The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

William Cloud Hicklin · 02-23-2008, 01:08 PM

The Complaint never proposes ending anyone's rights other than New Lines; and allows for protecting the interests of 'innocent parties.'

The court will look, not at one big indivisble parcel of rights- 'THE' rights- but as several chunks of rights which have been split up. UA never sold the Hobbit distribution rights to anybody, and there's no way they can lose them. Zaentz effectively split the rights he held in the licensing deal with Miramax- he sold the right to make films which commence production through 2008, but held onto the right to all films after that. The court can't take away Zaentz' 'reversionary interest' just because the other chunk of rights was mishandled after he sold them.

Although creative lawyers could in theory try to make a case that Zaentz is somehow at fault for New Line's non-performance, this suit *does not do so*. Zaentz is not a defendant, nor does the complaint allege any wrongdoing or negligence on his part.

It's a basic rule of plaintiff-side pleading that "The court can't give you what you don't ask for." The Estate has *not* asked for the termination of any rights not in New Line's hands. Again- were the Estate interested in taking rights away from Zaentz, then the Complaint would have named him as a defendant and alleged why he deserves to lose the rights. It didn't.

02-23-2008, 01:08 PM	#86
William Cloud Hicklin Loremaster of Annúminas Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,301	The Complaint never proposes ending anyone's rights other than New Lines; and allows for protecting the interests of 'innocent parties.' The court will look, not at one big indivisble parcel of rights- 'THE' rights- but as several chunks of rights which have been split up. UA never sold the Hobbit distribution rights to anybody, and there's no way they can lose them. Zaentz effectively split the rights he held in the licensing deal with Miramax- he sold the right to make films which commence production through 2008, but held onto the right to all films after that. The court can't take away Zaentz' 'reversionary interest' just because the other chunk of rights was mishandled after he sold them. Although creative lawyers could in theory try to make a case that Zaentz is somehow at fault for New Line's non-performance, this suit does not do so. Zaentz is not a defendant, nor does the complaint allege any wrongdoing or negligence on his part. It's a basic rule of plaintiff-side pleading that "The court can't give you what you don't ask for." The Estate has not asked for the termination of any rights not in New Line's hands. Again- were the Estate interested in taking rights away from Zaentz, then the Complaint would have named him as a defendant and alleged why he deserves to lose the rights. It didn't. __________________ The entire plot of The Lord of the Rings could be said to turn on what Sauron didn’t know, and when he didn’t know it. Last edited by William Cloud Hicklin; 02-23-2008 at 01:14 PM.