# Judge backs Fox's rights to Watchmen



## Krug (Aug 19, 2008)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/business/media/19movie.html



> LOS ANGELES — The dark and damaged superheroes of Warner Brothers’ “Watchmen,” set for release next March, have a new problem on their hands: a federal judge here ruled last week that they may belong to 20th Century Fox.
> 
> The judge, Gary A. Feess of United States District Court for the Central District of California, denied a request by Warner last Wednesday to dismiss Fox’s infringement claims.
> 
> ...


----------



## WayneLigon (Aug 19, 2008)

I wonder why they didn't trot all that out almost a year ago when production was getting started. Oh, yeah, that would have not been the last minute when it's too late to scrap the film and Warner's wouldn't be able to be extorted for a huge settlement.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Aug 19, 2008)

WayneLigon said:


> I wonder why they didn't trot all that out almost a year ago when production was getting started. Oh, yeah, that would have not been the last minute when it's too late to scrap the film and Warner's wouldn't be able to be extorted for a huge settlement.



Actually, I believe Fox DID originally start this earlier this year. This is just Warner's attempt to have it thrown out being overruled by a judge. Thing is, earlier this year, barely anyone cared/knew enough about Watchmen for this to be an issue.

Even at this point, while I don't like seeing this kind of thing, I don't see it stopping the movie. I'd even be surprised if it was delayed at all.


----------



## paradox42 (Aug 19, 2008)

It'd certainly be huge negative press for Fox if it did, given how the fan community operates online these days. Everybody will know exactly why it was delayed, if it is delayed. And nobody outside the top executives of the studios (if even them) will be happy about it.


----------



## Felon (Aug 19, 2008)

paradox42 said:


> It'd certainly be huge negative press for Fox if it did, given how the fan community operates online these days. Everybody will know exactly why it was delayed, if it is delayed.



Given how the fan community operates, after all the bitchin' and moanin' there'll be zero impact on Fox's profit margins. Boycotts are not a common occurence as the vast majority of people talk big and then fall back into their normal rut.


----------



## Phoenix8008 (Aug 20, 2008)

Well, I sure hope this doesn't delay the movie. I'm really looking forward to this one. From all I've seen and heard they are doing it right with the Watchmen. Hope Fox doesn't screw it up.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 20, 2008)

Just as a general kibbitz - failing to throw out of court and "backing" are not the same thing.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Aug 22, 2008)

Umbran said:


> Just as a general kibbitz - failing to throw out of court and "backing" are not the same thing.



Quite.  In what little I've read about the case it's been said nonetheless that this was rather expected, that Warner went ahead with production BECAUSE they knew it might come down to this and they wanted the movie in the can.  It also said that just because a judge found legal standing to hold up their claims doesn't actually mean that they have any hope of the final rulings coming down on their side.

In all I got the impression that this is just rote legal wrangling.  Fox doesn't REALLY think they've been screwed over by Warner, it's just that they can CLAIM it.  Fox and Warner, IIUC, are not the only studios to have worked on trying to get Watchmen produced - Warner just managed to actually do it where everyone else failed.  When a project like this has been getting passed around since the last ice age this kind of obnoxiousness is expected and is probably little more than make-work for the studio lawyers.  They might get money out of it, but I'm not sure they have any hope of actually delaying release.  It's not like Warner STOLE the project from them in the dark of the night.  Fox tried and _failed_ to get it made.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Aug 22, 2008)

Umbran said:


> Just as a general kibbitz - failing to throw out of court and "backing" are not the same thing.



Quite.  In what little I've read about the case it's been said nonetheless that this was rather expected, that Warner went ahead with production BECAUSE they knew it might come down to this and they wanted the movie in the can.  It also said that just because a judge found legal standing to hold up their claims doesn't actually mean that they have any hope of the final rulings coming down on their side.

In all I got the impression that this is just rote legal wrangling.  Fox doesn't REALLY think they've been screwed over by Warner, it's just that they can CLAIM it.  Fox and Warner, IIUC, are not the only studios to have worked on trying to get Watchmen produced - Warner just managed to actually do it where everyone else failed.  When a project like this has been getting passed around since the last ice age this kind of obnoxiousness is expected and is probably little more than make-work for the studio lawyers.  They might get money out of it, but I'm not sure they have any hope of actually delaying release.  It's not like Warner STOLE the project from them in the dark of the night.  Fox tried and _failed_ to get it made - that's how it GOT to Warner.


----------



## qstor (Dec 3, 2008)

This was posted last week. There's a big hearing in two weeks in the case.

Watchmen Case Reaching Climax | Filmonic

I guess they should just settle and WB should give Fox some proceeds from the film.

Damm lawyers 

Mike
(lawyer)


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 3, 2008)

FOX is being FOX, they could not do the movie right, some one else comes along and looks like they have a BIG hit on their hands and now FOX wants part of the action.  

If some one had a legal claim to the rights of this movie, it was known and addressed a long time ago.  In a way what FOX is doing is legal blackmail, they know their case may not stand up in court but feel they have enough to go to court, delaying the release of the movie and hurting WB enough that a deal looks like a good thing. 

Some numbers for you:
WB big hit of the year: The Dark Knight
Domestic:  $530,280,291 (53.2%) + Foreign:  $465,910,279 (46.8%) = Worldwide:  $996,190,570   

FOX big hit of the year: Horton Hears a Who
Domestic:  $154,529,439 (52.1%) + Foreign:  $142,319,000 (47.9%) = Worldwide:  $296,848,439   

I am not saying FOX things Watchmen will be as big as the Dark Knight but IF it is half as good at the box office, 2% to 5% is damn good and we are not even talking DVD sales!


----------



## el-remmen (Dec 3, 2008)

I find it amusing.

But then again I am in the Alan Moore camp about the film. . .


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 4, 2008)

qstor said:


> I guess they should just settle and WB should give Fox some proceeds from the film.
> 
> Mike
> (lawyer)



 Am I to assume you don't feel fox should be paid a dime then? The definition of Proceeds sure sounds like Net Profits. Which usually don't exist after Hollywood accounting takes over...


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 4, 2008)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:


> Actually, I believe Fox DID originally start this earlier this year. This is just Warner's attempt to have it thrown out being overruled by a judge. Thing is, earlier this year, barely anyone cared/knew enough about Watchmen for this to be an issue.
> 
> Even at this point, while I don't like seeing this kind of thing, I don't see it stopping the movie. I'd even be surprised if it was delayed at all.




I disagree.  Fox's timing of the case was intended to force WB to make the movie and settle with Fox with a portion of the proceeds from the film.  They intentionally did not file earlier, though they had everything necessary to do so, because they wanted to put the burden on WB to make the film and do the marketing, and then just collect at the end.

And not "barely anyone knew/cared".  This has been one of the most closely watched cases since the moment it was filed.  There's been heavy buzz for three years about it.

Of course this will not interrupt the movie.  Fox has no intention of actually following through on an injunction.  That part is just a negotiation tactic to force a settlement.  The last thing Fox actually wants is for the movie to not be released.


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 4, 2008)

frankthedm said:


> Am I to assume you don't feel fox should be paid a dime then? The definition of Proceeds sure sounds like Net Profits. Which usually don't exist after Hollywood accounting takes over...




By proceeds, it usually means a portion of the ticket price for that context.


----------



## megamania (Dec 14, 2008)

I hate politics.......


Let's hope the movie comes out on time and is not delayed by this attempt at greed.

So many good movies have been tarnished if not stopped by these kind of....actions.

With the movie being in final stages before release I suspect it will b out on time.... one way or another.  But I'm just a factory worker family man...what do I really know.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 14, 2008)

Mistwell said:


> I disagree.  Fox's timing of the case was intended to force WB to make the movie and settle with Fox with a portion of the proceeds from the film.  They intentionally did not file earlier, though they had everything necessary to do so, because they wanted to put the burden on WB to make the film and do the marketing, and then just collect at the end.
> 
> And not "barely anyone knew/cared".  This has been one of the most closely watched cases since the moment it was filed.  There's been heavy buzz for three years about it.
> 
> Of course this will not interrupt the movie.  Fox has no intention of actually following through on an injunction.  That part is just a negotiation tactic to force a settlement.  The last thing Fox actually wants is for the movie to not be released.




It's been a known issue for a while, why didn't WB clear the issue up ahead of time?

Development In Fox vs Warner Bros ‘Watchmen’ Case | Filmonic

Their summary of the case certainly looks like something should have been cleaned up a long time ago.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 15, 2008)

qstor said:


> I guess they should just settle and WB should give Fox some proceeds from the film.
> 
> Damm lawyers
> 
> ...




Agreed (also lawyer).


----------



## Krug (Dec 25, 2008)

Looks like it's still Fox:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/25/business/media/25fox.html


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 25, 2008)

Now I'm hoping warner vaults / destroys the movie. They can makeup the loss.


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 25, 2008)

frankthedm said:


> Now I'm hoping warner vaults / destroys the movie. They can makeup the loss.




Not a prayer.  It's going to be settled.


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 25, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:


> It's been a known issue for a while, why didn't WB clear the issue up ahead of time?
> 
> Development In Fox vs Warner Bros ‘Watchmen’ Case | Filmonic
> 
> Their summary of the case certainly looks like something should have been cleaned up a long time ago.




Yes, something should have been done long before filming started to clear it up.  Why it was not cleared up way back when, I do not know.  Perhaps their attorney's just had a different opinion on how things would play out.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 26, 2008)

frankthedm said:


> Now I'm hoping warner vaults / destroys the movie. They can makeup the loss.




A movie that expensive?  In today's economy?

Doubtful.

I'm with Mistwell- barring massive stupidity or stubbornness, there will be a settlement.


----------



## megamania (Dec 26, 2008)

What a crazy crazy zany life we live.......


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Dec 27, 2008)

Mistwell said:


> Yes, something should have been done long before filming started to clear it up.  Why it was not cleared up way back when, I do not know.  Perhaps their attorney's just had a different opinion on how things would play out.




I figure that wanted to see what warner came up with. If it was good they could always sue and by waiting to the last minute they can sue/extort more money because Warner needs to release it now that they spent all the money on it. If they had sued early Warner would have just shelved the project and Fox would have gotten nothing.

Edit: The stupidity is Warner not clearing things up before they made it. If they want to take a chance on a movie without full rights that is thier choice, but this was the risk they were taking.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 27, 2008)

frankthedm said:


> Now I'm hoping warner vaults / destroys the movie. They can makeup the loss.




I don't know the precise number, but I think the movie probably cost over $100 million, and that's just production - marketing also has a hefty cost.  You don't just "make up" that kind of loss.  

I understand the strategy behind how this played out, but it still looks like corporate jerkitude.


----------



## Villano (Dec 28, 2008)

I'm just hoping the rumors are true that this lawsuit will open the door for the old Batman tv series to finally get a dvd release.


----------



## megamania (Dec 28, 2008)

However this ends.... If anyone has the Dark Knight DVD, there is a preview of the Watchmen movie at the beginning.   Looks very good.    I still have confidence this movie will be released and on time.


----------



## Krug (Dec 29, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> A movie that expensive?  In today's economy?
> 
> Doubtful.
> 
> I'm with Mistwell- barring massive stupidity or stubbornness, there will be a settlement.




I believe so too. Warner won't forgive Fox if they stall or destroy the movie.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Dec 29, 2008)

Krug said:


> I believe so too. Warner won't forgive Fox if they stall or destroy the movie.




but what will that 'forgiveness' actuall amount to? That's a... curious saying. Are they in bed together with a lot of other projects?


----------



## Krug (Dec 29, 2008)

Heh yes it probably wasn't the right phrase to use, but I suppose Fox will just take a cut of the film and that'll be that. Still, they did do a  thing by not saying anything until the last minute.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 29, 2008)

Well, if you have been checking out the news page, you know that the judge has sided with FOX on the rights: Fox Owns "Watchmen" Rights - Circvs Maximvs

I think this film may be dead in the can at this time, just a feeling FOX wants it all and WB is not going to agree to that.  WB can write it off as a loss and do better than sharing with FOX.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 30, 2008)

According to a release regarding the decision:


> Judge Gary A. Feess has also suggested that both Fox and Warner Brothers should work on a settlement or an appeal rather than going to trial.




That may not sound like much, but IME, when a judge "suggests" that parties work things out, he's usually pissed at both sides.


----------



## Felon (Dec 30, 2008)

frankthedm said:


> Now I'm hoping warner vaults / destroys the movie. They can makeup the loss.





Krug said:


> Heh yes it probably wasn't the right phrase to use, but I suppose Fox will just take a cut of the film and that'll be that. Still, they did do a  thing by not saying anything until the last minute.



It's just business, guys.


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 30, 2008)

Villano said:


> I'm just hoping the rumors are true that this lawsuit will open the door for the old Batman tv series to finally get a dvd release.




I have it on good insider authority that those rumors are true, and that the Batman series was one primary motivating factor over this whole lawsuit.


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 30, 2008)

Hand of Evil said:


> I think this film may be dead in the can at this time




Care to wager....any amount of money on that feeling of yours?


----------



## Merlin's Shadow (Dec 31, 2008)

Hand of Evil said:


> I think this film may be dead in the can at this time, just a feeling FOX wants it all and WB is not going to agree to that.  WB can write it off as a loss and do better than sharing with FOX.




Not a chance. There is too much money to be made. They will work out an agreement of some sort even if neither side likes it.


----------



## timbannock (Jan 2, 2009)

Merlin's Shadow said:


> Not a chance. There is too much money to be made. They will work out an agreement of some sort even if neither side likes it.




Neither side _will _like it, completely, but you're right: they'll do it.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 3, 2009)

Felon said:


> It's just business, guys.




That means it is legal and allowed.  It doesn't make it right, ethical, or something we should accept without complaint.


----------



## GSHamster (Jan 3, 2009)

Umbran said:


> That means it is legal and allowed.  It doesn't make it right, ethical, or something we should accept without complaint.




Well, this is Neil Gaiman's take on the issue, and it seems reasonable to me:



> Having just read the judgment in the Fox v Warners Watchmen case over at http://bradfox.com/downloadables/watchmen_dec2408_order.pdf
> I find myself moving from "those grasping Fox people" to being puzzled that Warners are even fighting the case (well, I'm not really -- Warners gave Paramount the right to distribute the movie in the rest of the world when they got the Watchmen option back from Paramount. If they lose the US too, they've paid for a big expensive movie and don't keep, well, anything). Fox had exercised an option on Watchmen, then returned the rights to the producer, reserving for themselves the right to distribute the movie, but leaving the producer the option to buy Fox out. The producer didn't buy them out, so they still own the rights to distribute it.
> 
> The bit that leaves me most puzzled about this is that in the world of movies, people are obsessive about rights, because if they aren't, things like this happen. Read the judgment -- it's in readable English.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 3, 2009)

that pdf said:
			
		

> In particular, Warner Brothers
> exercised its option to acquire Gordon’s rights after being placed on notice of Fox’s
> claim and having received the documentation upon which this Court bases its ruling.




See, that's sort of what I wonder, how a timeline of things goes.

It seems that they were confident that they could claim the rights to it based on actions in 91, and just figured the 94 agreement didn't matter.

So, did production start and Fox said "you know we distribute that" and they ignored it, then eventually the letters turned to this lawsuit?

Fox might be "greedy" (as any other company), but WB seems just... well, I can't think of a word besides "dumb".


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 3, 2009)

Vocenoctum said:


> So, did production start and Fox said "you know we distribute that" and they ignored it, then eventually the letters turned to this lawsuit?
> 
> Fox might be "greedy" (as any other company), but WB seems just... well, I can't think of a word besides "dumb".




Sounds right to me.


----------



## Felon (Jan 3, 2009)

Umbran said:


> That means it is legal and allowed.  It doesn't make it right, ethical, or something we should accept without complaint.



Actually, what "it's just business" means is precisely this: judgments of "rightness" or "ethicality" are out of place, despite the deeply-engrained urge to paint one side as the dastard as the other as the poor, bullied underdog. In reality, there are two big corporations with boards full of executives and shareholders trying to make as much money as possible in any way their lawyers advise them that they can get away with. Today it's Fox milking Warner, tomorrrow it can easily be the reverse. Why? Just business. 

When a jackal attacks a hyena, sympathy and outrage are both misplaced sentiments. As to what you'll "accept without complaint"--well, go ahead and spit into the wind if you wish. I was trying to spare some folks from squandering their saliva.



Vocenoctum said:


> See, that's sort of what I wonder, how a timeline of things goes.
> 
> It seems that they were confident that they could claim the rights to it based on actions in 91, and just figured the 94 agreement didn't matter.
> 
> ...



The thing is, there's much we don't know about this situation, which is a fine reason right there to reserve any judgments concerning the right and wrong of it. If you're trespassing on my land, don't I have the right to tell you to get off? At any time, not just within your first few footsteps? Warner's a big boy. They certainly have the resources to do their homework. It's quite possible they had some kind off-the-books agreement that was renegged on by one side or both.


----------



## qstor (Jan 4, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> According to a release regarding the decision:
> 
> 
> That may not sound like much, but IME, when a judge "suggests" that parties work things out, he's usually pissed at both sides.




puts on lawyer hat 

Here's the order:

http://bradfox.com/downloadables/watchmen_dec2408_order.pdf

Mike


----------



## qstor (Jan 4, 2009)

Vocenoctum said:


> Fox might be "greedy" (as any other company), but WB seems just... well, I can't think of a word besides "dumb".




I don't know if dumb is the right word. I'm guessing that they had a lawyer advise them somewhere along the way about Zack Snyder's movie and Fox's rights, saying 20th Century Fox didn't have a claim to distribution rights. And the lawyer gave them a "green light" to start development of the movie. It's like any complicated decision in a large company or a big organization like government. Someone got bad advice along the way.

Like I said before, I'm sure they'll settle when they find a dollar figure that Fox and WB can live with. After all New Line and Peter Jackson settled so the Hobbit movie could get made.

The PR people at Fox and Warner Brothers have to see that dragging this out and stopping release of the movie will leave a bad taste with fans.

Mike


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 5, 2009)

qstor said:


> I don't know if dumb is the right word. I'm guessing that they had a lawyer advise them somewhere along the way about Zack Snyder's movie and Fox's rights, saying 20th Century Fox didn't have a claim to distribution rights. And the lawyer gave them a "green light" to start development of the movie. It's like any complicated decision in a large company or a big organization like government. Someone got bad advice along the way.




I couldn't really think of a better word, but I imagine somewhere along the line someone should have picked an option from:
1) The Rights are Free & Clear
2) The Rights are muddy, we should consult fox and/ or a magic 8-ball to sort it out before investing
3) The Rights are muddy, but we think we can defend it and we'll just figure the money into things.

So, I'm not a lawyer, and not on the legal team that got them to this point, but a negotiated buyout (as the 94 option presents) seems like a much better idea BEFORE sinking all the money into the project, rather than after. So I assume somewhere they got option 1 and ran with it.



> Like I said before, I'm sure they'll settle when they find a dollar figure that Fox and WB can live with. After all New Line and Peter Jackson settled so the Hobbit movie could get made.




I think the Hobbit is a great example, since the movie rights were quite tangled IIRC. They sort that stuff out ahead of time. (And it would have cost them less before the LotR trilogy did so well.)



> The PR people at Fox and Warner Brothers have to see that dragging this out and stopping release of the movie will leave a bad taste with fans.
> 
> Mike




Yeah, I just interjected when it seemed folks were going "Fox is greedy!" like WB didn't screw things up themselves. If they'd figured this out ahead of time, there'd be no issue.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 5, 2009)

qstor said:


> puts on lawyer hat
> 
> Here's the order:
> 
> ...




Thanks for that!

Clearly, Warner had its collective head wedged, but its not clear whether or not Fox was acting reasonably in whatever settlement talks may have existed between the 2 companies.  If they weren't negotiating in good faith...

Summary Judgement + Ticked off judge.

We may know for sure if/when the final (detailed) order gets published.


----------



## Krug (Jan 19, 2009)

Looks like it's still March 6.
WB, Fox make deal for 'Watchmen' - Entertainment News, Film News, Media - Variety


----------



## Felon (Jan 19, 2009)

Covered a few days back in the "letter from Watchmen producer" thread.


----------



## love.christine (Jan 19, 2009)

I didn't take the time to read the whole thread.

Does this mean anything reagrding the upcoming movie? Any [potential] changes to it?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 19, 2009)

An agreement was reached that will result in Fox getting a flat fee, and WB gets to put out the movie as is, on schedule.


----------

