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

Producers Win Legal Fees in 'Thin Red Line' Case

Expand Messages
  • unvoyou
    After prevailing in an eight-year litigation marathon over the rights to the WWII film The Thin Red Line, Phoenix Pictures won its bid for attorney fees
    Message 1 of 8 , Dec 4, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      After prevailing in an eight-year "litigation marathon" over the rights to the WWII film "The Thin Red Line," Phoenix Pictures won its bid for attorney fees and legal costs in Manhattan Federal Court.

      Gerard Rubin claimed that he and his company, Briarpatch Ltd., owned the rights to the critically acclaimed film that earned seven Academy Award nominations. He unsuccessfully sued Phoenix, co-founder Morris "Mike" Medavoy, and the film's writer and director, Terrence Malick, for alleged copyright infringement.

      http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/04/Producers_Win_Legal_Fees_in_Thin_Red_Line_Case.htm
    • Bilge Ebiri
      ... This is interesting. I hadn t been following this case. It appears that this character Rubin already had won one case -- for $1.5 million -- but then
      Message 2 of 8 , Dec 4, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        > After prevailing in an eight-year "litigation marathon" over the rights to
        > the WWII film "The Thin Red Line," Phoenix Pictures won its bid for
        > attorney fees and legal costs in Manhattan Federal Court.
        >
        > Gerard Rubin claimed that he and his company, Briarpatch Ltd., owned the
        > rights to the critically acclaimed film that earned seven Academy Award
        > nominations. He unsuccessfully sued Phoenix, co-founder Morris "Mike"
        > Medavoy, and the film's writer and director, Terrence Malick, for alleged
        > copyright infringement.
        >
        > http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/04/Producers_Win_Legal_Fees_in_Thin_Red_Line_Case.htm
        >

        This is interesting. I hadn't been following this case. It appears that this
        character Rubin already had won one case -- for $1.5 million -- but then
        pressed his luck and tried to win the rights to the film itself, which seems
        absurd.

        I'm also wondering who this guy is. I thought Briarpatch was the company
        that belonged to Geisler & Roberdeau. I recall hearing that one of them died
        and that they had gone bankrupt, so maybe Rubin was the guy who wound up
        with the company after the dust had settled? But I have no real idea.

        -Bilge
      • Paul Maher Jr.
        maybe thats what is holding up any special editions or high def versions of TTRL. This is great news. ________________________________ From: unvoyou
        Message 3 of 8 , Dec 4, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          maybe thats what is holding up any special editions or high def versions of TTRL. This is great news.




          ________________________________
          From: unvoyou <unvoyou@...>
          To: terrencemalick@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Fri, December 4, 2009 1:08:20 PM
          Subject: [terrencemalick] Producers Win Legal Fees in 'Thin Red Line' Case


          After prevailing in an eight-year "litigation marathon" over the rights to the WWII film "The Thin Red Line," Phoenix Pictures won its bid for attorney fees and legal costs in Manhattan Federal Court.

          Gerard Rubin claimed that he and his company, Briarpatch Ltd., owned the rights to the critically acclaimed film that earned seven Academy Award nominations. He unsuccessfully sued Phoenix, co-founder Morris "Mike" Medavoy, and the film's writer and director, Terrence Malick, for alleged copyright infringement.

          http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/04/Producers_Win_Legal_Fees_in_Thin_Red_Line_Case.htm




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Bilge Ebiri
          ... I don t think that s what s holding it up. There were plans announced to release it on Blu-Ray, but then it got pushed back because the Blu-Ray market
          Message 4 of 8 , Dec 4, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            > maybe thats what is holding up any special editions or high def versions
            > of TTRL. This is great news.
            >
            >

            I don't think that's what's holding it up. There were plans announced to
            release it on Blu-Ray, but then it got pushed back because the Blu-Ray
            market hasn't taken it off the way people expected it would, and TTRL wasn't
            exactly a title its studio saw as a financial barn-burner. Also, this suit,
            by the looks of it, was almost never taken seriously by anybody. This
            announcement, in fact, was to just note that Phoenix had been awarded the
            legal fees it had spent to defend itself. The copyright case itself appears
            to have been decided some time ago.

            -Bilge
          • Paul Maher Jr.
            God forbid they take the high road for art s sake . . . ________________________________ From: Bilge Ebiri To: terrencemalick@yahoogroups.com
            Message 5 of 8 , Dec 4, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              God forbid they take the high road for art's sake . . .




              ________________________________
              From: Bilge Ebiri <ebiri@...>
              To: terrencemalick@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Fri, December 4, 2009 1:57:58 PM
              Subject: Re: [terrencemalick] Producers Win Legal Fees in 'Thin Red Line' Case




              > maybe thats what is holding up any special editions or high def versions
              > of TTRL. This is great news.
              >
              >

              I don't think that's what's holding it up. There were plans announced to
              release it on Blu-Ray, but then it got pushed back because the Blu-Ray
              market hasn't taken it off the way people expected it would, and TTRL wasn't
              exactly a title its studio saw as a financial barn-burner. Also, this suit,
              by the looks of it, was almost never taken seriously by anybody. This
              announcement, in fact, was to just note that Phoenix had been awarded the
              legal fees it had spent to defend itself. The copyright case itself appears
              to have been decided some time ago.

              -Bilge




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Oscar Houck
              Not knowing anything about the law, it does seem absurd that you d name Malick in a suit over copyright infringement on a film he wrote. How does that work? I
              Message 6 of 8 , Dec 4, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Not knowing anything about the law, it does seem absurd that you'd name Malick in a suit over copyright infringement on a film he wrote. How does that work? I don't even want to know.




                ________________________________
                From: Bilge Ebiri <ebiri@...>
                To: terrencemalick@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Fri, December 4, 2009 12:16:29 PM
                Subject: Re: [terrencemalick] Producers Win Legal Fees in 'Thin Red Line' Case

                 


                > After prevailing in an eight-year "litigation marathon" over the rights to
                > the WWII film "The Thin Red Line," Phoenix Pictures won its bid for
                > attorney fees and legal costs in Manhattan Federal Court.
                >
                > Gerard Rubin claimed that he and his company, Briarpatch Ltd., owned the
                > rights to the critically acclaimed film that earned seven Academy Award
                > nominations. He unsuccessfully sued Phoenix, co-founder Morris "Mike"
                > Medavoy, and the film's writer and director, Terrence Malick, for alleged
                > copyright infringement.
                >
                > http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/04/Producers_Win_Legal_Fees_in_Thin_Red_Line_Case.htm
                >

                This is interesting. I hadn't been following this case. It appears that this
                character Rubin already had won one case -- for $1.5 million -- but then
                pressed his luck and tried to win the rights to the film itself, which seems
                absurd.

                I'm also wondering who this guy is. I thought Briarpatch was the company
                that belonged to Geisler & Roberdeau. I recall hearing that one of them died
                and that they had gone bankrupt, so maybe Rubin was the guy who wound up
                with the company after the dust had settled? But I have no real idea.

                -Bilge




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Bilge Ebiri
                ... It may have something to do with the insanity of copyright law in the U.S., where the studio/company that produces a film is recognized as the author of
                Message 7 of 8 , Dec 4, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  >Not knowing anything about the law, it does seem absurd that you'd name
                  >Malick in a suit over copyright infringement on a film he wrote.
                  > How does that work? I don't even want to know.



                  It may have something to do with the insanity of copyright law in the U.S.,
                  where the studio/company that produces a film is recognized as the "author"
                  of that film. It may also have something to do with the fact that Briarpatch
                  had to purchase (or option) the rights to James Jones's novel in order for
                  Malick to legally be allowed to adapt it for them. FWIW, it *was* Briarpatch
                  that originally had the rights to the novel and hired Malick to write the
                  script, before Medavoy or Phoenix or anyone else was involved. But I think
                  Phoenix bought these rights from BP in order to be able to produce the film.
                  The bad blood between Geisler/Roberdeau and Malick/Medavoy came later, for
                  reasons that are still somewhat vague.

                  -Bilge
                • Oscar Houck
                    I told you I didn t want to know! No, seriously, thanks for clearing that up. Interesting.   O. ________________________________ From: Bilge Ebiri
                  Message 8 of 8 , Dec 4, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                     
                    I told you I didn't want to know! No, seriously, thanks for clearing that up. Interesting.
                     
                    O.




                    ________________________________
                    From: Bilge Ebiri <ebiri@...>
                    To: terrencemalick@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Fri, December 4, 2009 6:48:30 PM
                    Subject: Re: [terrencemalick] Producers Win Legal Fees in 'Thin Red Line' Case

                     


                    >Not knowing anything about the law, it does seem absurd that you'd name
                    >Malick in a suit over copyright infringement on a film he wrote.
                    > How does that work? I don't even want to know.

                    It may have something to do with the insanity of copyright law in the U.S.,
                    where the studio/company that produces a film is recognized as the "author"
                    of that film. It may also have something to do with the fact that Briarpatch
                    had to purchase (or option) the rights to James Jones's novel in order for
                    Malick to legally be allowed to adapt it for them. FWIW, it *was* Briarpatch
                    that originally had the rights to the novel and hired Malick to write the
                    script, before Medavoy or Phoenix or anyone else was involved. But I think
                    Phoenix bought these rights from BP in order to be able to produce the film.
                    The bad blood between Geisler/Roberdeau and Malick/Medavoy came later, for
                    reasons that are still somewhat vague.

                    -Bilge




                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.