ASK & DISCUSS
INDEXWhat rights does a producer have?
7 years, 3 months ago - Vasco de Sousa
You may have heard the dispute between Terry Gillam and Paul White (aka Paulo Branco).
The newspapers, rather than examining the validity of Director's Producer's claims, merely state nationalities. (The fact that the producer is Portuguese is apparently sufficient evidence to convict him in the British media.) I wish both parties had a similar surname, so they'd examine the facts rather than the nationalities. (Gillam has renounced his American citizenship, for what it's worth.)
In any case, "Branco's" representatives said, “For sixteen years from 2000 to 2016, Terry Gilliam did not find any producer willing to revive his project. If this film exists today, it is thanks to the work and investments made by Alfama Films Production and Paulo Branco, when no one believed in this film anymore.”
What I can't find as easily is why Branco does not want the film premiering at the Cannes film festival. Does he think it will somehow hurt the film's financial future if it wins an award and appears too arty? Apparently, Branco wants to be paid for his investment, but surely that can come from the distributor?
The wikipedia page is confusing, as it claims that Branco failed to provide the funds, but it also says that Branco won some court cases. So, did Branco find part of the funding?
Branco also produced films by Manuel Olivera, David Cronenberg, and some other people who are allegedly famous.
(For what it's worth, the French media also reports that Branco has a moustache.)
But, imagining that both men had similar accents, similar track records, and similar facial hair, what rights does a producer have to stop a film from being shown at a festival?
https://www.screendaily.com/news/paulo-branco-and-lawyers-hit-back-over-don-quixote-dispute/5128710.article
Only members can post or respond to topics. LOGIN
Not a member of SP? JOIN or FIND OUT MORE
7 years, 3 months ago - Lee 'Wozy' Warren
Every right if he is the owner of the works.
Response from 7 years, 3 months ago - Lee 'Wozy' Warren SHOW
7 years, 3 months ago - John Lubran
Wozy puts it precisely and plainly as usual. Lovely to have you back.
The film industry is a business, a manufacturing business. Apart from the alleged glamour there's nothing special about it in business terms. There's been a few coversations here recently that seem to think that the creative talent automatically owns and or has some proprietary rights. It's all down to the terms and conditions of agreements, if they're enforceable. Typically, though not always, the Producer is the unassailable boss. Studio bosses and 'sovereign' producers have occasionally pulled multi million dollar productions for their own arcane reasons and buried them deep; never to be seen again or until until decades later.
Response from 7 years, 3 months ago - John Lubran SHOW
7 years, 3 months ago - Lee 'Wozy' Warren
Thanks John...
Response from 7 years, 3 months ago - Lee 'Wozy' Warren SHOW
7 years, 3 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin
I'm not familiar with the fine detail here, but once a film is made, it can be hard work to get your bills paid. You have little leverage once a film is in the can. Injuncting the release is just about the nuclear option for getting people to listen to you. Could be related.
Response from 7 years, 3 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin SHOW
7 years, 3 months ago - John Lubran
Stage payments Paddy. Never let the outstanding dues get too out of kilter. But yes We've all been there. I ought to have followed my own advice. I don't like to think about all the money I'm owed and will never get paid over the last thirty years and more. Certainly in the several tens of thousands.
I liked what you said about prefering to learn by the mistakes of others rather than your own. Wish you'd told me that thirty years ago! ;-))
Response from 7 years, 3 months ago - John Lubran SHOW
7 years, 2 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin
@John Lubran Ha! If only I listened to myself on that front too ;-) If the chap was an investor, for instance, promised money from a future funding round or tax credit and it never came forward, that would be the kind of time an injunction would be more appropriate.
Response from 7 years, 2 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin SHOW
7 years, 2 months ago - Geof Wolfenden
I love the amount of knowledge of fellow shooters - makes me happy to be part of this community; my 'day job' is as an IP Lawyer and other than agreeing with the points already made here i.e. it really does depend on the terms of the agreement (which will of course address ip rights and ownership) all I would say is, when words [and indeed actions] like 'injunction' start to be used, in a very real sense the battle has already been lost - once legal machinery has been engaged its difficult to go back; positions become entrenched and escalation becomes an [expensive] game of bluff. If any lessons can be learned from this sad state of affairs its when you're doing the deals for your own films, be transparent, be open and honest but also be clear; know who has the rights to do what - we can't do this alone so pragmatism is the key, its not or shouldn't be 'us' against 'them' - that road leads to a dead end...or an expensive lawyer (25% discount for shooters this week... hee hee, lawyer joke)...Keep shooting!
Response from 7 years, 2 months ago - Geof Wolfenden SHOW