Broadways Lost Treasures — Page 3
#52
Posted: 3/30/07 at 2:55pm
I repeat (yet again): This is something you should be discussing with your union. Not Mr. Cohen -- he did no wrong here. Not here -- we are not part of your lawsuit. With your union. They are the ones who sold your rights away.
---------------------------
I don't think that that is correct from a legal perspective. If the unions didn't have the right to sign on behalf of their performers, then Mr. Cohen didn't have the rights to use the performances because the unions can only give what they had in the first place.
I believe the correct legal course of action would be for the performers to sue the unions AND Cohen, and then Cohen would seek recourse from the unions for wronging him. For example, if Big Julie steals Obediah's car and then sells it to Nathan, it's not like Nathan gets to keep the car even though he bought it in good faith. Obediah still has to go after Nathan for his car back. Nathan's recourse is to go after Big Julie for his money back.
---------------------------
I don't think that that is correct from a legal perspective. If the unions didn't have the right to sign on behalf of their performers, then Mr. Cohen didn't have the rights to use the performances because the unions can only give what they had in the first place.
I believe the correct legal course of action would be for the performers to sue the unions AND Cohen, and then Cohen would seek recourse from the unions for wronging him. For example, if Big Julie steals Obediah's car and then sells it to Nathan, it's not like Nathan gets to keep the car even though he bought it in good faith. Obediah still has to go after Nathan for his car back. Nathan's recourse is to go after Big Julie for his money back.
#53
Posted: 3/30/07 at 2:58pm
>> Where is the paper trail that puts the responsibility on Equity's doorstep and excuses Cohen from any obligation to compensate the actors involved?
Once more, such a trail would have to exist if PBS was going to touch these at all. The folks at Public Broadcasting arent completely stupid when it comes to such basic business matters. Knowing that unions were involved, they would make sure every i was dotted and every t crossed, if for no other reason than their own protection.
Insofar as the producer brandishing the contract, I'll ask in return: why should he? These performers should be talking to their union, not him. But you know why they arent? Because, IMHO, they're afraid the union will blacklist them for being "difficult". Just my guess, you understand, but a reasonable one based on my own experience with United Scenic.
Once more, such a trail would have to exist if PBS was going to touch these at all. The folks at Public Broadcasting arent completely stupid when it comes to such basic business matters. Knowing that unions were involved, they would make sure every i was dotted and every t crossed, if for no other reason than their own protection.
Insofar as the producer brandishing the contract, I'll ask in return: why should he? These performers should be talking to their union, not him. But you know why they arent? Because, IMHO, they're afraid the union will blacklist them for being "difficult". Just my guess, you understand, but a reasonable one based on my own experience with United Scenic.
http://docandraider.com
#55
Posted: 3/30/07 at 3:13pm
I think PBS, the unions and Chris Cohen probably DID dot every i and cross every t before they launched into this.
If you are a public television station, a union or an estate, you have lawyers whose job it is to make sure you NEVER enter into anything litigable.
However, in the United States, anyone can sue anyone for anything. Threatened lawsuits are frequently dropped or dismissed because they are deemed to be frivolous or nuisance suits. At this point, there is only the THREAT of a lawsuit here; no papers have been served.
When--and IF--this lawsuit is served, there will be a legal process known as "discovery" and the papers will become public. At that point, we can see things like the names of the complainants and who signed what agreement with whom.
If you are a public television station, a union or an estate, you have lawyers whose job it is to make sure you NEVER enter into anything litigable.
However, in the United States, anyone can sue anyone for anything. Threatened lawsuits are frequently dropped or dismissed because they are deemed to be frivolous or nuisance suits. At this point, there is only the THREAT of a lawsuit here; no papers have been served.
When--and IF--this lawsuit is served, there will be a legal process known as "discovery" and the papers will become public. At that point, we can see things like the names of the complainants and who signed what agreement with whom.
Updated On: 3/30/07 at 03:13 PM
#56
Posted: 3/30/07 at 3:39pm
I have just been informed by an industry expert with intimate knowledge of theatrical contracts and this contract in particular that the Cohen Estate made a clear-cut deal with Actors Equity.
In addition, the Cohen Estate had to deal with ALL the unions--including musicians and stagehands. Everyone was covered.
It's the UNIONS' job to pay out the royalties.
The UNIONS.
Ms. Richert--if there is a villain in this situation, it is Actors' Equity. It is NOT Christopher Cohen. You anger--and your frivolous lawsuit--are MISDIRECTED.
In addition, the Cohen Estate had to deal with ALL the unions--including musicians and stagehands. Everyone was covered.
It's the UNIONS' job to pay out the royalties.
The UNIONS.
Ms. Richert--if there is a villain in this situation, it is Actors' Equity. It is NOT Christopher Cohen. You anger--and your frivolous lawsuit--are MISDIRECTED.
#57
Posted: 3/30/07 at 3:49pm
I hope this is not in poor taste, but I wonder if Patrick Quinn's death will become a factor in this case.
If that crosses the line I am sorry, but you have to admit it crossed your mind, too.
If that crosses the line I am sorry, but you have to admit it crossed your mind, too.
PEACE.
#58
Posted: 3/30/07 at 3:55pm
No, actually. I would imagine it was more the Equity legal department than Quinn's office.
And frankly, I don't think it will turn out that the union did anything terribly wrong, except maybe lowball the royalty rate.
I think the THREATENED lawsuit is without merit.
And frankly, I don't think it will turn out that the union did anything terribly wrong, except maybe lowball the royalty rate.
I think the THREATENED lawsuit is without merit.
#59
Posted: 3/30/07 at 6:26pm
>> Thank you Judge Judy!
Say what you wish, sweetheart, but this whole thing smelled from the very beginning. And even as some of you were going on and on about "oh, the poor performers!", you simply did not want to deal with the obvious: that these performers were (and apparently, through their shyster, ambulance-chasing legal representation, still are) trying to grab some free money by claiming the sympathy card. I've seen this kind of BS too many times to give it one whit of credence. And I maintain that their not going to the union first was for fear of being blacklisted from any further auditions -- as such, the only target left was Cohen, who, fortunately (or at least one hopes), had the good sense to cover his butt before releasing these things.
Say what you wish, sweetheart, but this whole thing smelled from the very beginning. And even as some of you were going on and on about "oh, the poor performers!", you simply did not want to deal with the obvious: that these performers were (and apparently, through their shyster, ambulance-chasing legal representation, still are) trying to grab some free money by claiming the sympathy card. I've seen this kind of BS too many times to give it one whit of credence. And I maintain that their not going to the union first was for fear of being blacklisted from any further auditions -- as such, the only target left was Cohen, who, fortunately (or at least one hopes), had the good sense to cover his butt before releasing these things.
http://docandraider.com
#60
Posted: 3/30/07 at 9:17pm
SeanMartin,I didn't mean for my comment to seem so snarky. Your legal analysis is actually pretty solid. I am just saying not to be so quick to take sides until all the evidence is revealed. In the end you may be absolutely right, but if the case IS frivolous I am certain that the courts will throw it out. All I am saying is let the people who feel they were wronged seek the justice they feel they deserve. Why do people begrudge them that right?
PEACE.
#61
Posted: 3/30/07 at 10:02pm
Just as we are all free to sue whomever we wish, we are also all free to discuss whatever we wish, particularly when someone connected with the threatened lawsuit attempts to try the possible case--BEFORE ANY PAPERS ARE SERVED--in the court of public opinion, in this case BroadwayWorld.
So if we are allowed to discuss their case, we are allowed to say it smells like it stepped in doo-doo. What Wanda was hoping was that we would all come to her defense--EVEN BEFORE ANY PAPERS ARE SERVED--just because OF COURSE the denizens of a Broadway chat board would be sympathetic to poor put-upon actors.
Well, we're also intelligent, analytical people. And perhaps if Wanda had presented her case intelligently and convincingly, without attempting to manipulate us, perhaps we would have. But the case as presented in these threads seems like a flimsy one, more like a bid for attention and publicity and a misguided attempt to bleed money out of what we can all see is NOT a large profit-making enterprise.
So why should I wait until it goes to court to form my intelligent opinion? If that's what she wanted, she could have let the legal system operate in its own good time. But she came HERE.
BEFORE ANY PAPERS WERE SERVED.
So if we are allowed to discuss their case, we are allowed to say it smells like it stepped in doo-doo. What Wanda was hoping was that we would all come to her defense--EVEN BEFORE ANY PAPERS ARE SERVED--just because OF COURSE the denizens of a Broadway chat board would be sympathetic to poor put-upon actors.
Well, we're also intelligent, analytical people. And perhaps if Wanda had presented her case intelligently and convincingly, without attempting to manipulate us, perhaps we would have. But the case as presented in these threads seems like a flimsy one, more like a bid for attention and publicity and a misguided attempt to bleed money out of what we can all see is NOT a large profit-making enterprise.
So why should I wait until it goes to court to form my intelligent opinion? If that's what she wanted, she could have let the legal system operate in its own good time. But she came HERE.
BEFORE ANY PAPERS WERE SERVED.
Updated On: 3/30/07 at 10:02 PM
#62
Posted: 3/30/07 at 11:11pm
>> All I am saying is let the people who feel they were wronged seek the justice they feel they deserve
Wronged is one thing. As PalJoy eloquently points out, trying to score points with a sympathetic audience is quite another. How many variations of this kind of thing have we all seen at one point or another? The guy who *suddenly* realizes that a certain mega-hot song sounds *remarkably* like one he wrote right about the same time... even though the song has been played on the airwaves for over a decade. Or the woman who *suddenly* realizes that *she* wrote the screenplay to a certain monster hit movie, not the people credited on the screen -- and of course, this moment of realization comes years later, when the movie is a solid financial hit.
Or that infamous woman who drives through McDonalds, buys a cup of coffee, and puts it on the seat between her legs so it wont spill, then sues because it's -- shock! amazement! -- hot. Yep, she won that one, which proves there are some courts so inordinately stupid as to believe anything if it's presented sympathetically... just as Wanda tried to do here.
Now -- do I think these people should be paid? Yep. As I've noted before, so should a lot of other people as well who -- shock! amazement! -- dont figure into Mr. Smiley's case. That would of course reduce the royalties paid to everyone, but at least it would be honest. But that's a moral decision for Cohen, not a legal one.
Wronged is one thing. As PalJoy eloquently points out, trying to score points with a sympathetic audience is quite another. How many variations of this kind of thing have we all seen at one point or another? The guy who *suddenly* realizes that a certain mega-hot song sounds *remarkably* like one he wrote right about the same time... even though the song has been played on the airwaves for over a decade. Or the woman who *suddenly* realizes that *she* wrote the screenplay to a certain monster hit movie, not the people credited on the screen -- and of course, this moment of realization comes years later, when the movie is a solid financial hit.
Or that infamous woman who drives through McDonalds, buys a cup of coffee, and puts it on the seat between her legs so it wont spill, then sues because it's -- shock! amazement! -- hot. Yep, she won that one, which proves there are some courts so inordinately stupid as to believe anything if it's presented sympathetically... just as Wanda tried to do here.
Now -- do I think these people should be paid? Yep. As I've noted before, so should a lot of other people as well who -- shock! amazement! -- dont figure into Mr. Smiley's case. That would of course reduce the royalties paid to everyone, but at least it would be honest. But that's a moral decision for Cohen, not a legal one.
http://docandraider.com
#63
Posted: 4/17/07 at 6:48pm
Any news on this subject? Surely the issue hasn't gone away.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95