|
Post by travis on Feb 21, 2020 10:03:52 GMT -5
As far as Tom Weaver is concerned, the man seems to have been carrying Susan's water for the past decade+, based on his past posts. He's a B-movie author and his job depends on being a sycophant and schmoozing with eccentric weirdos like Susan and Wade Williams. So while I don't doubt that the man spoke to her, I don't think that's a verbatim dialogue or the total truth. As far as Shout is concerned, they wouldn't have been negotiating with Susan for 6 months for "nothing". At the very, very least they're negotiating for the licensing for the documentary. But... In all likelihood, had the case gone to trial, 9+ times out of 10, a judge would've agreed with Shout on Fair Use grounds and Susan wouldn't have gotten 1 red cent. So Shout certainly doesn't need to negotiate a settlement for 6 months over something they would've won otherwise. And it doesn't take 6 months to workout how much back royalties Susan is owed and how much she'll get going forward on a documentary that's been released for 5 years and hasn't sold much. Someone on Reddit posited that before entering negotiations on WHATEVER they're negotiating, Shout probably insisted on NDA's, so Susan probably wouldn't be able to truthfully say to anyone, Tom Weaver or no, what the negotiations entail and what the results may be. So I'm writing Tom's post off as tongue-in-cheek bluffing. So unless something has drastically changed and Susan called the whole thing off (not impossible), there's too much smoke for there not to be a little bit of fire. Let's not forget the original Rumor that popped up before any one of us even noticed this case was ongoing and had reached a settlement. I'm hoping this is the case! When it comes to Susan Hart I remain pessimistic, but I admit there is still a (small) chance we may come out on top!
|
|
|
Post by timmy on Feb 21, 2020 16:51:54 GMT -5
this is what it sounds like to me when it comes to her and movies she owns:
|
|
|
Post by catradhtem on Feb 21, 2020 22:33:07 GMT -5
I guess I'm remaining hopeful only because we've seen the legal updates as they happen. If she isn't licensing the films, then there's no need for this "two year or whenever" back-and-forth. She's settling with Shout, which means she knows she didn't have a case against the documentary, so this deal that's being discussed can't possibly be for a bonus feature on an old set that's already likely had its production run.
|
|
|
Post by Diet Kolos on Feb 21, 2020 23:35:53 GMT -5
I guess I'm remaining hopeful only because we've seen the legal updates as they happen. If she isn't licensing the films, then there's no need for this "two year or whenever" back-and-forth. She's settling with Shout, which means she knows she didn't have a case against the documentary, so this deal that's being discussed can't possibly be for a bonus feature on an old set that's already likely had its production run. EXACTLY. She's settling. I've looked through Susan's case history. She either loses, or the case gets thrown out. I've NEVER seen her settle. Re-reading Shout's legal defense today, its pretty clear they meant business. Not only did they have their pretty-much guaranteed Fair Use argument, they kept dropping vague little tidbits about defective copyright renewals and possible lack of ownership on Susan's part. It wasn't their main argument, but they kept referencing the idea. And you don't throw bombs like that unless you can back it up in some way. In any case, in a Settlement, either side can reach out to offer to settle. But, generally, if one side (Shout) presents their legal arguments and the other side (Susan) DOESN'T, but is immediately followed by a notice of settlement...the latter party probably got spooked, knew they were going to lose, and reached out. Now, the question for Shout is: Why settle? And why does Susan want to settle? Hypothetically, you're Shout. You have Susan dead to rights on Fair Use. You knew that the moment the suit is filed. Okay. So you win on that, don't pay her anything and you can keep selling your old documentary. You maybe even recoup attorney's fees. Meh. But you've been playing this game with Susan for a decade, negotiating her film rights on and off. And in that time, maybe someone uncovered some anomalies with her film registrations and renewals. Its not much, it probably won't hold its own in court, but maybe she doesn't even know about them. So you spice up your MSJ with that and see how it plays. And look...she offers to settle... Now say you're Susan: past experience and (hopefully) legal counsel clues you in on the upcoming loss, which, if you're lucky, you might only have to recoup Shout's legal fees if they demand it. But you've lost before. That's not what these suits are about. They're about protecting your rights to your movies and warding off interlopers. But...wait, Shout is ALSO claiming that maybe the films aren't yours? Do you have records on all those? You must, but you only got the rights to those films in 1999 when you broke up Selma Enterprises with James Arkoff; who was keeping track of all that before? They said they renewed the copyright back in the 80s... Its going to be a ton of work to disprove Shout's suggestion. And if something IS wrong... pretty risky, better settle. Its about protecting your rights, after all. Now the million dollar question is...what do you (Susan) offer to settle? Obviously you allow Shout to keep the doc, maybe with your official "ok" for a little money and a promise not to sue again. But Shout doesn't have to accept your settlement. Shout could ask for more to make this go away. And...that's where things get nebulous and unpredictable. But my lawyer-adjacent brain tells me 3 things for sure: 1. Shout would've won on Fair Use. 2. Susan offered to settle first, so Shout has leverage. 3. It doesn't take 6 months to only negotiate the rights to an old documentary included as a DVD extra. So my wishful thinking, optimistic MST brain wants this all to mean Shout is licensing her films. But only partly because I can't think of WHAT ELSE Shout would want out of a settlement or why they would AGREE to a settlement if they were, indeed, getting "nothing".
|
|
|
Post by travis on Feb 22, 2020 6:06:02 GMT -5
I guess I'm remaining hopeful only because we've seen the legal updates as they happen. If she isn't licensing the films, then there's no need for this "two year or whenever" back-and-forth. She's settling with Shout, which means she knows she didn't have a case against the documentary, so this deal that's being discussed can't possibly be for a bonus feature on an old set that's already likely had its production run. EXACTLY. She's settling. I've looked through Susan's case history. She either loses, or the case gets thrown out. I've NEVER seen her settle. Re-reading Shout's legal defense today, its pretty clear they meant business. Not only did they have their pretty-much guaranteed Fair Use argument, they kept dropping vague little tidbits about defective copyright renewals and possible lack of ownership on Susan's part. It wasn't their main argument, but they kept referencing the idea. And you don't throw bombs like that unless you can back it up in some way. In any case, in a Settlement, either side can reach out to offer to settle. But, generally, if one side (Shout) presents their legal arguments and the other side (Susan) DOESN'T, but is immediately followed by a notice of settlement...the latter party probably got spooked, knew they were going to lose, and reached out. Now, the question for Shout is: Why settle? And why does Susan want to settle? Hypothetically, you're Shout. You have Susan dead to rights on Fair Use. You knew that the moment the suit is filed. Okay. So you win on that, don't pay her anything and you can keep selling your old documentary. You maybe even recoup attorney's fees. Meh. But you've been playing this game with Susan for a decade, negotiating her film rights on and off. And in that time, maybe someone uncovered some anomalies with her film registrations and renewals. Its not much, it probably won't hold its own in court, but maybe she doesn't even know about them. So you spice up your MSJ with that and see how it plays. And look...she offers to settle... Now say you're Susan: past experience and (hopefully) legal counsel clues you in on the upcoming loss, which, if you're lucky, you might only have to recoup Shout's legal fees if they demand it. But you've lost before. That's not what these suits are about. They're about protecting your rights to your movies and warding off interlopers. But...wait, Shout is ALSO claiming that maybe the films aren't yours? Do you have records on all those? You must, but you only got the rights to those films in 1999 when you broke up Selma Enterprises with James Arkoff; who was keeping track of all that before? They said they renewed the copyright back in the 80s... Its going to be a ton of work to disprove Shout's suggestion. And if something IS wrong... pretty risky, better settle. Its about protecting your rights, after all. Now the million dollar question is...what do you (Susan) offer to settle? Obviously you allow Shout to keep the doc, maybe with your official "ok" for a little money and a promise not to sue again. But Shout doesn't have to accept your settlement. Shout could ask for more to make this go away. And...that's where things get nebulous and unpredictable. But my lawyer-adjacent brain tells me 3 things for sure: 1. Shout would've won on Fair Use. 2. Susan offered to settle first, so Shout has leverage. 3. It doesn't take 6 months to only negotiate the rights to an old documentary included as a DVD extra. So my wishful thinking, optimistic MST brain wants this all to mean Shout is licensing her films. But only partly because I can't think of WHAT ELSE Shout would want out of a settlement or why they would AGREE to a settlement if they were, indeed, getting "nothing". It's certainly an interesting situation, I can't wait to see what becomes of it! If nothing else to end all of this speculation. This could also be Susan's last opportunity to license her film properties. What company could possibly want to approach her after all of this? Just the fact that she hasn't enforced her copyright in regards to YouTube uploads and easy-to-obtain bootlegs has decreased their value. Although, from everything we've been hearing over the years, it could very well not be about money but something personal (a grudge, power play, who knows?)
|
|
|
Post by travis on Feb 22, 2020 6:33:02 GMT -5
Just to play devil's advocate, here's a good point brought up by a poster at the Classic Horror Film Board:
|
|
|
Post by majorjoe23 on Feb 22, 2020 9:04:15 GMT -5
Part of me is hung up on her phrasing, “I’m giving them nothing.” Not that they aren’t getting anything, she’s just not giving it away. IE, Shout is paying, rather than being awarded rights by the courts.
That may be nothing, but I could see her making that distinction due to pride.
|
|
|
Post by jocksinclair on Feb 22, 2020 11:20:55 GMT -5
Part of me is hung up on her phrasing, “I’m giving them nothing.” Not that they aren’t getting anything, she’s just not giving it away. IE, Shout is paying, rather than being awarded rights by the courts. That may be nothing, but I could see her making that distinction due to pride. I think that, no matter what level of credence you give to the premise of Tom's post, there's no reason to think he posted exact quotes. He seems to be deliberately writing in the style of the films that Susan owns, hence the punchline of the post. As to travis's post, that seems to be based on an independent reading of the documents, as opposed to an actual response to the points Kolos raised explaining his own interpretation. Kolos's interpretation is certainly optimistic, but the post travis forwarded on seems to take it on faith that Susan Hart's claims were legitimate and Shout could not claim "fair use", and ignores the fact that Shout and Hart were negotiating over something for months prior to bringing up the license for the film the lawsuit was regarding. Every point he does make was already brought up by Kolos and incorporated into his interpretation. More specifically, when the poster says "As far as I can see, this proposed settlement just allows them to continue to sell that box with the documentary for two years." That's inaccurate -- even his own quotes demonstrate that the settlement incorporates a non-specified number of points, which are not specified because they are already settled. The only part of the settlement which is still being finalized is the part dealing with the documentary, so this is the only part which we are privy to, but that post is ignoring what might be referred to as the "known unknowns". We know, again from his own quotes without even looking back through the docs, that they were negotiating for months and had agreed to broad aspects of the settlement prior to the license even being brought up. It would be far more accurate to say "All that we know for sure is that this proposed settlement includes a license (being finalized) which would allow Shout to continue to sell that box with the documentary for two years, and additional unknown aspects with have already been agreed to. Anything further is interpretation and speculation based on limited information."
|
|
|
Post by CrowTrobotfan92 on Feb 22, 2020 17:10:21 GMT -5
Yeah, the whole Susan thing sounded too good to be true. At this point, I’m only convinced we’ll just have to wait till she passes on, which is likely going to be in the 2030s decade, assuming DVDs will still even be around by then.
On another note - since the subject of the KTMAs was brought up on another post, while we still aren’t certain what the status is with the master tape for K03, I still think releasing K03 (IF the tape has ever been found at this point) as a limited time bonus feature would be a great treat for everyone, just for the sake of having a complete season after 30+ years, as long as Shout still has their license with Tsuburaya (I still fear the DVDs with the Tsuburaya films are going to be long-gone once their deals expires due to the Ultra Steven deal).
|
|
|
Post by ProjectedPaul on Feb 22, 2020 20:39:15 GMT -5
I have some more personal insight on this case. I am Facebook friends with Daniel Griffith. I've also met him in-person a few times, the last time being at DragonCon in Atlanta, GA last year in early September, 2019. I asked him how the Susan Hart case was going. He said that at that time he had to give a deposition on the case later that week. This was just before the parties of Griffith and Shout's legal defense put in that Motion for Summary Judgement request, which resulted in Hart agreeing to make a settlement later that month.
When that rumor about Hart licensing her films, either to Shout or Kino first popped up on that Blu-ray news forum, I shared the link to Daniel and asked for comment. He messaged me back, claiming that was the first time he had heard about this. I'm pretty sure he couldn't tell me anything else beyond that, due to NDAs and the ongoing legal case.
Quite a while ago, Daniel told me he had a lengthier cut of that AIP documentary, that was closer to 3 hours long. He told me he hoped to make that longer cut available, possibly as an exclusive to purchase directly from his website in the future. I wonder if those words relating to the documentary in the court papers and licensing for a 2 year physical release distribution has something to do with these proceedings.
Maybe the negotiations also involve allowing Daniel to release the longer cut of his documentary for sale for a limited time and print run. It might also allow for Shout to release the longer cut of this AIP documentary in the future. Perhaps as a limited run bonus disc offer when your order it as a Shout Factory online store exclusive when you buy the next MST3k DVD Volume release containing the Susan Hart episodes? It would be a good way to drive up sales and pre-orders!
|
|
|
Post by Diet Kolos on Feb 22, 2020 21:54:51 GMT -5
That would explain Shout's interest in in licensing the documentary for 2 years. If, for example, they were to release an Extended Cut. But that raises the question, what would Shout release an extended AIP documentary with? Perhaps those AIP films they licensed from the Arkoff Estate that they're beginning to put on Blu-Ray like "Day The World Ended" and How To Make a Monster". Those are already being released in the coming months, but I don't think extras have been announced yet. So it could go on those, but I don't know why you'd want to limit how long you can distribute a film from one licensee because of an extra feature licensed from a separate licensee. They're obviously not going to reissue Volume XXXIV because they upgraded the documentary with more footage they licensed. Like ProjectedPaul said, perhaps it would be an extra in any Susan Hart box sets; sold separately, both the MST and normal, blu-ray versions of the films. One assumed if Susan were ever to grant a license, it'd be for a short time and it would make sense to get all of her content released and sold quickly in one big package. But, like I've said before, its not worth the time hassle to negotiate for only the documentary by itself, even if it is extended. It simply wouldn't sell well enough by itself to justify the means to get it licensed.
|
|
|
Post by jocksinclair on Feb 22, 2020 22:22:50 GMT -5
I had an idea of something else Shout could hypothetically be negotiating over.
Supposedly they are planning a volume 40 disc, and they have the three Olive titles and a fourth disc to fill out. One possible 4th disc would collect all of the missing "MST Hour Wraps". If Susan Hart comes along and starts lawsuits over tiny clips being used in "fair use" context, they could be motivated to try and reach some kind of settlement which would clearly define that they had the rights to release the three "Hour Wraps" for films Hart controls. (Specifically, "The Amazing Colossal Man", "It Conquered The World", and "Attack of the The Eye Creatures" all had MST Hours created.)
I'm not saying that's likely, I'm not sure *any* of our speculation is likely, just that it's another possible thing that Shout would be motivated to negotiate for, and which Hart might be more likely to be open to negotiating over, since it would be a small token fee and would go along with what they're negotiating over anyway.
|
|
|
Post by ProjectedPaul on Feb 24, 2020 23:58:09 GMT -5
I had an idea of something else Shout could hypothetically be negotiating over. Supposedly they are planning a volume 40 disc, and they have the three Olive titles and a fourth disc to fill out. One possible 4th disc would collect all of the missing "MST Hour Wraps". If Susan Hart comes along and starts lawsuits over tiny clips being used in "fair use" context, they could be motivated to try and reach some kind of settlement which would clearly define that they had the rights to release the three "Hour Wraps" for films Hart controls. (Specifically, "The Amazing Colossal Man", "It Conquered The World", and "Attack of the The Eye Creatures" all had MST Hours created.) I'm not saying that's likely, I'm not sure *any* of our speculation is likely, just that it's another possible thing that Shout would be motivated to negotiate for, and which Hart might be more likely to be open to negotiating over, since it would be a small token fee and would go along with what they're negotiating over anyway. I just remembered something about the "Satellite Dishes" host segment compilation disc on Volume 39. It includes host segments from a few of the Susan Hart episodes that include audio or videos/photos from those movie (namely The Eye Creatures, Amazing Colossal Man, and It Conquered the World). Maybe the settlement will also include the right for Shout Factory to continue distributing Volume 39 without fear of legal ramifications from Hart.
|
|
|
Post by jocksinclair on Feb 25, 2020 20:17:58 GMT -5
I have a hard time imagining a more quintessential example of "fair use" than "Attack of the Eye Creatures". They use still frames from the film, so they are the shortest excerpts possible. They are directly criticizing the film. And it's obviously transformative.
I don't remember the other two examples off-hand. Anyway, I do think it's a good point to bring up -- I don't think it is likely, but I would LOVE to see a ruling on "Eye Creatures".
|
|
|
Post by CrowTrobotfan92 on Feb 25, 2020 23:52:52 GMT -5
Yeah, everything in the Susan episodes showing clips or pictures from the movies falls under fair use. Eye Creatures just shows pictures, Colossal Man uses one clip on a small TV screen while Joel and the bots talk over it, It Conquered the World plays the same Peter Graves speech over and over, but most of it is in audio form. So...... Susan trying to sue Shout for that would pretty much instantly put her at a loss.
|
|