Court Revives 'Roger Rabbit' Royalties Suit
From Bloomberg News
January 23, 2004
Walt Disney Co. must face a claim by the author of the book behind the film "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" that the company cheated him out of royalties, an appeals court ruled.
The California Court of Appeal in Los Angeles reinstated claims by Gary Wolf, who created Roger Rabbit and other Toontown characters in his 1981 "Who Censored Roger Rabbit?," that Disney owes him a 5% royalty from licensing agreements with McDonald's Corp. and other companies.
Disney said the term "gross receipts" means Wolf receives royalties only from deals that involved cash, while Wolf contended that he's entitled to a share of promotional agreements for which Disney didn't receive monetary payment.
Law.com
Roger Rabbit Rumble Revived
Thursday January 22, 1:57 am ET
Mike McKee, The Recorder
Who sucker-punched Mickey Mouse? Roger Rabbit, that's who.
Well, actually it was Roger's creator, Gary Wolf, whose 1981 book "Who Censored Roger Rabbit?" became a huge hit seven years later as Walt Disney Pictures & Television's "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?"
Wolf nailed the Mouse on Wednesday, when Los Angeles' 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled that he might be entitled to royalties on several promotional agreements that Disney signed for the movie, which grossed nearly $350 million worldwide.
Those could include lucrative contracts with The Coca-Cola Co., Eastman Kodak Co., Burger King Co. and McDonald's Corp., the latter of which had product tie-ins with not only the 1988 movie, but also through a Happy Meal agreement for Disneyland's 40th anniversary in 1995.
The two sides knocked heads when Wolf contended he was due 5 percent of the gross receipts on all such deals, while Disney argued he was entitled to only those in which it received cash.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mary Ann Murphy backed Disney, but the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled that, within the entertainment industry, "gross receipts" could mean more than cash only.
"Even if a contract appears unambiguous on its face," Justice Earl Johnson Jr. wrote, "a latent ambiguity may be exposed by extrinsic evidence which reveals more than one possible meaning to which the language of the contract is yet reasonably susceptible."
Justices Dennis Perluss and Fred Woods concurred in the opinion. The case now goes back to the trial court to determine the proper meaning of the term gross receipts.
Disney first contacted Wolf almost immediately after the publication of his book, in which human and cartoon characters co-exist. The plot centers on private eye Eddie Valiant's search for the killer of the popular animated character Roger Rabbit in the world of Toontown.
When Disney exercised its option to purchase the rights to Wolf's book, the company changed much of the plot -- keeping Roger alive for one -- and threw in well-known characters such as Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny. Disney agreed to a 5 percent royalty for Wolf on children's books, records and merchandise.
Wolf's lawyers, J. Larson Jaenicke and Robert Hodges, partners at L.A.'s Rintala, Smoot, Jaenicke & Rees, could not be reached for comment.
Disney's counsel, Martin Katz, a partner at L.A.'s Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, said Disney will win at trial.
"The court of appeal's ruling was of a technical nature. They're really only sending the matter back to the trial court," Katz said. "It's more a case that will force parties to spend additional resources before coming to the same result."
According to Wednesday's ruling, Wolf's case was greatly aided by the expert testimony of Los Angeles lawyer David Held, who in 30 years with the motion picture industry has worked with United Artists Corp., Paramount Pictures Corp. and the Samuel Goldwyn Co.
"Held stated," Justice Johnson wrote, "from the start of his career until the present, the term 'gross receipts' in the entertainment industry 'means the total amount of money or the value of other consideration received by the studio' when not otherwise specifically defined to limit the term's meaning."
The court also took note of Wolf's use of Black's Law Dictionary, which defines "gross receipts" as "the total amount of money or the value of other consideration received from selling property or from performing services."
It should be a good night at the Rabbit residence. Not so hot at the Mouse house.
The ruling is Wolf v. Superior Court (Walt Disney Pictures and Television), 04 C.D.O.S. 508.
well its understandable that he should be entitled to royalties, especially if he has created roger rabbit, but im so saddened, by all the lawsuits disney has been facing lately, i mean greatly saddened
__________________
"There's a great big beautiful tomorrow...just a dream away"
Yup. And if you've read the original novel, it was sorta a launch pad for the film. Many liberties were taken with the film script and it was extremely better than the original story! Disney did a great job creating a totally new world and plotline,etc. for "Who Framed..." but it all started with a book...
It's interesting to remind ourselves that the company is under fire from many, many such lawsuits as it struggles through the aftermath of today's shareholder meeting in Philadelphia! LOTS going on!
It would seem that many of the lawsuits again'st Disney are people that claim they are not receiving their royalties. There seems to be a pattern here. In my mind if your making a ton of money on the talents of other people the least you can do is honor your contract.
__________________
Rick "Our greatest natural resource is the minds of our childen" Walt Disney
That's how this whole situation stands. Mess over the people you got the ideas from. Of course though to be honest, it's not just the Eisner regime. There's been many disatisfied talents over the years during Walt's tenure. Peggy Lee and "Lady and the Tramp" being one of the more publicised legal battles. But the ones from Walt's time pale in comparrison to the sheer number and ammount of people who have had to seek legal recourse under Eisner's tenure!