How Universal treats you, its customers by SebastianFelis

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

How Universal treats you, its customers

POSTED BY: SEBASTIANFELIS
UPDATED: Friday, September 16, 2005 09:32
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 18776
PAGE 1 of 3

Monday, September 12, 2005 4:38 PM

I attended a special screening of Serenity last night, in Sydney, where Joss was good enough to be there in person and answer questions after the show. On a positive note, Joss proved to be a real character, with a ready wit.

The Q&A session was filmed, and Universal intend to use the footage in a special feature on the DVD. So far, so good. However, _after_ we'd paid twice the normal ticket price, specifically for the added bonus of the Q&A, and handed over our tickets for admission, _some_ of us were given folded-up programmes for the show. Again, so far, so good. What wasn't so good was the letter tucked into the fold.

I didn't agree to the terms below, and I really take exception to Universal's approach. If they'd stated ahead of time that a condition of attendance was to sign a release form (i.e. before we bought the tickets) I wouldn't have a problem with it. Instead, some of us get a casual "oh by the way, you've handed over all your rights just by being here." I believe the consent form isn't legally binding, but am getting advice on the matter. The content of the letter, copyright attributed to Universal, follows:

RELEASE FORM RELATING TO USE OF NAME, LIKENESS AND QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (THE "MATERIALS")

ADULT CONSENT

Date: 12th September 2005

Q&A SESSION WITH JOSS WHEDON AT HOYTS ENTERTAINMENT QUARTER ON MONDAY, 12TH SEPTEMBER, 2005

Re: "Serenity" ("the Film")

This letter confirms that by you attending this Q&A session today you have granted permission to Universal, its successors, licensees and assigns ("Universal") to use your name, likeness and questions and answers as such name, likeness and questions and answers appear in the Materials and in connection with advertising, publicising, exhibiting and exploiting the Materials (in whole or in part) and any audio-visual and/or printed material into which the Materials are licensed in any and all media now known and hereinafter invented in any and all languages in perpetuity throughout the universe. For the purpose of this letter, the "Materials" shall consist of your name, likeness and questions and answers which Universal intends to include in a featurette in connection with the DVD release of the Film. You hereby acknowledge that Universal shall have no obligation to utilise the Materials. Universal shall have the right to translate the Materials from the English language version into any other language version and to cut, edit, add subtract from, arrange and rearrange the Materials as Universal my elect in its sole discretion.

You hereby irrevocably and unconditionally give and confirm to Universal and its successors licensees and assigns all consents and waivers (including a waiver of moral rights) required pursuant to any laws in any jurisdiction to enable Universal to advertise, publicise, exhibit and exploit the Materials as intended in accordance with this agreement. You hereby release Universal from any and all claims and demands arising out of or in connection with such use including, without limitation, any and all claims for invasion of privacy, infringement of your right of publicity, defamation and any and other personal and/or property rights. You understand that Universal is proceeding with the production, distribution and exploitation of the videograms including the Materials in reliance upon and induced by the foregoing permission. You hereby indemnify and hold Universal fully indemnified from and against all actions, proceedings, costs, claims, damages and demands howsoever arising in respect of any actual or alleged breach or non-performance by you or your agreements contained herein.

This letter shall also serve to confirm that you have the authority to grant Universal the right to use your name, likeness and questions and answers as the same appear in the Materials and that the exercise of such rights shall not violate or infringe any rights of whatsoever nature of any third party.

Your attendance at this Q&A session today signifies your acceptance and agreement to the above terms.

Yours sincerely,

[ photocopied signature ]

Liz Nicholson
Managing director
Universal Pictures(Australasia) Pty Ltd

UNIVERSAL PICTURES (AUSTRALASIA) PTY. LTD.
A.C.N. 087 513 620
3 MUNN RESERVE, MILLERS POINT NSW 2000
AudienceRelease .ADULT1.do[illegible character]EL 612 9207 0600 FAX 612 9251 9654
www.universalstudios.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 12, 2005 5:01 PM

EMBERS

sounds like the stand signs that were up at the Advanced screenings (for which we paid to attend):

I don't see what the big deal is,
you figure people will want to sue for being shown in a DVD extra for the BDM?
well don't worry about it,
odds are you won't be included anyway

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 12, 2005 5:16 PM

SEBASTIANFELIS

I just might want to sue, yes.

The big deal is that they didn't bother to ask, but just casually informed some of us without giving us a choice. As far as I can tell, not only is the letter not legally binding, but that form of "agreement" is actually illegal here.

If they'd put up a sign like the one you've shown, even that would have been a huge improvement.

And no, I don't think it's likely that I'll be in the feature. That isn't entirely the point.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 12, 2005 5:25 PM

AEGIS71

" All hail the mighty alliance".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 12, 2005 5:27 PM

SEVENPERCENT

I'm not sure what I'm missing here, so help me out. It looks like a standard disclaimer to appear on video to me, in case you do something girls-gone-wildish and they show it and you decide to sue because they used your image. I'm not a lawyer (and for once Hero, I'm asking you to assist me here), so is there legal language I'm missing? Or is this something so common in the states that when it happens overseas it's a big deal? It's just like a video game liscense to play; you buy the game then have to agree to their terms to play it.
I'm not sure what all the fuss is about, unless I'm missing something from the legal disclaimer. Am I?

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 12, 2005 5:29 PM

BARCLAY

The point, then, is that you're angry about something you wouldn't have been angry about if presented differently?

And, as a result of this, you are going to sue Universal Pictures, a subsidy of NBC-Universal, a corporation worth billions of dollars who can hire a team of lawyers to fight your suit.. granted it doesn't get thrown out when Universal agrees to not use you in any promotional footage?

I'm not really certain of your financial situation, so I can't say if you'd be able to hire a decent team of lawyers to fight for you compared to the dozen or so lawyers NBC-Universal would have on the case.

Considering you wouldn't have minded otherwise, perhaps writing a letter saying this was handled poorly, in your opinion, and asking to remove yourself from consent might work better than going to the legal system (and considering they likely had lawyers review this process beforehand...).

If you feel the need to sue, go ahead, but it seems like a whole lot of work without any change likely.

"You are on the Global Frequency."
http://www.frequencysite.com
http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 12, 2005 5:30 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Not the classiest approach, I'd say.

On the other hand, Universal's doing a lot of good things for us, and investing a lot in our potential.

I think we can afford to be magnanimous.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 12, 2005 5:32 PM

JACQUI

Quote:
in any and all media now known and hereinafter invented in any and all languages in perpetuity throughout the universe

I guess they wanted to be thourough, huh?

Did they really need to add 'the universe'? Seriously? Are there many people going to sue from Mars?

*~*~*
"Your toes are in the sand."
"And your head's up your..."
"Hey!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 12, 2005 5:36 PM

SEBASTIANFELIS

We can indeed afford to be magnaminous.
But Universal can afford to be polite.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 12, 2005 5:38 PM

GAIJINFLYER

Quote:
Originally posted by SebastianFelis:
I just might want to sue, yes.

No attack, just a serious question here.

What would be the damage done to you as the basis for a suit? Do you think that you would deserve compensation for the intelligent comments you make in the Q&A?

You were handed a notice, if you read it and didn't like it, you could, I'm sure ask for your money back.

Again, I understand surprises go against one's expectations and can be upsetting.

Regards.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 12, 2005 5:41 PM

SEBASTIANFELIS

> I'm not sure what I'm missing here, so help me out.
Happily.

> It looks like a standard disclaimer to appear on video to me
And to me. Difference is, you usually get to read and sign it beforehand.

It's something that people normally seem to put up with; I'm just not that passive.

> It's just like a video game liscense to play; you buy the game then have to agree to their terms to play it.
Nailed, right there. You buy, _then_ agree to their terms.
I have this problem with Microsoft as well: you don't get to read the EULA for Windows until after you've booted it up, by which point the license says you've agreed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 12, 2005 5:47 PM

SEBASTIANFELIS

> The point, then, is that you're angry about something you wouldn't have been angry about if presented differently?

Yup. That's pretty much it.

> And, as a result of this, you are going to sue Universal Pictures

Unlikely. As you point out, they have deeper pockets than I do. However, I'd probably stand a chance of winning on the merits.

> Considering you wouldn't have minded otherwise, perhaps writing a letter saying this was handled poorly, in your opinion...

Exactly my next step. I'm working out the response at the moment, and will be faxing it to them.

> If you feel the need to sue, go ahead, but it seems like a whole lot of work without any change likely.

There is that. But as more people start speaking up about what is annoying them, like this, the more that the likes of Universal start to realise they're upsetting the people whose money they're relying on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 12, 2005 5:55 PM

SEBASTIANFELIS

> What would be the damage done to you as the basis for a suit? Do you think that you would deserve compensation for the intelligent comments you make in the Q&A?

Fair question. I'd like to think that my comments are usually intelligent and worthy of remuneration, but since I didn't actually speak into a microphone, I wouldn't get far on that basis.
No, I'd be demanding compensation for the use of my likeness, on the same basis as any actor. If they want to use my face on film, they can pay for it.

> You were handed a notice, if you read it and didn't like it, you could, I'm sure ask for your money back.

Fair call. To be honest, that didn't actually occur to me at the time.
But this still wouldn't help the people who weren't given the notice and therefore didn't know about this, nor those who only read it afterwards.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 12, 2005 5:57 PM

SLOWSMURF

As they fully gave you the option to back out, with compensation I'm sure, I really don't see your complaint.

Yes, they could've made it more explicit slightly earlier, but that's about it. As they said "Please speak to the management" not "fuck off and die", I think they just figured most people wouldn't object and didn't worry about alerting you sooner.

Note I'm making the assumption the "consent form" is similar to the posted sign, just more deatiled. If it isn't, then that's odd, and ignore my point.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 12, 2005 5:58 PM

SEBASTIANFELIS

Quote:
Originally posted by Jacqui:
Quote:
in any and all media now known and hereinafter invented in any and all languages in perpetuity throughout the universe

I guess they wanted to be thourough, huh?

Did they really need to add 'the universe'? Seriously? Are there many people going to sue from Mars?

*~*~*
"Your toes are in the sand."
"And your head's up your..."
"Hey!"

Possibly. Have you _seen_ what kind of a litigation culture the USA has, and that is developing here in Australia?
Apparently they're forward-looking in at least one respect...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 12, 2005 6:04 PM

SEBASTIANFELIS

> As they fully gave you the option to back out, with compensation I'm sure, I really don't see your complaint.

No mention of compensation. And what about the people who never received one of those letters, or who only read it afterwards? Too late for them to back out.

The "please speak to the management" line doesn't appear here. It was on a sign that somebody else posted a picture of, in the first comment to this post.

They are indeed figuring that nobody will object. We're only consumers, after all...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 12, 2005 6:07 PM

TALLGRRL

What are you winjing for?
It's VIVENDI UNIVERSAL, a big corporation.
You can't possibly be surprised, can you?
When it comes to you vs "the corporation", "the corporation" is treated as a human entity, only moreso. When it comes to The Corporation, you have no rights.
(Take a stroll around their website. See how much shit they own:
http://www.vivendiuniversal.com)
As far as that leagalese stuff, I think it's called "implied consent", no?
Like if you go to a sporting event, look on the back of the parking lot stub and on the back of the ticket stub.
There's a whole bunch of legalese that pretty much says if you come in here, you waive all of your rights. Your car gets broken into? Oh well.
You get hit by a flying ball or player? C'est la vie.

Welcome to the New World Order: They Own You.
(All Hail The Mighty Alliance.)

"Take me, sir. Take me hard." -- Zoe

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 12, 2005 6:17 PM

SEBASTIANFELIS

I'm not entirely suprised, but that attitude is exactly why they have this much power: millions of people have given it to them.

I have a reasonable grasp of what they own, yes.

And while the consent was inferred, "implied" is a bit of an ask, and it _definitely_ wasn't granted.

> Welcome to the New World Order: They Own You.
No, they don't. They only own you to the extent that you agree... so how far do they own you?

And, out of curiosity, who are They? Might be me; I work for a multinational megacorporation, though I don't buy their product.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 12, 2005 6:24 PM

TALLGRRL

Quote:
Originally posted by SebastianFelis:
>We're only consumers, after all...

You have so got that right.
And I've gotten to the point that I resent being "pitched" to constantly.
Max Headroom, 1984, Farenheit 451...

"Take me, sir. Take me hard." -- Zoe

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 12, 2005 7:17 PM

HJERMSTED

That kind of retro-active legal covering of one's ass has been going on for awhile here. Probably because it has yet to be challenged in court.

I remember a similar situation back in 1991 at the first Lollapalooza festival. Perry Farrell had grand plans to make a film about his unique touring festiva. There were signs everywhere around the entrance to the fairgrounds stating we spectators could very well be filmed for this project and by entering the grounds we forfeit any claim to our appearance in the piece. If we didn't want to be in it we could leave and forfeit our ticket.

It wasn't completely after-the-fact (we found out about the filming thing on the way IN before the ticket taker) but the stipulation about the film project and our rights never came up at the time of purchasing the ticket.

This type of thing is just what happens in a culture addicted to its lawyers. I'm not sure what the litigiousness is like down in Oz hopefully not as bad as it is here in the States.

I apologize that our rampant lawyerism© has affected you negatively, or at all.

I suspect this kind of manuever in actuality amounts to a legal bluff. My feeling is that if one were to actually challenge their personal appearance in a commercial media project (DVD bonus, indy film, etc.) that Universal (in this case) would have to come up with something more substantial than a retro-active "oh, by the way..." clause at the time of the event in question. I'm not sure you could win royalty payments from the project but a decision could force Universal to blur out your face on the final product. I could see them having to recall unsold DVD sets at the worst (for them).

A decent class action lawsuit could set a precedent and prevent these types of questionable after-the-fact-and-sans-signature type manuevers, however... wouldn't such a suit simply be feeding the legal beast more kibbles and bits again anyway?

mattro

PS: BTW, I do hereby retroactively claim the phrase "rampant lawyerism" © as my own for all future commercial endeavors. By reading this sentence you relinquish all commercial rights to the phrase "rampant lawyerism" ©

So there.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 12, 2005 7:23 PM

MOHRSTOUTBEARD

Cry, baby, cry. Make your mother sigh.

------------------
"Remember, there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 12, 2005 8:26 PM

PURPLEBELLY

Isn't this just a culture-clash? Universal is approaching this from the POV of a recreationally litigious society and our correspondent is a fair-go Antipodean. Wars have started over less

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 12, 2005 8:31 PM

SEBASTIANFELIS

Quote:
Originally posted by MohrStoutbeard:
Cry, baby, cry. Make your mother sigh.

------------------
"Remember, there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over."

I recognise the quote from episode one. But if that's a swipe at my position, you might want to read your own sig.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 12, 2005 8:38 PM

SEBASTIANFELIS

Quote:
Originally posted by PurpleBelly:
Isn't this just a culture-clash? Universal is approaching this from the POV of a recreationally litigious society and our correspondent is a fair-go Antipodean. Wars have started over less

Oh great. Next I'll be labelled a potential terrorist and slapped into preventative detention... :)
I'll probably wind up with flashbacks to Payback, where nobody can believe how little Gibson's character is asking.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 12, 2005 8:48 PM

SEBASTIANFELIS

A quick Google search says you're out of luck in claiming copyright on "rampant lawyerism", so you may have to try your luck in trademarking it.
I'll try to remember not to infringe, though, just in case :)

The litigiousness isn't as bad here yet, but the unwashed masses are definitely warming up to the appeal of lawsuit as source of easy money. The apology is appreciated, though.

We'll see shortly how they respond to an initial challenge, as I'm about to fax them my response. Basically, I'm asking them not to use the footage unless they can provably get willing consent from everybody who appears in it, and suggesting they try being polite in future.

Such a class action suit could indeed have an impact, if it were successful. As for feeding the legal beast, well, sometimes they're useful. To bastardise William Gibson, cultivating a certain tame lawyer can be useful; the trick lies in not letting it get out of control. Then again, one of my best friends is a lawyer...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 12:53 AM

ANNIE

I wouldn't have been worried myself, I would have been happy to sign four of them, to be able to be interviewed and see the advance screening. They just want to make sure no one will sue them for money if they see themselves on the special features of the dvd.
I agree with whoever said upthread somewhere, we should be thankful Universal is doing so much for the movie.
I just don't see it as a big deal.
After all, you could have left when you saw the letter, if you were really concerned.

Sex and violence on the big screen, where it belongs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 1:20 AM

SEBASTIANFELIS

Quote:
Originally posted by Annie:
I wouldn't have been worried myself, I would have been happy to sign four of them

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 1:22 AM

SEBASTIANFELIS

Quote:
Originally posted by Annie:
I wouldn't have been worried myself, I would have been happy to sign four of them

As would I. But my point, which people keep ignoring, is that we never got the chance. They didn't ask us to sign. There was nowhere to sign. We were simply told that we had already given our rights away. _That_ is what got my back up. That, and the underhanded, sneaky way they went about "informing" us.

All they had to do was ask...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 3:48 AM

AKUKODOGO

Taken from the Serenity Oz Forum, a copy of the text sent to Universal:

Q&A SESSION WITH JOSS WHEDON AT HOYTS ENTERTAINMENT QUARTER ON MONDAY, 12th SEPTEMBER, 2005

Firstly, thankyou for bringing Joss Whedon out here, and arranging his presence at the screening. It was an excellent opportunity to get a glimpse of the man, and his humour and insight made the evening particularly worthwhile.

Unfortunately, there was a less inspiring aspect to the evening, namely the release forms that were distributed to a subset of the audience. I include a copy for your reference.

I would like to make it clear that my issue is with the manner in which Universal went about this; had I been informed ahead of time that my consent was a condition of entry, and had I been presented with the terms and conditions prior to purchasing my ticket, I would cheerfully have signed. However, this was not the case.

Not only was the form not provided to all audience members, but it was given after we had paid for our tickets and been granted admission, and its tone verged on offensive. I understand that legal documents differ in nature from conversational English, but the presumption implied in the phrasing was startling. As far as I understand, not only is this document not legally binding, I’m curious about the legality of an “opt-out” stance being taken after the moment of purchase. Some of the phrasing also makes me wonder whether the Privacy Commissioner has reviewed the document.

Further, while attendees may have had the opportunity to leave after the screening and before the Q&A session began (i.e. before the cameras started rolling), we had all paid approximately twice the usual ticket price specifically for the opportunity to see Mr Whedon in the flesh. I don’t know about you, but a double-price movie doesn’t seem like a reasonable deal to me.

There is also the fact that at no time was I advised to the presence of a legal document, nor was anybody else, to my knowledge. The attendees can hardly be said to have been given a fair chance to decide whether to agree to the terms and conditions in a timely manner.

My signature does not appear on any copy of the release form, and with good reason: I did not, and do not, agree to the use of my name or likeness as recorded on any medium at, around, or in any way in conjunction with the above-mentioned screening. To the extent that any consent has been inferred, I withdraw such consent.

Unless Universal Pictures can provably obtain willing consent from all people whose likenesses would be used in any subsequent product, I request that any recordings of the event not be used for promotional, commercial or any other purpose.

Should my likeness be used in defiance of this communication, I will invoice Universal Pictures for royalties of one percent of gross revenue from sales of the infringing product. Use of my likeness will be taken as agreement to those terms. If this seems unreasonable, I invite you to re-read the release form.

I would like to re-iterate that Universal Pictures could have handled this in a much better manner, and would like to recommend that more consideration is taken in future. This heavy-handed approach is totally unnecessary when politeness is sufficient to get the desired results.

Regards...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 4:02 AM

GWEK

If you received the documentation before the filming, you have no legal grounds to sue, regardless of whether you chose to read it or not. You were duly informed; the fact that you chose to ignore that fact is your responsibility.

While it's possible that others may not have received the proper documentation, I think it's also equally possible that there were posters up that you simply didn't see (which, again, is YOUR responsibility, not theirs... ignorance is no defense).

Further, I'm pretty sure that your recieving the proper compensation for the work you were involved in, given your role: nothing.

So, assuming you got the piece of paper before the Q&A session started, your now just whining for no good reason. And it's not that the rest of us are sheep who allow this to happen. You're basically crying and looking for a free handout, so get over it. Heck, if it was that important to you, YOU SHOULD HAVE READ THE PAPER.

I second the "cry baby, cry," quote.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 4:14 AM

TALLGRRL

Quote:
Originally posted by SebastianFelis:
And, out of curiosity, who are They? Might be me; I work for a multinational megacorporation, though I don't buy their product.

You work for 'em? The own you.
They're paying you? You're theirs.
You don't buy their product. Whose product do you buy?
(If you've never seen "The Corporation", you should check it out. It'll definitely give you an idea how The Alliance is pretty much already here.)
And as for people giving power to them?
You give "power" to the corporation when you buy their shit.
Buy a CD? Go to Mickey D's? Watch TV and see the commercials?
Open your wallet and you're giving power to the corps. That's the way it is.

Hey, I'm sorry you got a nasty shock at the end of the BDMovie with this waiver thing.
But as far as suing someone?
I hate to say it, but you'd be wasting your time and money. Unless you have it like that time and money wise, that is.

"Take me, sir. Take me hard." -- Zoe

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 4:40 AM

FREMDFIRMA

I don't see where my "likeness" would do em any good, cause if I had that much of an issue with it, I would go buy an empty XL popcorn bucket, cut two eyeholes in it, and put it on my head.

Likeness, what likeness ?

There, problem solved!

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 5:13 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Well,

It's nice to know that what little reputation we had as friendly, easy-going fans is being eliminated by such complaining.

Now that our friend has drafted a letter to Universal, it is no longer whining on our little board but an official threat of legal action.

Yippee.

Customer in question has

A) Seen a document which says, "If you don't want to be filmed for free, get out."

B) Decided to stay and enjoy the Q&A.

C) Complains about it later, after admittedly seeing the statement and deciding to stay.

Customer in question did not

A) Take advantage of the opportunity to leave.

B) Complain to anyone at the time.

C) Make any attempt at renumeration from the management for his 'double price ticket.'

Customer has further

A) Spoken on behalf of others at the Q&A who may not share his bloody feelings.

I understand the position of this customer.

Customer sees a sign that says, "Fire is Hot."
Customer sticks hand in fire.
Customer gets burned.
Customer complains because he got burned, and did not agree that fire should be hot ahead of time, and further complains on behalf of everyone else because they might have gotten burned, too.

Bah. Go order a McDonald's coffee and leave the BDM alone. Wasn't there any other implied consent event you could have trashed?

Universal was perhaps rude. But customer is now verging on ludicrous.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 6:09 AM

NIXYGIRL

Am re posting what I wrote on Serenity Oz

Yes...corporate legalize sux...but I am still outraged by the demands of this person.
Now IF it is the same person who says on that board that they never spoke even into the microphone then this is just giving the BDM a bad note!
Fine...fight your fight...go right ahead but please not at Serenity's feet.

I am sure whoever wrote that letter is reading this thread or will read it...
Truth is...you did have the right to stand to the side of the room behind the camera and out of reach of the front cam.
It is your perogative not to have done so.

Yes I understand your position in the way you believe it was handled.
But ...it's a business... and I don't believe this is the place to fight it.

They do have their big lawyers and perhaps you were just trying to make a point to them about handling things more politely (in your opinion)
Maybe this document was not meant for our eyes...and only for Universals.
And perhaps we should not have been privy to it (in my opinion)

Point is...this isn't helping the film or Joss, or the chance of sequels.
So...either be quiet, or take it out of public scrutiny and not post your opposition in open forums.

Go straight to the source....don't try and make an army out of the fans..
Because, I don't think many of us will be fighting alongside you if it may hurt the film.
In fact, I actually fear that you may turn the army upon yourself. Which in itself defeats the purpose.
luvs nix

added to here...
I had the mic and asked 2 questions...the Blue Sun/Alliance one and the Disgruntled Tamagotchi's one...I'd be bloody honoured if they put my head on the DVD!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 6:47 AM

MOHRSTOUTBEARD

Quote:
Originally posted by SebastianFelis:
Quote:
Originally posted by MohrStoutbeard:
Cry, baby, cry. Make your mother sigh.

------------------
"Remember, there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over."

I recognise the quote from episode one. But if that's a swipe at my position, you might want to read your own sig.

It's also a quote from a song by a little known band called "The Beatles."

Meanwhile, you're talking like you're some great revolutionary trying to change the course of the world by fighting injustice, but all you're actually doing is whining about something that's completely pointless. Oh noes! Universal, the company that allowed our beloved crew to be brought back, on the big screen, no less, wants to ensure that they can maybe use your image for the special features for the DVD of the afforementioned movie? Ooh, Mummy, Mummy, kiss it and make it better!

Principles are all well and good, but pick your battles, man.

------------------
"Remember, there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 6:58 AM

DOCRAILGUN

The point is... you gave them your money anyway. If you were that upset, you should have asked for your money back and left the studio. Instead, you did technically agree to their terms.

Quote:
Originally posted by SebastianFelis:
> The There is that. But as more people start speaking up about what is annoying them, like this, the more that the likes of Universal start to realise they're upsetting the people whose money they're relying on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 6:58 AM

DOCRAILGUN

The point is... you gave them your money anyway. If you were that upset, you should have asked for your money back and left the studio. Instead, you did technically agree to their terms.

Quote:
Originally posted by SebastianFelis:
> The There is that. But as more people start speaking up about what is annoying them, like this, the more that the likes of Universal start to realise they're upsetting the people whose money they're relying on.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 7:05 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

... and if there had been only a signboard as in other theatres would you have complained that you really wanted it in writing???Most BCs would PAY to be in a DVD extra...

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.net

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 7:23 AM

PERIDIDDLE

I simply don't understand why there's sudden uproar about this...it's apparent Universal has used this same notice/letter before (as said by those who posted the picture of the sign at a Q&A) and no one has said anything...

You got to go to a Q&A. You got to see a Big Damn Hero. Universal wants you to know that they have the right to use any questions you ask/statements you make in future material, and I'm assuming that means DVD extras/marketing uses and not much more...it's not as if it will hurt anyone. What's the problem here? (Maybe my age is limiting my understanding, but I'm 14 - not stupid. But I'd appreciate if someone could tell me an unbiased view of this whole thing...it just seems like whining to me.)

"Bwaa...it's kind of a warrior...strikes fear into the hearts of..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 7:43 AM

DIETCOKE

I guess I'm really confused here. You had a right to get up and walk out and ask to be refunded.

I have worked with Universal people at two of the screenings and they could not have been nicer. They are really terrific people.

I think you are really making something out of nothing in my humble opinion.

NY/NJ Browncoats: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/firefly_nyc

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 7:50 AM

SPIKEANDJEZEBEL

I completely agree, Pizmobeach! The whole point of taping the Q/A session is to give us fans an extra feature on the DVD. If each audience member had to be paid SAG wages, then we wouldn't get special features like this. The memo was just a standard legal form to let the audience know they were going to be taped, and that's all. I personally would be delighted to be in a DVD feature of Serenity!

"I have never understood why it should be necessary to become irrational in order to prove that you care. Or indeed, why it should be necessary to prove it at all." -Kerr Avon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 8:31 AM

WEICHI

Well, isn't this shiny!

Let me make sure I understand, responding particularly to the poster who is demanding royalties if any of the Q&A is used for the DVD.

You got to see the BDM movie early - I have not.

You got to see JW in person - I have not.

Universal put together a really cool event which you apparently enjoyed - good for YOU.

And now, Universal has the effrontery of thinking that they might want to share this very cool session with the rest of us, in an delayed DVD and no doubt for profit way.

And because they did not ask you nicely and in advance of your becoming a fan you want to stop this from happening.

You know, I realize we love our BDH's because of their independant nature and distrust of authority but this is the type of liberty for liberty's sake attitude that keeps one from enjoying the finer restaurants of the core planets and swimming in shiny pools.

Yes, I am all for pointing out to Universal how to handle things better.

But threatening them if they are planning for cool DVD extras is simply an example of how YOU are treating other fans who did not get the shiny chance you got.

See how I'm not hitting him, I think I've grown!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 9:18 AM

ABILITY6

I undertand the indignation, but it's not something Universal would be concerned enough about to have "a dozen" lawyers dealing with even if a lawsuit were viable. You'd have been better off voicing your displeasure at the Q & A.

"Yolanda?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 9:26 AM

RIVERNOT

Quote:
Originally posted by Hjermsted:
That kind of retro-active legal covering of one's ass has been going on for awhile here...

I apologize that our rampant lawyerism© has affected you negatively, or at all.

This whining about a piece of paper that warns you of the possibility of having your likeness or questions used by Universal and now threatening to sue them for it is EXACTLY why the US has the litigious society that it does, requiring folks like Universal to have a pro-active approach to things by making sure their backsides are covered JUST IN CASE someone else doesn't like something. It is truly ridiculous.

Unfortunately, legalize does not lend itself to polite phraseology. So what?! If you didn't like the little piece of paper, you had the option to leave. Why didn't you? By writing a nasty, albeit polite, letter to Universal you are simply encouraging the rampant layerism ;) we all hate so.

Sorry I'm being a bit harsh, but many of us here in the US are just fed up with this kind of stuff. As Hjermsted said, "wouldn't such a suit simply be feeding the legal beast more kibbles and bits again anyway?" You betcha.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 9:35 AM

RETRO

See, and here is thing that disturbs me. This letter could concieveably convince someone at Universal that perhaps these fans aren't worth pleasing any more. Kind of like how the one mean kid ruins the fun for everyone else.
Now, I'm not arguing about whether or not what the poster did was right or wrong. But is anyone else tempted to write to Universal pointing out that this guy's opinion does not reflect that of the average Browncoat?

Just my two cents.

EDIT: To clarify, I'm also talking about this, the Browncoat Rampage over the Comic debacle, and also the Poster Contest thing. If we're not careful, we might get a bad image.

"Just because I choose to wander, it doesn't mean that I am lost..."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 10:03 AM

ANNIE

We don't want a bad image two weeks before the BDM comes out; nor do we want Universal rethinking their investment/marketing.

Sex and violence on the big screen, where it belongs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 10:09 AM

RETRO

To put it another way, there's a difference between "Fighting the Man" and "Biting the hand that feeds you."

"Just because I choose to wander, it doesn't mean that I am lost..."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 10:16 AM

ANNIE

Exactly what I wanted to say Retro.

Sex and violence on the big screen, where it belongs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 10:18 AM

KELLAINA

Quote:
Unless Universal Pictures can provably obtain willing consent from all people whose likenesses would be used in any subsequent product, I request that any recordings of the event not be used for promotional, commercial or any other purpose.

Should my likeness be used in defiance of this communication, I will invoice Universal Pictures for royalties of one percent of gross revenue from sales of the infringing product. Use of my likeness will be taken as agreement to those terms. If this seems unreasonable, I invite you to re-read the release form.

You have got to be kidding me! Nothing says 'Thanks Universal for making our BDM' like a cease and desist letter.

Quote:
Unless Universal Pictures can provably obtain willing consent[...]

I only have a basic understanding of law (courtesy of an undergrad law class) but isn't your sheer presence and attendance at the event considered 'willing consent' (or at least implied consent)? Unless Universal barred you from leaving the Q&A you were free to leave. Also...

Quote:
However, _after_ we'd paid twice the normal ticket price, specifically for the added bonus of the Q&A, and handed over our tickets for admission, _some_ of us were given folded-up programmes for the show. Again, so far, so good. What wasn't so good was the letter tucked into the fold.

as others have already pointed out you were given the letter before the Q&A. You were responsible for reading it.

I'm not saying we should just accept everything Universal does 'cause they made the movie, but it doesn't look like you (or anyone else) were taken advantage of in this case.

It'll be a shame if the Q&A (and other events) aren't included on the DVD because of this. Not all of us were lucky enough to be able to attend an advanced screening (let alone one with Joss himself!)

If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. -"Angel"

Browncoat? Canadian? Join us:
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/canadianbrowncoats/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 10:55 AM

SPIKEANDJEZEBEL

Oh, and I forgot to mention - he wants ONE PERCENT of the gross of the DVD sales?!! So if the DVD sells 1 million copies at $20 apiece, he would be demanding $200,000 for his participation?

Frankly, I doubt that even the main cast members will get one percent of the DVD gross sales!!

"I have never understood why it should be necessary to become irrational in order to prove that you care. Or indeed, why it should be necessary to prove it at all." -Kerr Avon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE