lawsuit Tagged Articles at Cinematical

So here's what I just can't get my head around: Why exactly would anyone sign up for a candid documentary about themselves if they're going to get all sensitive about their privacy? Well, only Lil Wayne knows the answer to that one, and he's not talking. Variety is now reporting that an earlier attempt by Wayne to block the distribution of The Carter, a documentary about the eccentric rapper from Adam Bhala Lough, has been struck down, and QD3 Entertainment has been given the green light to start looking for a distributor.

The Carter was shot over the course of several months, and through a haze of weed smoke and cough syrup, Wayne recounts stories about his sexual exploits, personal feuds, and displays every kind of general strangeness on screen. After months of arguing back and forth between QD3 and Wayne's management, Wayne's lawyers finally brought formal charges back in March. Wayne's suit carries a laundry list of charges, including Breach of Contract, Fraud, and Invasion of Privacy against QD3, Digerati Holdings, Quincy Jones III (who has a stake in both of those corporations), and an additional 50 unnamed co-defendants.

Wayne claims that he was told he was to be given the final say in the theatrical release, but those promises weren't honored by QD3. The film had garnered some pretty decent reviews (read ours here) when it hit the festival circuit, but Wayne has yet to comment on what he found so objectionable in the final edit. Representatives for Wayne said the film could cause irreparable damage to his reputation and career, but considering this is the same guy who feels comfortable telling Katie Couric about his love of codeine, you have wonder just what's in the film that he doesn't want us to see.

Just when you thought American Apparel couldn't get any sleazier, founder Dov Charney and his legal team have managed to set a new low. You might remember that back in 2007, the hipster clothing outlet put up a billboard featuring an image of Woody Allen in full Hasidic gear from his 1977 film Annie Hall. Remember that brilliant piece of marketing? Well, turns out nobody bothered to ask the man, and before you knew it, he was on the horn with his lawyers to launch a $10 million lawsuit against the company for the unauthorized usage of his image -- Allen even went so far as to call the brand, "sleazy", "adolescent" and "infantile". But it looks like things are going to get even uglier, because legal representation for American Apparel have announced that on May 18th in a Manhattan district court, they will rake over every salacious detail of Allen's personal life in an attempt to prove that Allen's image isn't worth much to begin with.

According to AA's lawyer, "I think Woody Allen overestimates the value of his image. Certainly, our belief is that after the various sex scandals that Woody Allen has been associated with, corporate America's desire to have Woody Allen endorse their product is not what he may believe it is." Now I might be a little biased on this one because I am a big fan of Mr. Allen's work, but dragging up old accusations of child molestation and details from his messy divorce seems shady even by Charney's standards. AA's lawyers have already requested documentation regarding 'sex scandals' and custody hearings (which Allen has refused to provide), and if Charney and his lawyer get their way, they will have turned a simple case of copyright infringement into a full-blown personal attack.

Do you think AA has a point? Is Allen's personal life fair game? Or is this just an attempt to avoid a $10 million payout by embarrassing the man? Sound off below...

In last year's Best Picture winner, No Country for Old Men, Tommy Lee Jones played a weary sheriff chasing after a man who was chasing after some money. Well, according to the San Antonio Express-News, Jones is now himself a weary man chasing after some money, specifically from the pockets of Paramount.

It appears that a contract signed by Jones between Paramount and its subsidiary, N.M. Classics, Inc. contained two "mistakes" that may have prevented him from garnering up to, and perhaps upwards of, $10 million in the wake of the film's success. What's worse is that he was still deducted for any number of expenses, despite alleged awareness of the errors on the part of Paramount. As such, Jones wants an auditor to go through their books and figure out just how much he is owed.

Naturally, neither side of the case has made much in terms of formal comment. As his character might say, if this ain't a mess, it'll do 'til the mess gets here.

[Thanks to Movie City News for the tip.]

You remember that Jan De Bont flick John Cusack signed on for ages ago? The one that was going to give us a 51-minute chase scene? It was appropriately named Stopping Power, and it had so much flipping power that it stopped its own production back in October. Co-star Melissa George then swore it was still in the works, but that never went anywhere, and now Cusack is pissed. TMZ reports that he's filed a lawsuit against Intermedia Film Equities USA (you can see the documents on the site).

According to the actor, the company convinced him to star in the ill-fated film, guaranteed that he would be paid $4.5 million, even if the movie didn't get made, and finally, that all of his expenses would be paid, which includes $50k to cover the cost of having his staff on location. Cusack's lawyer, Marty Singer, says that John got his butt to Germany, started production, and then was told that the company couldn't afford the guarantee. So, they're claiming the company fraudulently made these promises, and then wanted to renegotiate for a lower amount after ensnaring him. Johnny is looking for $5,600,000 plus punitives.

Will John win? Or, will Film Equities have the final stopping power?

In August, I posted that Jeff Goldblum's mockumentary called Pittsburgh was finally getting released. The flick focuses on Goldblum as he takes a role in The Music Man for the Pittsburgh Civic Light Opera "out of love, both for the venerable musical and for his fiancee, Catherine Wreford, a Canadian actress who must get a job or risk losing her visa." Now Jam! reports that one of the women in the movie is trying to stop it from airing on cable or being distributed unless her scene is cut from the movie.

Debbie Sue Croyle is a stagehand who rubbed some alcohol on Goldlum, and then blew on it to dry it so that she could tape a microphone to him. She says she was humiliated because of a double entendre/sexual innuendo he used in this scene -- certainly not the most incendiary reason to start a lawsuit. She reportedly asked the producers to either donate money to an organization that helps the mentally handicapped, or cut the scene. Since they never got back to her, she's suing for $4 million in damages.

That's one heck of an expensive innuendo! If anyone of you have seen it, please tell me what this so-called humiliating comment is, because I can't think of anything worth $4 million, especially after she signed a release for the movie. I wonder how much she would have sued for if he made the joke and accidentally spilled hot coffee on her.

It was almost precisely a year ago that Kimi V. and I climbed into a few balcony seats to enjoy a very well-attended screening of Black Sheep at the Toronto Film Festival. And we had a very good time with Jonathan King's wild and (ahem) woolly comedy/horror concoction. Although the New Zealand import didn't make all that much of a splash following its June 22 release date -- IFC released it in all of eight theaters -- an unrated edition is hitting DVD shelves on October 9, courtesy of the Weinsteins' Dimension label. (Horror fans should absolutely give it a rental.)

So now comes the unpleasantness: According to a report at Fangoria, the producers of Black Sheep might be getting sued by an aspiring screenwriter named Rafael Toba, who claims that his 2001 "Killer Sheep" screenplay was blatantly plagiarized by King & Company. Given that the 'nature run amok' sub-genre has been going strong for several decades now, couldn't it just be a case of coincidence? Nope, says Mr. Toba: "If it were any other animal, it could be so ... but sheep? Come on." Fango cites a Spanish newspaper where they say that legal proceedings are already underway.

Now, I know this probably wouldn't stand up in court, but Mr. King told me himself that "there are ten sheep to every one person in New Zealand." But I'm sure Spain has a lot of sheep as well. Regardless, the volume of sheep in each filmmaker's country is kind of beside the point, isn't it? I don't think Mr. Toba has much of a case, frankly, but I'd welcome another "killer sheep" movie any time. Lord knows I've seen enough Killer Croc flicks by this point. And I've long since lost track of all the bat, rat, spider and shark movies I've seen.

Boy, people love money don't they? This week has already seen its share of ridiculous lawsuits, but this one, another stemming from Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, seems particularly frivolous. You know the guy who runs away from Sacha Baron Cohen when "Borat" tries to hug him on the streets of New York? The one who is seen, as court documents put it, "fleeing in apparent terror, screaming for Mr. Cohen to 'go away'?" Well, that guy is suing 20th Century Fox, seeking "unspecified damages." He claims the filmmakers used his likeness without his consent, "causing emotional damage that he continues to suffer." Referred to as "John Doe" in the suit, but outed as 31 year-old Jeffrey Lemerond at thesmokinggun, Lemerond has apparently been in a permanent state of "public ridicule, degradation, and humiliation." Riiight.

This is, of course, not the first time the makers of Borat have been sued. The two frat boys who were shown in the film drinking heavily and being racist morons had their suit thrown out back in February (thank God). In November, two residents of a Romanian village sued Fox for $30 million, claiming the Kazakhstan scenes in the film, shot in Romania, depicted them as "rapists, abortionists, prostitutes and thieves." A man in South Carolina sued over a bathroom scene that didn't even make it into the film. Lemerond's scene was in the Borat trailer, where his face was pixilated. His face was visible in the film itself. Lemerond filed, and immediately withdrew, a nearly identical suit in January -- that one listed director Larry Charles, producer Jay Roach, and Cohen as defendants. His current suit names only 20th Century Fox. Lemerond has not asked for a specific dollar amount, but doesn't hesitate to point out the huge box office grosses and DVD sales of the film. I wonder what, if any, effect these suits are having on gathering footage for the planned Bruno movie?

You might think Judd Apatow's Knocked Up is a pretty "universal" story, right? (And I don't mean just the production company.) A booze-fueled one-night stand leads to an unexpected pregnancy, which in turn leads to an uncomfortable courtship and ultimately ... love. Pretty basic, right? Conventional even? Don't tell that to author Rebecca Eckler, because she's about to sue Mr. Apatow and Universal Pictures for stealing her story without credit, consultation or financial renumeration.

Aside from the basic similarities (which were first mentioned in the comments section of Erik's review), both the movie and the book share the same title. In the movie, the main female character is an aspiring television entertainment reporter; in the book she is an aspiring newspaper reporter. Both the film and the book also feature a "Jewish Dad" character. The similarities seem to end there, according to CBC Canada, but unfortunately it looks like Ms. Eckler definitely has a case here. How fortunate for her that she waited until the flick's $30 million opening weekend before expressing any concerns.*

Anyone out there read Knocked Up? Is this just a collision of common tales and coincidence? Or do we actually believe that Universal / Apatow knew all about the book and blatantly cribbed from it anyway? Seems like a pretty short-sighted thing to do, if you ask me. My guess is that a quick little out-of-court settlement is on the horizon.

* UPDATE: One commenter informs us that Ms. Eckler has indeed been writing about this situation in Macleans Magazine. Read her side right here.

* UPDATE Part 2: Another commenter points us to a blog that's been covering the Knocked Up ownership story for a while now. Check that out right here.

Even at 77-years-old, the daughter of screen legend Marlene Dietrich is as vigilant a watchdog over her mother's image as ever. The Guardian newspaper reports that Dietrich's daughter, Maria Riva has yanked permission from Universal (in the form of an injunction) to release Marlene Dietrich: The Movie Collection. Riva was angered to find that Universal had not packaged the DVD's as agreed, and considered it a serious enough contract violation that the estate may end up in court over it. The German head of the collection's estate said, "This is important for us. Marlene Dietrich was and remains the only world star that Germany has ever produced. There is no other Marlene Dietrich - she is unique".

This is not the first time Riva has headed to the courtroom over the use of her mother's image. In 1999, she took Toshiba to court over a photocopier ad and then she sued EMI over bonus footage in a concert DVD. Universal hasn't really commented on the possible litigation, but their PR rep had stated that "It's been withdrawn due to a minor error on the packaging, but it's being sorted out". Luckily, there are already plenty of Dietrich films on DVD, because it might be some time before Riva lets Universal off the hook.

Maybe it was the lure of appearing alongside Susan Sarandon in Speed Racer that landed actor John Goodman in some legal troubles. Variety reports that German film company Constantin Film have filed a $3 million lawsuit against the actor over his failure to commit to the film version of the medieval legend of Pope Joan. The film has already cast Franka Potente as the lead in the story of a woman who managed to hide the fact she was female long enough to become Pope sometime in the 850's. Supposedly, she was found out when she gave birth during a procession from St. Peter's -- now that must have been an awkward walk home.

According to Constantin Film's lawsuit, Goodman had made a verbal agreement to play Pope Serguis. Goodman's legal representation has dismissed the lawsuit as "frivolous," and that even though Goodman had entered talks over the project, he added that "no agreement had ever been reached." According to the suit, Goodman's reps had contacted the filmmakers in March, but I guess it was not enough time since Constantin is suing for what they say are "significant sums" as a result of the delays of recasting. Constantin claims that Goodman had agreed to accept $500,000 for his role in the film, it makes you wonder what the Wachowski Brothers were offering.