as ... Of course not. That he s being piggy is not my view. I thought it an amusing remark from the mega-profit entertainment world. Sara
          Message 4 of 6 , Jun 27, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, jack@g... wrote:
            >

            >
            > He's *not* being piggy *if* New Line Cinema cheated on its payments.
            That's known as
            > breaking a contract.

            Of course not. That he's being piggy is not my view. I thought it an
            amusing remark from the mega-profit entertainment world.
            Sara
          • David Bratman
            I know we re all dying to hear more about this, so here s an article claiming that the NY Times violated its own policies by quoting an unidentified New Line
            Message 5 of 6 , Jun 29, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              I know we're all dying to hear more about this, so here's an article
              claiming that the NY Times violated its own policies by quoting an
              unidentified New Line lawyer claiming that Jackson was being piggish. The
              policy says:

              "If pejorative opinions are worth reporting and cannot be specifically
              attributed, they may be paraphrased or described after thorough discussion
              between writer and editor. The vivid language of direct quotation confers
              an unfair advantage on a speaker or writer who hides behind the newspaper,
              and turns of phrase are valueless to a reader who cannot assess the source."

              <http://slate.msn.com/id/2121636/>

              DB
            • Stolzi
              ... source. ... And how boring that would be! Diamond Proudbrook
              Message 6 of 6 , Jun 29, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                ----- Original Message -----

                > I know we're all dying to hear more about this, so here's an article
                > claiming that the NY Times violated its own policies by quoting an
                > unidentified New Line lawyer claiming that Jackson was being piggish. The
                > policy says:
                >
                > "If pejorative opinions are worth reporting and cannot be specifically
                > attributed, they may be paraphrased or described after thorough discussion
                > between writer and editor. The vivid language of direct quotation confers
                > an unfair advantage on a speaker or writer who hides behind the newspaper,
                > and turns of phrase are valueless to a reader who cannot assess the
                source."
                >

                And how boring that would be!

                Diamond Proudbrook
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.