How Universal treats you, its customers
POSTED BY: SebastianFelis
UPDATED: Friday, September 16, 2005 19:32
VIEWED: 24576
PAGE 1 of 2
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,
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
" All hail the mighty alliance".
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We can indeed afford to be magnaminous.
But Universal can afford to be polite.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
> 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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
> 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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
> 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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
> 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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
... 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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Exactly what I wanted to say Retro.
Sex and violence on the big screen, where it belongs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is a pretty standard disclaimer. I don't think it's anything to get excited about.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You're the reason that the disclaimer was handed out in the first place, my friend. It's people like you who blow up over little things like this that Universal have to protect themselves against. They aren't being jerks, they're protecting themselves against jerks. You waived your rights when you walked in. If you didn't like it you didn't have to walk in. Your letter to Universal is not in any way legally binding. You can't waive rights and then attempt to claim them again later.
Your suggestion doesn't work either. You want them to get notarized signatures from every member of the audience? Might as well kiss any future screenings goodbye. It's too much hassle for Universal. They're doing these screenings to be nice to the fans. Please don't ruin it for the rest of us.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You know, the irony of delivering huge amounts of flameage at someone cause one holds the opinion that someone else actions make them look bad, really should be pointed out here.
Guy had an issue with the disclaimer being handed out AFTER he forked over the cash - that's the meat of it, and he's got a point... Universal could make a note of it and ensure that theatre operators hand out such notices before any money is exchanged, it's good business.
As for what he wants to do about it, pffth, that's up to him, but delivering mass flamage because you folks think he might make 'us fans" look bad - IS WHAT MAKES "US FANS" LOOK BAD!
Are we clear ?
You don't have to agree, but have a little respect for other peoples opinions even if you do think they're asinine.
Some folks probably think yours are, too, and likely no shortage of folks who think mine are, heh..
We're BrownCOATS, not BrownSHIRTS, yes ?
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem,
This fellow put this up on the table for discussion. That makes him and his ideas fair game for approval or disapproval. In this case, disapproval.
He also put into his letter that Universal had to get written consent from all Browncoats attending the Q&A.
That makes it appear as though he is representing those other browncoats.
I wonder how the browncoat community should feel about their assumed consent to have him represent us?
No, sir. He took his private war, made it public, and then included other people in his complaint to Universal. Other people who weren't consulted about being included in his fight.
He is wrong. He needs to be told that he is wrong.
If he can publicly proclaim his rightness, we can publicly proclaim his wrongness.
It's the best way we can get the message across that, despite his letter to the contrary, HE DOES NOT REPRESENT US.
--Anthony "I'm not with him" Toledo
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You know, the irony of delivering huge amounts of flameage at someone cause one holds the opinion that someone else actions make them look bad, really should be pointed out here.
Where did he get flamed? Mass disagreement is not necessarily flameage.
And as has been said, most of us aren't responding to his opinion, but rather the presumption in the letter that he is speaking for more than 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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have to admit, I don't see the problem this guy has.
He got to see the movie.
He got to see Joss Whedon in person.
He may appear on a DVD extra.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a DAMN good deal for the price he paid. I would pay probably ten times that much for the same privilege.
Were the cameras hidden? Doubtful.
Did they film this guy picking his nose or something? Again, doubtful.
Then what's the gorram problem? You may not be a fan of corporations, etc, but corporations gave us Firefly, and they're giving us Serenity.
You gotta take the good with the bad, but from where I'm sitting, it's all good... 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm surprised how long this thread has gotten. A standard disclaimer like this just covers their backs. I can't believe someone would get upset over something like this... You're sitting in a gorram movie theater watching Serenity, Joss is there, and you might even find immortality on a DVD. And you complain about the fine print? A pile of Gose, this is. Did I even spell that right?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
> You're basically crying and looking for a free handout
No, I'm not. I don't want money. OK?
I'm angry at their approach, and I want them to change it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 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
That's right: the demand is ludicrously large, quite unreasonable. I have no expectation or desire to get money out of this. That clause is purely there as a deterrent.
The reason I specified "gross" is that it's harder to manipulate gross figures than net, as is commonly done in the music industry.
I'll see your Avon quote and raise you this exchange...
Blake: Do you agree?
Avon: Do I have a choice?
Blake: Yes.
Avon: Then I agree.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
You work for 'em? The own you.
No, they don't. They have my services while they pay me, but I'm not a slave, indentured or otherwise.
Quote:
They're paying you? You're theirs.
I'm theirs while they're paying me to be, subject to the terms of the contract. A contract, let me emphasise, that I agreed to and signed beforehand.
Quote:
You don't buy their product. Whose product do you buy?
Lots of companies' products. I just don't buy the product of the company for which I work. It isn't ideological, it's just that the competition better suits my needs.
Quote:
(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.)
I'll have to give it a look.
Quote:
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.
That's exactly right. I'm not some braindead reactionary who thinks that large corporations are inherently evil; if I were, I'd be quite the hypocrite. But it's my choice not to eat at McDonalds, or to watch commercial television. I only rarely buy CDs these days; when I do, it's usually from Metropolis Records, who are not part of the RIAA (and who distribute the work of some great artists).
It's also my choice to buy from any given companies. I'm not the type to whine about "Them" as though "They" are some divine institution; I understand very clearly that the power of any given company is derived from the money they get from their customers, including me.
Quote:
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.
I probably would be wasting my time. As others have also pointed out, Universal can afford more and better lawyers than I can.
What I'm after is simply for them to take a reasonable approach; to ask, instead of telling us that we've already given.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ah, you played on my Blakes 7 weakness, I cannot criticize you anymore!
How about this one:
Avon: Should we survive this, I am finished. Staying with you requires a degree of stupidity of which I no longer feel capable.
Blake: Now you're just being modest.
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Your desire not to be seen on DVD borders on desperation, so I must ask, are you some hideous batboy?
(I'm only teasing, and I refuse to use an emoticon to convey it, so please accept this as a legal and binding disclaimer)
"I'll be in my bunk."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SebastianFelis:
> You're basically crying and looking for a free handout
No, I'm not. I don't want money. OK?
I'm angry at their approach, and I want them to change it.
You SHOULD have walked to the side near the exit to not be filmed!
Not to have taken this to a public forum.
I'm quite annoyed at your approach and I would like you to change it!
You do not speak for me OR the other Australian Browncoats who were there. So please remove the request to get our permission from your letter.
I did ask questions and am happy to be put on the DVD if it happens!
I'm also honoured to have spent quite a bit of time with Joss and UIP this last week, they have been wonderful and courtious and an absolute pleasure to talk with.
luvs nix
p.s your the guy that made the snoring noise right? Are you afraid your reprimand from Joss might make it on the DVD?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
> They aren't being jerks, they're protecting themselves against jerks.
I disagree. If they asked us to sign those forms, they would have been protecting themselves. By sneakily sort-of informing people that we've already handed over our rights, they're being jerks.
> Your suggestion doesn't work either. You want them to get notarized signatures from every member of the audience? Might as well kiss any future screenings goodbye. It's too much hassle for Universal.
It was easy enough for a couple of browncoats to wander up and down the line collecting messages to Joss. Substitute release forms for those, collect them at the door, and suddenly it doesn't look hard at all.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"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."
If our aggrieved party here is as against 'implied consent' as he says, he will write to Universal and apologize, admitting that he did not have consent from 'all people whose likenesses would be used in any subsequent product' to make a request that is bound to them.
Further, the aggrieved party here claims he was insulted by Universal's audacity. Yet, instead of writing a letter that says, "I think it was rude to give me an implied consent form after I'd already begun to participate in an activity. Please get my consent ahead of time in the future." He instead asks for 1% gross earnings if his likeness is used.
Since Universal can't be sure if this joker is serious or not, they have the choice to either Lawyer Up or not use any footage of the Q&A at all, in case his face shows up in the background somewhere.
Finally, our aggrieved party admits that he did read the implied consent form, and didn't leave or request a refund. Why? Because it didn't occur to him.
So now a DVD extra is threatened, and he's asking Universal for 1% gross, all because he didn't have the wit to figure out that if he didn't like the terms, he could leave.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yea and I am pretty shitted off about it too!
luvs nix
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I like how you've responed to many criticisms, but not the most important one which is your high handed assumption that you represent everyone. You are doing far worse to your fellow browncoats than universal did to you in not even giving them a chance to exclude themselves. You are responding to a slightly rude action that was necessary for legal reasons and expediency (a lot of people probably would have been annoyed to stand around and sign something that they thought was stupid), by being incredibly rude for no reason. I think you owe all of the others who were there an apology for having the audicity to claim you spoke for them and Universal an apology for pretending to speak for people you don't. You're letter, while coached in polite terms, is incredibly rude.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
You SHOULD have walked to the side near the exit to not be filmed!
Perhaps. But what about those who are unhappy about this, and didn't know at the time? Can they retroactively walk to one side as well?
Quote:
Not to have taken this to a public forum.
Or to have taken it directly to the appropriate person at Universal, which I've done?
My intention in taking it to a public form is to inform those who didn't know.
Quote:
I'm quite annoyed at your approach and I would like you to change it!
Fair comment.
Quote:
You do not speak for me OR the other Australian Browncoats who were there. So please remove the request to get our permission from your letter.Quote:
Not sure of how to rephrase it, but I see your point and will think over how to cover that.Quote:
I'm also honoured to have spent quite a bit of time with Joss and UIP this last week, they have been wonderful and courtious and an absolute pleasure to talk with.
That's definitely my perception of Joss; I was very impressed with him, especially given how tired he must have been.Quote:
p.s your the guy that made the snoring noise right? Are you afraid your reprimand from Joss might make it on the DVD?
Afraid not. I wasn't impressed with that, either. I thought that the question was stretched into waffle, too, but that was just rude.NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No one cares. Stop whining.
------------------
"Remember, there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SebastianFelis:
How Universal Treats You, It's Customers
You know, interestingly enough, I think I've been treated fine. Universal has created buzz for an upcoming film with a preexisting fan base by showing the finished film early. As such a fan who wants to see the film succeed, I think this is a brilliant idea.
Unfortunately, living and going to school in rural New York, I was unable to attend such a screening and am resigned to awaiting opening night. Therefore, if I get to see footage of a question and answer session with the creator of the film, I'm thrilled and would gladly pay to have it be an extra feature.
So, while your thread title implies Universal treats me, the customer, badly, I disagree wholeheartedly. I think by promoting the movie and giving me, the customer, goodies on the DVD (that I would buy anyways, so they're under no business obligation to do such a thing), I think I've been treated well.
To suggest both in your thread title and your letter to Universal that you represent any person other than yourself is just incorrect. And, for it, some might call you a "jerk." You do not represent me, nor, from the appearance of this thread, any other Browncoat who has spoken up. Maybe you should make an attempt to gain consent from other people before using them in your cause (irony intended... at least Universal made an effort). Would it be right of me to send Universal a letter praising them for having the screenings and Q&As and sign off every Browncoat as agreeing with me?
Finally, by your own account, you had a chance to read the disclaimer and voice and concerns before the Q&A began. You'd make it sound like you were unwillingly dragged into this (and the fact you paid double the ticket price is not a valid reason. That can be justified simply by saying you got to see the movie before the release date). The fact of the matter is, you went along with the Q&A, even after being handed the letter. That, right there, is consent.
I am sorry you are upset, and, in fact, you have a right to be. However, the way you have handled this situation is no better than the way Universal has.
"You are on the Global Frequency."
http://www.frequencysite.com
http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Truthfully, Universal will probably just ignore your request. You may get a nice little response that says "we apologize if you feel inconvenienced.. or whatever"
But the simple truth is everything that has an audience that is filmed - has the same disclaimer.
Whether it's a sporting event, concert or Q&A.
How many times have people bought tickets to football games and not EVEN BEEN AWARE that they are consenting to the exact same forfeiture of rights to have thier likeness used in film, broadcast, home video and anything else in perpetuity throughout the Universe. Out of all the MILLIONS of people who have unknowingly given up their rights, I'm sure there have been several thousands of people who have complained about it or sued. But I personally am not aware of one single instance where I have ever heard of someone winning a lawsuit. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but are you aware of any?
The simple fact is
(regardless of paying for the ticket)
1.You attended a UNIVERSAL SPONSORED function
2.You SAW a professional camera crew filming
3. You did not choose to leave after noticing the camera crew started to film.
Whether or not you ever would have recieved the disclaimer is irrelevant.
It's just a sad fact of life. However, I do encourage you to call a civil trial attorney to get their perspective. Simply because at least then you would be provided with real information on what your legal rights were.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sebastianfelis, I can understand that you may have felt that a kind of "bait-and-switch" was happening when you got the legal notice from Universal. However, you were presented with an opportunity to be "made whole" by getting your money back and walking away with exclusive rights to your likeness intact.
Instead you made the choice that your rights to reproduction of your likeness et al were worth the price of admission, and you stayed in the room. So, as the notice says, your continued participation in the Q&A served as a waiver of those rights at that time, in that place.
Now, in retrospect, you've dramatically upped the sales price of the rights that you have already given away. Universal's lawyers will immediately see through this. If anything, they will simply pixellate your image or edit you out of any footage in which you may appear. So again...no harm, no foul, right? Your likeness won't be used without your permission.
Ideally you should have been informed of this rights waiver at the time you purchased your ticket. You weren't. That's a shame. Whoops, their bad. (But again, you were offered a remedy at the time.)
Also, I'd suggest that you be very careful what you wish for. Are you really, really sure that you want Universal to play hardball with all their intellectual property? Are you asking them to protect their rights with the same strenuous enthusiasm with which you're protecting yours? Do you really want them to file "cease and desist" orders with this site and all other sites that wantonly reproduce their intellectual property (Firefly/Serenity photos, names, locations, etc.)? Are you sure you want Universal to stop you or anyone else from re-creating Vera or Kaylee's Shindig dress or Mal's brown coat? Do you really want to have to learn how to use the ®, TM and SM symbols? Do you want Universal to sue everyone who has ever used a screen cap to create an avatar?
I would suggest that you just let this drop. Life's too short to pay lawyers with your blood, sweat and tears. And please don't presume to speak for others.
I don't want Universal to open a can of whoop-ass on people like me who went to DragonCon dressed in Kaylee's coveralls (or a close facsimile thereof). And no, I don't want venues like DragonCon to force its 26,000 attendees to get photo releases from each other before they post their digital pics to LiveJournal.
Jeez louise!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Can I just say to the people complaining about the corporate Arse-reaming we all recieve, that the reason we have our BDM, and even Firefly at all, is because these huge corporations exist. Its a double-edged sword. If you think its not worth the price, don't watch Hollywood movies, don't want TV AT ALL unless you're talking about public access, and make a stand in a more realistic fashion, rather than popping your head up and shooting this out of nowhere.
Corporations are everywhere. This is an impotent and hypocritical, not to mention ungrateful way of fighting back.
Would you hit your mother for buying you an awesome toy, and then telling you couldn't use it whenever and however you felt like it?
Cry baby cry.
Make your mother sigh.
She’s old enough to know better. So cry baby cry
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
All the guy really wants is them to properly (as they are supposed to!, I found out yesterday) hand out said flyers BEFORE money is exchanged.
Is that really so much to ask?
I can see how he maybe didn't approach it in the best kinda way, but that's where polite suggestions trump flamage as a general rule.
I don't see nothin wrong with politely asking the theatres to hand out any stuff of this nature before money is exchanged, for appropriate legal reasons if nothing else.
The conduct of folk in this thread has kinda shamed me as a browncoat, it's really stupid to make oneself look worse by attempting to keep someone else from making them look bad...
Y'all wanna tar and feather someone, go do it to the f*x board of directors, at least they have it coming, argh.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SebastianFelis:
> They aren't being jerks, they're protecting themselves against jerks.
I disagree. If they asked us to sign those forms, they would have been protecting themselves. By sneakily sort-of informing people that we've already handed over our rights, they're being jerks.
> Your suggestion doesn't work either. You want them to get notarized signatures from every member of the audience? Might as well kiss any future screenings goodbye. It's too much hassle for Universal.
It was easy enough for a couple of browncoats to wander up and down the line collecting messages to Joss. Substitute release forms for those, collect them at the door, and suddenly it doesn't look hard at all.
Notes to Joss aren't the same as legal documents. What if I sign my name Ted Fraiser? I'm not Ted Fraiser. Do they know that? Heck no. All of a sudden I slap a lawsuit on them because they didn't get a consent form signed by me. They're hosed.
They were just covering their backs in an efficient manner. You obviously didn't have enough of a problem with it to leave the screening. You didn't put your money where your mouth is and you're making it very public that you didn't.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Notes to Joss aren't the same as legal documents. What if I sign my name Ted Fraiser? I'm not Ted Fraiser. Do they know that? Heck no. All of a sudden I slap a lawsuit on them because they didn't get a consent form signed by me. They're hosed.
Valid point, but then I'd expect them to defend on the basis of best efforts and countersue for fraud...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
All the guy really wants is them to properly (as they are supposed to!, I found out yesterday) hand out said flyers BEFORE money is exchanged.
Is that really so much to ask?
I can see how he maybe didn't approach it in the best kinda way, but that's where polite suggestions trump flamage as a general rule.
I don't see nothin wrong with politely asking the theatres to hand out any stuff of this nature before money is exchanged, for appropriate legal reasons if nothing else.
The conduct of folk in this thread has kinda shamed me as a browncoat, it's really stupid to make oneself look worse by attempting to keep someone else from making them look bad...
Y'all wanna tar and feather someone, go do it to the f*x board of directors, at least they have it coming, argh.
-Frem
Frem,
The aggrieved party in this case has earned his ire. At no point did he behave well.
He did not politely ask the theatres to hand out such waivers before money is exchanged in the future. He did not politely suggest to Universal that they do so. He skipped polite suggestions altogether and
A) Threatened to demand money from them and
B) Spoke on behalf of others who may not share his views.
The irony of his implied consent from fellow Browncoats to make demands on their behalf seems to be lost on you, Frem.
In addition, the aggrieved party
1) Did receive the waiver in time to do something about it and
2) Did nothing to remedy the situation at the time.
The aggrieved party had a right to be upset. But the aggrieved party handled his anger poorly, and thereby earned the anger of others.
How can you support his right to be upset at Universal, and yet deny our right to be upset at him?
As ye sow, Frem.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ok i haven't read all the replies, but as an actor who's done some work in t.v. and indie films, this is a standard release form, and whenever a film/t.v. Co. is filming anything you should expect a release form. it's basically them covering there own ass.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by DrDredge:
Truthfully, Universal will probably just ignore your request. You may get a nice little response that says "we apologize if you feel inconvenienced.. or whatever"
But the simple truth is everything that has an audience that is filmed - has the same disclaimer.
Whether it's a sporting event, concert or Q&A.
How many times have people bought tickets to football games and not EVEN BEEN AWARE that they are consenting to the exact same forfeiture of rights to have thier likeness used in film, broadcast, home video and anything else in perpetuity throughout the Universe. Out of all the MILLIONS of people who have unknowingly given up their rights, I'm sure there have been several thousands of people who have complained about it or sued. But I personally am not aware of one single instance where I have ever heard of someone winning a lawsuit. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but are you aware of any?
Like I said, on the back of your ticket (they don't call it Small Print fer nothin'), and sometimes posted at the ticket office and around the exits, will be a caveat much like the one that someone posted here.
You have to believe there's more than one or two people who are in NFL Films that didn't expect or want to be. For perpetuity.
Actually we've gotten to the point (in this country where the people runnin the show USED to be for "smaller government") where no matter where you go, odds are you're being photographed.
The mall, the convenience store...hell, ANY store...driving down the street.
Welcome to the New World Order indeed.
*sigh*
Anyway...hey! BDMovie opens in FIFTEEN DAYS!!!!
"Take me, sir. Take me hard." - Zoe
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
By reading this post you hereby irrevocably and unconditionally give and confirm to (me) and my successors licensees and assigns all consents and waivers (including a waiver of moral rights) required pursuant to any laws in any jurisdiction to enable (me) to exploit obtained Materials as intended (by me) in accordance with this agreement. You hereby release me 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 hereby indemnify and hold me 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 the right to use your name & likeness, email accounts, credit cards, bank accounts and funds containe therein and exercise of such rights shall not violate or infringe any rights of whatsoever nature of any third party.
Yours sincerely,
Wibbles
Nope, I dont see any problem with assuming that people have agreed to a contract....without having to sign anything...or even acknowledging its existance. Seems legit to me.
BTW...everyone you have all just agreed that I am allowed to use your credit cards...happy days.
Yes. The law is pretty screwy and big corporations with large pockets will tend to win....Especially if everyone accepts "well what did you expect" as a justification for downright rude and exploitative actions. In this instance Universal is just going through the motions in order to provide us with some good viewing...good on em...I will buy their DVD..and wouldnt want rediculous legal requirements getting in the way of giving us good features of events not all were lucky enough to attend.
But really, if they are going to do such a poor job of the disclaimer thing...they shouldnt have attempted it at all..because in Australian law they are allowed to use our image etc without express permission if said film was taken in public with no expectation of privacy or renumeration (I think. Dont quote me on it...consult a lawyer).The letter signs away more rights than this, however, and is thus rather objectionable.
I guess we are all victims of Lawyers and legal paranoia..even the corporations.
What is scary is just how happy people seem that we can so easily be assumed to have signed our rights away...and in fact would hack on someone who objects to such a system.
By walking past the ID scanners on Ariel...you probably surrendered all rights to privacy and freedom to the Blue Sun corp. I can see why some of Serenity's crew were a little less than keen to be setting foot on that rock..... most people would wonder what the heck their problem was.
----------------------------------------
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life. (:~D
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
including a waiver of moral rights
Well, erm, in Britain at least, you can't sign away your Rights, moral or otherwise...
The inclusion of that sentence makes the entire post null and void (at least by British law) so look, heres my credit card and you can't have it, nah nah nah nah nah
...Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Your point is taken. However... the point of most of the responses to the OP was that said poster could have walked out of the theatre and asked for his money back. But, no... the BDM screening and the Q&A with Joss were much more important than his precious rights. It wasn't until afterwards that he got indignant. If one doesn't want to be beholden to megacorps or "the system", one has to vote with one's feet. Otherwise, one has to put up with their rules and play the system. Life imitates art, huh? Mal and company (in Firefly) don't want to live within the sytem, so they're dirt-poor and living from job to job. That's their choice. They walked away. The OP could have done the same. Sure, he wouldn't have seen the movie or seen Joss... but that would have been his choice.
Quote:
Originally posted by WibbledtoDeath:
Yes. The law is pretty screwy and big corporations with large pockets will tend to win....Especially if everyone accepts "well what did you expect" as a justification for downright rude and exploitative actions. In this instance Universal is just going through the motions in order to provide us with some good viewing...good on em...I will buy their DVD..and wouldnt want rediculous legal requirements getting in the way of giving us good features of events not all were lucky enough to attend.
What is scary is just how happy you all seem to be that we can so easily be assumed to have signed our rights away...and in fact would hack on someone who objects to such as system.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by DocRailgun:
Life imitates art, huh? Mal and company (in Firefly) don't want to live within the sytem, so they're dirt-poor and living from job to job. That's their choice. They walked away. The OP could have done the same. Sure, he wouldn't have seen the movie or seen Joss... but that would have been his choice.
Sorry. I just dont buy into it. Are you suggesting that if you accept any aspect of civilisation (and theres much thats good)...you should (or have..by extension) agreed to all of it...to take whatever crap some rich corporation, government...or sick bastard with money and power dishes out...without thought or complaint?
No. That aint right,
Cant stop the signal....
----------------------------------------
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life. (:~D
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I suggest that's a poor comparison, by choice of scale. Abstaining from a single event to avoid buying into an implicit agreement is a far cry from eschewing all of civilization because you don't buy into how one small part of that civilization is being run. If an unscrupulous baron of a small community within a civilization assesses an implicit agreement on all who enter his area of control, you can vote with your feet without giving up your access to the rest of that civilization.
---------------------------
I didn't do it.
You can't prove it.
The sheep are lying.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well...lets look at it on this scale then. Via my post, above...you have waved all legal and financial rights to me...
and have obviously chosen, by continuing correspondance on this thread that you have not voted with your feet to avoid waving said rights.
Now...I would never seriously expect anyone to avoid the forum and the fun to be had on the forum in order to have to maintain their legal rights.
It would be silly. None of you would accept it from me...why accept it from universal...or anyone else?
Personally...if universal had said that I was to sign away my first born to see the movie...after turning up and buying a ticket..I wouldnt have walked away. Call me a radical...but personally I would have watched the movie (cause I enjoy the damn thing and took a trip to sydney to see it) and then have not complied with the silly agreement and complained about it to all that would listen...cause it was a silly requirement deserving that level of scorn and lack of compliance....and is worthy of complaint
Obviously my example..was extreem...but in response to another post that took a rather black and white approach...with those 2 colours...the shading really doesnt matter...nor does the scale.
Although if one were to object on a basis of scale...your petty baron controlling one spot of land...unlike a corporation...has limited reach. Universals agreement...while it almost certainly was not going to be used abusively, nevertheless signs away more rights than were necessary....and in the original posted example....provided insufficient notice to people....and they cant outrun it cept by moving to a country with substantially different corporate laws...
The problem isnt as simple as voting with ones feet...nice and blackNwhite...people will have watched that and still have no idea that they have, supposedly, signed away there credit cards (or whatever personal and legal rights were waved by universal). They were never given the choice to vote with their feet. And it is a fair call to suggest that something about that has a bit of an odour to it. Yes, he could have voted with his feet....but that dont fix the prob or address the real issue.
The vote with your feet argument is a classic one used to supress freedom of speech and people who are actively attempting to point out ligitimate problems....& I will never tend to agree with it.
It IS the same argument used on all scales. Well if you are going to complain about America...go somewhere else!....so much for democracy and freedom of speech....dont try to improve stuff...if you dont like the way it is go somewhere else!
Spose all thos ppl in New Orleans should have voted with their feet also? Oh no, wait...some of em couldnt! Maybe they should just shuddup or drown!
----------------------------------------
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life. (:~D
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
toDeath,
I think that most people on this board are not disputing the aggrieved party's rights to complain.
Rather, it is the method and execution of his opposition that is reviled.
I will again reiterate the supreme ironies at the core of this issue:
An opponent of implied consent went on to imply the consent of others to have his representation.
An opponent of rudeness was, himself, rude.
A person who wasn't seeking renumeration asked for quite a bit of it.
The aggrieved has no legs in my view. Had he handled things better, at any stage, he would have far greater support.
As it lies now, He had a good argument, then buggered it all to pieces.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In some areas I suspect that I agree with your main premise that Universal handled things badly. I just have some difficulty getting beyond the expressions being used. Attempts, for example, to tie in a cheezily-delivered (and worded) blanket release to civil rights, political dissent in America and the plight of people from New Orleans simply make no sense to me.
As for your posted "release" above, it meant nothing. You don't provide this forum, nor any of its services, nor is there a glimmer of expectation by anyone visiting it that you could ever have such power. Your attaching implicit conditions to people reading posts here, even one you authored, has no real substance, and illustrates nothing that I can see.
On the other hand, Universal has legal rights to the content they were presenting in a limited-access venue, and they held legal rights to control that access. They were completely in their rights to require some manner of consent in order to view the material; they just obtained that consent in a manner I find high-handed and of questionable straightforwardness.
Again, the only real recourse to people not wanting to grant that consent was/is to vote with their feet and not access the material. Pointing out that such recourse might not be appropriate in other contexts doesn't apply in this case.
Edited because some of the wording in my original post was too argumentative in my opinion.
---------------------------
I didn't do it.
You can't prove it.
The sheep are lying.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have mostly been targeting my arguments at the...well..at the argument...not at the person.
That would be rude.
However, many respondants have not been doing so. Personally, i think you should all take a deep breath and read the original post again.
It may not nail the issues perfectly, but I can see nowhere in that post:
1) The author assumeing consent for others to be represented by him, rather he raised an issue he felt strongly about that happens to affect others (as do most issues selfless people feel strongly about). In so doing he in no way waved the legal (or moral!!!) rights of any individual. Really...no comparison to the universal disclaimer.
2)The author being in any way rude to anyone...he made a legit point, gave us a good and thorough example of the issue and the legal disclaimer in question.
Later...AFTER being attacked some, he had some follow up posts that may have been a tad hasty.But certainly at at least one stage...he made a good and valid point.
With all respect, Anthony. i think people on this thread should be attacking the argument...because that is the issue at hand...rather than the author. If he had a good argument and buggered it...you could show your great understanding by clarifying it for people...rather than by implying that he is a rude &/or greedy hypocrite.
----------------------------------------
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life. (:~D
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Spinland:
tie in a cheezily-delivered (and worded) blanket release to civil rights, political dissent in America and the plight of people from New Orleans simply make no sense to me.
As for your posted "release" above, it meant nothing. You don't provide this forum, nor any of its services, nor is there a glimmer of expectation by anyone visiting it that you could ever have such power. Your attaching implicit conditions to people reading posts here, even one you authored, has no real substance, and illustrates nothing that I can see.
On the other hand, Universal has legal rights to the content they were presenting in a limited-access venue, and they held legal rights to control that access. They were completely in their rights to require some manner of consent in order to view the material; they just obtained that consent in a manner I find high-handed and of questionable straightforwardness.
Again, the only real recourse to people not wanting to grant that consent was/is to vote with their feet and not access the material. Pointing out that such recourse might not be appropriate in other contexts doesn't apply in this case.
Edited because some of the wording in my original post was too argumentative in my opinion.
I see the issue at hand to be one of civil rights..albiet a rather unimportant example (the Universal disclaimer stripped people of rights without sufficient warning). But yes, I agree with you that it is a rather minor incident of high handed but essentially harmless legalise....my more cheesy examples were merely combating a conservative argument I rather dislike...vote with your feet is a roundabout way of telling someone to not have an opinion and I rather object to it on a forum that is, I would have thought, the entire point...to have opinions. My posted release was merely a parody of the universal one to illustrate a point...that point not being the power I have over the forum (for i have no authority here or anywhere else)....but rather how innapropriate it is to assume people have agreed to a contract b4 having had any real chance to see its content. Mostly, I agree with your last post.
----------------------------------------
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life. (:~D
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fair enough. Methinks this medium dilutes a lot of meaning and context, and sometimes that dilution extends into what I call "violent agreement." 
---------------------------
I didn't do it.
You can't prove it.
The sheep are lying.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How is voting with your feet saying that you can no longer voice your opinion? It's actually the first step in the process of voicing your opinion. Universal would take note if someone was actually so upset that they left the theater.
Instead you give examples of going along with the disclaimer only to get what you want and then contest it later. Do you often go to restaurants and order the most expensive item on the menu, eat the food, then contest the price after the fact? That's not the way to handle things. Not only are you in the wrong. You're not going to get anywhere that way. The company will get what they want (your money, your release of rights, your first born, whatever) and you are telling them that you just want to complain, because when given the choice you chose the product over your rights.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It sounds like Universal was being underhanded legally, and whatsisface called them on it.
Those of you scared that Universal will say "I don't like you guys anymore!!1" and go sulk are paranoid. Universal will take this as it is intended: a criticism of the way they included the disclaimers, along with praise (remember the praise?) of all the good things they have provided.
Don't think Universal is a poor little victim. They're a huge corporation that receives volumes and volumes of mail, and they aren't going to keel over in shock when someone writes them and tells them they did something slightly objectionable at one of their screenings.
So those of you who disagree with this (wo)man's actions, don't worry; it's not going to affect you.
Personally, I do think corporations should notify us of what rights they want us to give up before they go ahead and take them. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that they put such disclaimers on the back of their tickets (as someone pointed out ballparks do).
---------------------------------------------------
Early: Where'd she go?
Simon: I can't keep track of her when she's NOT incorporeally possessing a spaceship, don't look at me --
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thank U, visitingmyintentions. You said it very well, I think.
AS for others:
Quote:
How is voting with your feet saying that you can no longer voice your opinion? It's actually the first step in the process of voicing your opinion. Universal would take note if someone was actually so upset that they left the theater.
[quoteInstead you give examples of going along with the disclaimer only to get what you want and then contest it later. Do you often go to restaurants and order the most expensive item on the menu, eat the food, then contest the price after the fact? That's not the way to handle things
Nope. I am sayin that...as a fan and customer, I feel somewhat entitled to see the movie(or whatever example I used last night)...but reserve the right to complain about being ambushed by a whole bunch of legal crap i didnt sign up to. If I were at a restaurant with a bunch of friends, had ordered my meal....and then someone ran up and handed me a legal disclaimer saying that eating here meant I had given up any moral & legal rights....Well....yes I would be stubborn and NOT exclude myself from the social outing...it probably isnt that big a deal....but I certainly would complain about being treated in such a high handed manner.
So, actually, what I do is chose the product AND my rights. Moreover, I chose to champion the rights of others who may otherwise have been ambushed/browbeaten/tricked into "consenting" to their rights being waved.
Tellin people to vote with their feet IS tellin em that they have to decide to either 1) Not participate, or 2) If they participate to not have an opinion (if they didnt like all of it, they should have walked)
And yet...somehow, the opinions of those who havnt participated in an event/activity or state are rarely given much credence.
Moreover, some are not given a viable choice to walk....so option no1 is out. For them, the "well you should have voted with your feet" argument IS telling them to shut up...accept crap without complaint.
Now, seriously, I am sure that NO ONE had truly consented to the full disclaimer with any real belief that all its measures would be used against them in full...if they did they are idiots....because participating in a Q&A with Joss...no matter how great a fan you are...really isnt worth forever signing away all moral and legal rights to a corporation. Essentially, most people there bought the meal...and if pressed, would contest the price after the fact. It is, in fact, how most things are done.
Tell me, do you read every software disclaimer before just clicking through to the installation stage? If so...do you truly agree to wave legal rights to compensation for any damage done by said software? You cant tell...before installation (or sometimes even after) if it contains a trojan that converts your computer into an illegal child porn server....or reports all your online banking details and passwords to a third party. If it did so...then, really...you probably should start hagglin over the price after having the meal...
and maybe the cap should turn around and return River...after all...he folks DID sign that consent form and River really wanted to go.....really. She is in the wrong..legally, not a leg to stand on.
Thus me complaining about silly legal wavers.
The interpretation that continuing an action automatically implies consent is incorrect. The legalise has got it wrong.
Mostly, people are not consenting, they are ignoring....and so they should, because the law is out of step with reality. Much better to ignore the law than reality.
----------------------------------------
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life. (:~D
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Excerpts from the letter of the aggrieved:
"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."
Here the aggrieved is not objecting on behalf of himself. Rather, he is representing the interests of 'all people whose likeness would be used in any subsequent product' without their consultation or consent. Perhaps they do not share his feelings about the waiver or implied consent form. The aggrieved never asked.
"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."
Here the aggrieved demands renumeration if his likeness is used. The target of his letter has three options. Either
A) ignore him: This is something that the aggrieved surely does not want. Else he'd not be writing the letter.
B) Take him seriously and assert their legal standpoint in opposition to his own, which will take time and money.
C) Take him seriously and either 1) not use any Q&A footage in case he appears in a background shot somewhere or 2) get his photograph and carefully screen all shots for his likeness, and then blur him out. The first is problematic to the consumer. The second costs a lot of time and money.
"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."
Here we have the appropriate response to the aggrieved individual's situation. He lets the target audience know that he dislikes their conduct, and asks them to change in the future. If only the entire letter was limited to this.
So, now you may understand my opinion on the letter.
I also have an opinion on the actions of the aggrieved.
The aggrieved was told via waiver that if he attended the Q&A he would forfeit his likeness for free on all recordings made there.
The aggrieved had a decision to make. As many parents have said many times, "As long as you're in my House, you will live by my Rules."
The implication is simple. Stay and Obey, or Disagree and Leave.
The aggrieved chose to Stay Now and Complain Later.
I'd have had much more respect for the aggrieved individual's position had he departed, requested a refund, and then wrote a letter to the host advising them that he disagreed with their policies.
I don't think I can state my opposition to his techniques any better.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OK...I grant U, he probably shouldnt have said some of that.
But isnt it curious how people will defend a big rich money hungry corporations right to push their legal bullcrap on us...
and yet will deride an individual for returning fire using the same kinda legalise...
----------------------------------------
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life. (:~D
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, toDeath,
You have a point. It is interesting that we are defending the money grubbing corporation.
I think there are some reasons for this.
1) This particular money-grubbing corporation has done something recently that I appreciate. It backed the Big Damn Movie.
2) Ever since I was a child, I've been exposed to an increasing amount of inane warning labels. Coffee may be Hot is one of my least favorites. Now we have apparently descended to "Attendee may be filmed."
It's symptomatic of our age. Burglar falls through improperly installed skylight. Burglar sues home owners. Kid breaks into Sea World, swims with Killer Whales and dies. Parents sue Sea World because they ought to have had a sign that said, "Don't swim with Killer Whales. Killer Whales may be dangerous." Open manholes with barricades around them are insufficient. Someone must stand watch against interlopers who may harm themselves or construction crews.
When I was born, the human race was assumed to either have common sense, or be responsible for their stupidity.
It's gone now. When I see someone demand renumeration from a corporation nowadays, my first question is, "What could the aggrieved have been expected to do differently to avoid their grim fate?" You know, make the 'aggrieved' party responsible for their own actions? So, forgive me for looking at what the aggrieved did wrong... the 'aggrieved' annoys me in life much more frequently than the 'villain.'
I'll tell you something else that bothers me. Apparently, there is a law somewhere that says Universal has to give people this waiver. I don't know where that law comes from. I don't agree with it. I think Universal ought to be able to film at their own function and use the footage how they please, waiver free.
So, in my humble and likely legally wrong opinion, the waiver itself should never have been needed, so the verbiage or implications of the waiver are largely unimportant to me. The waiver waived rights I don't agree we should have.
That having been said, IF a waiver IS legally required, THEN to follow the INTENT if not the LETTER of the LAW, you probably ought to tell people about their waiving of rights BEFORE they enter an affected function.
So, there you have it. I think the waivers themselves are a stupidity that is symptomatic of our society's idiocy. I likewise think that if we're going to be stupid enough to require waivers for this sort of thing, they should be handled better.
And all of that being said, I still don't much like the way the aggrieved party handled any of this.
I guess our laws allow us to be stupid enough to require these waivers, and then also to be stupid enough to complain about them.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I could not agree more.
----------------------------------------
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life. (:~D
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay now don't get me wrong here but...
WHY IN THE FRACK ARE YOU BITCHING?
Personally I think you are just being nit-picky and pretentious.
I was at one of the Chicago advanced screenings (the last one). There were no warning signs, no disclaimers, nothing. But while we were watching the movie someone from Universal was using a night vision camera to record the audience's reaction. why? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT A GORRAM ADVANCED SCREENING IS FOR!! At that time they were still tweaking the film. I'm sure universal wanted to know how the fans were reacting to it.
Should I now sue Universal for possibly acquiring my likeness and possibly using it as an interpretive means of analyzing the film? Cos god forbid, they give a shit about my reaction!
At least in the United States when you attend certain events you forfeit your rights to sue. These forfeitures are not usually even clearly noted. For instance if you go to a basketball game, and while scanning the crowd they see you dressed up like the big damn fan you are, they can put you on TV without your permission. Or if you accidentally get your ehad smashed in with a basketball cos of some throw gone terribly awry, you can't sue as the team is not liable, as by being there you accepted the risk of having your head smashed in by said ball.
Most people don't get their panties in a bundle cos they think it's cool.
If Universal chose to use some question that I asked at a Q & A I'd be honored. That meant my question was interesting and well thought out enough that they thought it really did warrant the responce it recieved. If they scanned the crowd and caught me in it, I'd love it cos I could always show it to my friends and my kids and everyone I knew to show, "I was there, I supported this thing the whole way though"
As someone who read the warning before entering the Q & A you had a choice, enter that event and forfeit rights, OR go ask for your money back. You went in. Thus you forfeited your rights. Thus you have no right to bitch or complain. That's how forfeiting your rights works.
It's like being warned on a menu after you've gotten to the restauarant and ordered your drinks and appetizer that the entree you want is very spicy. Then ordering it anyways, eating it, burning your mouth and bitching that it was spicy. You were warned. Fucking deal with it.
What Universal has done for fans with this movie is UNPRECEDENTED. It is truely amazing. Why taint their good-will by bitching and moaning about some stupid little consent form.
Also, I don't think you had any right to speak from anyone but yourself in that letter you sent off to Universal. If you have their Fax number for the US I'd like to get my hands on it to let them know not everyone feels like you do, and as this thread has shown, most of us do not feel that way.
While the US has become an increasingly litigious society, it has only done so because people constantly feel 'violated,' and because the populace as a whole is pretty fucking stupid. Which to me is some puss ass way of saying, I was offended, and I think my opinion is more important than anyone elses. If no one will listen to me I'll sue. It also seems to stem from a lack of common sense. Coffee is hot, if you get burned you are a. too stupid to know what hot is, or b. just an idiot for thinking that the coffee would be cold. I don't understand why people think that they are so fucking important and that their feelings exclusively are so damn important, when most of them can't use the sense they were born with to get out of a paper bag (thus the paper bag company must be sued for not making the bag easier to get out of).
You had a choice to leave or stay, you decided to stay, your right to bitch about it was forfeited when you walked into that Q&A.
Sorry but there is no sympathy from this side of the pond from me.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Inara: "Do aliens live among us?"
Kaylee: "Yes. One of them's a doctor."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually, I'm not defending Universal at all. I'm suggesting that if the OP didn't like the legalese _which they knew about before the movie and Q&A began_, they could have left. It wasn't like they were told afterwards about the evil megacorp's rules.
I suppose I am saying that the OP has no right to complain if they weren't willing to leave when they knew full well what was going on.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BlackEyedGirl:
... most of them can't use the sense they were born with to get out of a paper bag (thus the paper bag company must be sued for not making the bag easier to get out of).
I cheered out loud when I caught this line. I'm not sure exactly why, except that it struck me as a great summation of a lot of things. Cheers!
---------------------------
I didn't do it.
You can't prove it.
The sheep are lying.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME