Entertainment Law Resources
​
  • HOME
  • LAW PRACTICE
    • Mark Litwak
    • Glenn Litwak
    • Pete Wilke
  • ARTICLES & VIDEO CLIPS
    • Video & Audio Clips
  • STORE
  • RESOURCES
  • BLOG
  • CONTACT
  • FAQ
  • SITE MAP

Alan Ladd Prevails Against Studio Packaging Practice

5/27/2010

 
By: Mark Litwak

When a package of movies is licensed, a frequent issue is how to allocate the license fee among the pictures in the package. If all the pictures are of the same commercial worth, a simple division among the films would appear to be fair. But movies are not fungible commodities like jelly beans, and their value can vary greatly. Moreover, the worth of a movie can be subjective.

Producer Alan Ladd claimed that Warner Brothers undervalued and underpaid the license fees attributable to Blade Runner, Body Heat, Night Shift, Tequila Sunrise, Outland, Chariots of Fire, and the Police Academy franchise, consisting of the original and sequels 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Ladd was entitled to profit participation from the films.

Warner licensed packages of movies to broadcast television and cable networks. In a practice known as "straight-lining," Warner allocated the same share of the licensing fee to every movie in a package, regardless of its value to the licensee. The gravamen of Ladd's action against Warner is that by allocating the same portion of the licensing fee to every movie in a package without regard to the true value of each movie, Warner deprived Ladd of a fair allocation of the licensing fees to which Ladd was entitled as a profit participant. The complaint included causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud and negligent misrepresentation.

Ladd's expert testified that in treating every movie as though it had the same value, "the studio was not doing its expert work, as a provider or distributor of content, in weighing the value of each of these titles." Ladd was entitled to 5 percent of gross revenues on all films once Warner recouped its costs, except for Chariots of Fire, on which he was entitled to 2.5 percent. Thus, on the $97 million in under allocated licensing fees, Ladd's profit participation should have been $3,190,625.

In its opinion the California Court of Appeals held that Warner owed a duty to allocate license fees fairly to Ladd's movies. It mentioned that every contract in California contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing that "neither party will do anything which will injure the right of the other to receive the benefits of the agreement." (Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390, 400.) The implied covenant "finds particular application in situations where one party is invested with a discretionary power affecting the rights of another. Such power must be exercised in good faith." (Carma Developers (Cal.), Inc. v. Marathon Development California, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 342, 372.)

In evaluating its movies, Warner internally assigned each movie a grade of A, B or C. All of Ladd's films were rated either A or B. The problem was that Warner allocated the same proportion of the license fee to each title in the package, irrespective of the letter grade.

The court noted that movies rated C were filler material, which is why they are bundled in a package together with A and B movies. Leslie Cohen, director of film acquisitions at HBO, testified that in one licensing deal, Warner added a group of old Tarzan movies to a licensing package at no cost. Warner then allocated a license fee of $40,000 to each of the Tarzan movies, thereby reducing other movies' allocations in the package.

Ladd's expert also testified that in non-straight lined film packages, movies that were less valuable than Ladd's received greater value. For example, there were times when Daffy Duck and Bugs Bunny animated films were allocated double the money that was allocated to Chariots of Fire, a valuable feature film which won multiple Academy Awards, including Best Picture. Those animated films were wholly owned by Warner, which means Warner kept every dollar generated by licensing fees on those films. Ladd's expert determined that Warner was over allocating license fees to movies that were studio owned or that did not have profit participants.

Warner Bros had appealed a judgment on a jury verdict awarding plaintiffs $3,190,625 in damages. Most aspects of the judgment were affirmed and Ladd was granted recovery of costs on the appeal. Ladd v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. B204015. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Three. Filed May 25, 2010.

    Archives

    February 2023
    January 2023
    November 2022
    September 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    May 2021
    March 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    December 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    May 2018
    March 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    August 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    July 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    January 2014
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    February 2012
    December 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    April 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    February 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    July 2009
    June 2009
    January 2009

    Disclaimer: The information in this blog post (“post”) is provided for general informational purposes only and may not reflect the current law in your jurisdiction. No information contained in this post should be construed as legal advice from the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader of this post should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in, or accessible through, this Post without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from a lawyer licensed in the recipient’s state, country or other appropriate licensing jurisdiction.
    For older posts, please visit The Litwak Blog.
    Join our Email Newsletter list
    Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon
    For Email Newsletters you can trust
Picture
Home
Law Practice
Store
Articles & Video Clips
Resources

Blog

Contact
FAQ
Site Map

LAW OFFICES OF
MARK LITWAK & ASSOCIATES

201 Santa Monica Blvd.
Suite 300
Santa Monica, California 90401
Phone: 310-859-9595
Law2@marklitwak.com


Follow us on
Join our Email Newsletter list
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon
For Email Newsletters you can trust
Copyright  2013-2021, Mark Litwak. All Rights Reserved.│ Legal Disclaimer │ Terms of Use & Copyright    │  Privacy Policy