MSCL.com

The company that filmed the bonus material at Bedford Falls has not been paid.

Jason Rosenfeld wrote:The company that filmed the bonus material at Bedford Falls has not been paid.

Does AU possess the footage? If so, then it will appear on the bonus disc and Bedford Falls is as screwed as we are. Since AU is making the disc themselves, it doesn't matter if they actually own the material or not.

Great, so as it stands right now: GWhiz has not yet been paid (only six more minutes before Robert gives us that 5:30pm update so I'm keeping my fingers crossed) which means still no lunchboxes and the bonus disc is in no way ready to be produced.

Hmmm, so that extra $40+ was for...what?!

phelix wrote:Since AU is making the disc themselves, it doesn't matter if they actually own the material or not.

Um, actually it does.

So lets get this straight, so far the lunchbox is in serious trouble. And now it seems as though the bonus disk is as well.

Now is it worth staying with AU?

phelix wrote:Does AU possess the footage? If so, then it will appear on the bonus disc and Bedford Falls is as screwed as we are. Since AU is making the disc themselves, it doesn't matter if they actually own the material or not.

Bedford Falls isn't getting screwed - the company who filmed the footage is.

And I think it DOES matter if they were paid because technically whoever filmed it still has the copyright - kinda like those photographers at prom - which means that AU can't use it until they have paid for services rendered. Then again, legality hasn't stopped AU thus far.

I'm just talking out of my ass and making some assumptions since I know very little about ownership in a situation like this.

If the company that filmed it hasn't been paid (like BIG surprise) then AU doesn't own the rights. If they publish a disc without the rights, they are bootlegging, and can be successfully sued for damages by the copyright owner.

Looks like there ain't no bonus disc, unless AU is REALLY stupid.

candygirl wrote:

phelix wrote:Does AU possess the footage? If so, then it will appear on the bonus disc and Bedford Falls is as screwed as we are. Since AU is making the disc themselves, it doesn't matter if they actually own the material or not.

Bedford Falls isn't getting screwed - the company who filmed the footage is.

And I think it DOES matter if they were paid because technically whoever filmed it still has the copyright - kinda like those photographers at prom - which means that AU can't use it until they have paid for services rendered. Then again, legality hasn't stopped AU thus far.

With everything Ross has done so far, do you think a little copyright infringement will stand in his way? IF AU produces the disc themselves completely, then they can get someone to make 3000 copies without asking too many questions.

phelix wrote:With everything Ross has done so far, do you think a little copyright infringement will stand in his way? IF AU produces the disc themselves completely, then they can get someone to make 3000 copies without asking too many questions.

I wouldn't put anything past Ross after the last few weeks of revelations, but I think that he isn't stupid enough to want his company to be slapped with a huge copyright infringement lawsuit. That's a little more open and shut than what he has done to us.

Ross: But we contracted THEM to film for us, your honor.

Judge: Did you pay them?

Ross: No, but we were going to. Eventually.

Judge: And did you then use the footage without paying them?

Ross: Yes, but we were going to pay them.

Judge: Have you ever seen Oz?

Ross: As in "The Wizard of"?

Judge: No, as in the HBO series.

Ross: Why yes, and as a matter of fact we at Another Universe would like to sell them at our website. As soon as we raise some more capital by double charging our customers, we will have some in stock.

Judge: Rusty, take him away!

Note to self: must stop writing imaginary scripts.

candygirl wrote:And I think it DOES matter if they were paid because technically whoever filmed it still has the copyright

Actually, I believe that if they were hired to film the footage, whoever hired them probably owns the copyright. Kinda like a session musician playing on an album. He just goes in and does his job for a fee; he doesn't have any right to the performance.

But what happens when the musician doesn't get paid?

Sensing a trend here with AU - NO MONEY.

AU's recent press release wrote: Like David Lynch's "Twin Peaks," a short-lived television series that just won't go away. The show that launched the careers of Claire Danes and Jared Leto lasted just 19 episodes in the mid-1990s, but it still has a cult of die-hard fans who revel in the romantic angst and sometimes thorny home life of teenager Angela Chase. The show's eerily sentimental Christmas episode, guest starring singer Juliana Hatfield as a gloomy angel, makes the set a worthwhile buy on its own. The six-disc set contains the entire series, though it would have been nice to have audio commentary on some of the episodes. The package does have an interview with the series creators.

Does the Bedford Falls footage include the interview the press release mentions?

candygirl wrote:But what happens when the musician doesn't get paid?

I'd say he or she could sue for payment, but that wouldn't entitle them to any copyright privileges unless a judge ruled that the works' copyright royalties could be used as a form of payment or something.

In other words, Jason may want to draft some iron-clad agreements before he seriously seeks help from us on that AU song.

candygirl wrote:Note to self: must stop writing imaginary scripts.

No, don't...they're hilarious! Write on!

Shlugen wrote:

candygirl wrote:Note to self: must stop writing imaginary scripts.

No, don't...they're hilarious! Write on!

They are quite amusing.


And Shlugen, that avatar is tooo coooool!