From Deadline Hollywood:
QuoteLon Chaney Heirs Sue Universal Over Merchandise And Royalties
BY DOMINIC PATTEN | Monday June 3, 2013 (*at*) 7:50pm
The heirs of Old Hollywood continue to want today's Tinseltown to pay up. Monster movie actor Lon Chaney Jr's family today went after Universal in the courts for more than $1 million in damages. In a nine-page breach of contract and other claims complaint (read it here) filed Monday in LA Superior Court, Chaney Entertainment alleges that Universal Studios Licensing uses the Wolf Man/Mummy/Frankenstein actor's likeness for merchandise and goods and services despite the fact that a representation agreement between the studio and the company expired on December 31, 2008. Although he played Lennie Small in 1939′s "Of Mice and Men" adaptation alongside Burgess Meredith, Chaney was best known for his performances as a monster in a series of Universal films in the 1930s and 1940s. In the years after his death in 1973, his heirs and their corporate entity entered into a number of agreements with Universal over the rights to his image and his film work. Seeking a 5-day jury trial, the complaint filed today also claims that Universal Home Video has not properly paid the Chaneys for the use of the long-deceased actor's image or voice-over in licensed film clips."Universal's continued exploitation of the Chaney's rights has been done intentionally in conscious disregards of the rights of Chaney, and with malice, fraud, or oppression towards Chaney, thereby entitling Chaney to an award of punitive damages according to proof at trial," says the complaint. Seeking restoration of full rights to the actor's likeness and image, a full accounting and payment of funds allegedly due plus 10% per annum in interest, the complaint also wants all legal fees paid by the defendants as well consequential and punitive damages. Chaney Entertainment is represented by attorney Joseph F. Hart of Beverly Hills in their filing.
Ron Chaney hinted that this might be happening back in March at Mad Monster Party in Charlotte, NC. It seems Universal is playing very fast and loose with their accounting, which is why Béla Lugosi Jr will no longer license his father's image to them. Sadly, this could mean that Lon Chaney Sr & Jr could be next to get the "generic" Universal makeovers.
This is too bad. I am all for people getting their royalties but things like this (like you said) will give us more generic characters in place of the originals. I try to keep the movies alive with my site so that future generations will be able to see how great these films are. But if they keep seeing these fake characters they will eventually not even know what they looked like and forget about these films. Ujniversal must have done something to really tick off Chaney because I heard they were the easiest family to work with.
Ron told me his oldest daughter was going over their contract (which had actually expired and they were attempting to negotiate a new one) with a fine-toothed comb, as well as going over the accounting ledgers supplied by Universal. The Chaneys' rights to Lon Jr's likeness continues (under the current law) until 2043. Naturally, Ron wants to see his four children (two daughters, and sons Alonzo and Creighton) get what is legally theirs. Ron doesn't want to have to do what Béla Jr did, but after his daughter told him that Universal was either cooking the books or they were the biggest idiots in history when it came to marketing (and I could easily believe that), he doesn't have many other options.
Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2
When these disputes result in original likenesses no longer being used it is the fans who really lose out. The history of horror gets eroded a little at a time for future generations. The images of classic characters shouldn't boil down to some generic okayed by a corporate suit who doesn't give a damn about anything but collecting a paycheck.
Quote from: horrorhunter on June 04, 2013, 03:00:36 PM
When these disputes result in original likenesses no longer being used it is the fans who really lose out. The history of horror gets eroded a little at a time for future generations. The images of classic characters shouldn't boil down to some generic okayed by a corporate suit who doesn't give a damn about anything but collecting a paycheck.
I'll second that. Couldn't have said it better myself. New Universal will ultimately destroy what Old Universal created. We will end up with nothing but cartoon characters by the time they are done. All because they really don't care about the monsters. They just do whatever they can to
squeeze whatever bucks they can out of them, get their check and bonuses, and make substandard movies that the 18 to 24 year olds might like but usually don't judging by some of my son's and his friends comments after they see one. Then there is still the rumor of a Creature remake. Don't do it! Just release the original back to the theatre and I will go. I couldn't take another remake like the Wolfman! Garbage!
Quote from: Count_Zirock on June 04, 2013, 01:04:20 PM
Ron told me his oldest daughter was going over their contract (which had actually expired and they were attempting to negotiate a new one) with a fine-toothed comb, as well as going over the accounting ledgers supplied by Universal. The Chaneys' rights to Lon Jr's likeness continues (under the current law) until 2043. Naturally, Ron wants to see his four children (two daughters, and sons Alonzo and Creighton) get what is legally theirs. Ron doesn't want to have to do what Béla Jr did, but after his daughter told him that Universal was either cooking the books or they were the biggest idiots in history when it came to marketing (and I could easily believe that), he doesn't have many other options.
If the people at Universal can't get along with Ron, of all people, then they must be jerks. And of course studios are well-known for cooking the books -- this is why A-list directors & actors will no longer accept a cut of "the profits" on a film, because no matter how sucessful the movie is there
won't be any "profits". Now when these smart / previously burned folks make a deal they insist on a cut of the gross, not the net. That greatly reduces the chance of getting screwed by "creative accounting".
Well, the marketing department isn't going to get along with anyone, if all they do is lie and cheat (allegedly). Universal sure wants their piece of the pie, even when they aren't entitled to it! But when an actor's heirs press for their royalties, suddenly the well dries up, it seems. Sara Karloff made her deal with the studio at the right time, it appears. Today, I doubt she'd even get the offer. This whole situation really sours my stomach. I love my monsters, but their studio has become a sad place, indeed.
Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2
Another indication of Universal's long-standing stupidity and failure to recognize what they had was their blowing off the production of "The Monster Squad" instead of embracing its own brand/history. So the producers just tweaked the monsters a bit, and did it without Universal. Sad...
Isn't it amazing how a top grossing film, like the original Alien, is actually said to have lost money when it comes to paying people a share of the profits?
Quote from: McDougals House of Horror on June 04, 2013, 08:11:06 PMAnother indication of Universal's long-standing stupidity and failure to recognize what they had was their blowing off the production of "The Monster Squad" instead of embracing its own brand/history. So the producers just tweaked the monsters a bit, and did it without Universal. Sad...
Today's studios are run by nincompoops who just don't get cinema. Considering every studio is looking to start a franchise so they can churn out endless sequels, Universal stupidly let their classic monsters fall into disuse. Now, they have no clue how to revive them. "The Mummy" (1999) ended up being an Indiana Jones wannabe. "Van Helsing" was an embarrassing hodge-podge. "The Wolfman" was mishandled and botched because of studio interference. I can only imagine the mess that will be this new "Dracula" film.
Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2
All the studio heads will have to see is the money that Stephanie Meyers has made with her Twilight franchise to decide that her's is the artistic vision that should be the model when it comes to reviving the Dracula franchise.
One thing mitigates against the Chaney family, Bela Lugosi tried to sue for the same thing in i believe 1972 and the court said that the likeness of a character belongs to the studio who owns that character.
Quote from: BaronNightshade on June 05, 2013, 07:49:53 AM
One thing mitigates against the Chaney family, Bela Lugosi tried to sue for the same thing in i believe 1972 and the court said that the likeness of a character belongs to the studio who owns that character.
If this was the case how is it the only Lugosi Dracula items we get are the Broadway Dracula and anything Universal is a generic vampire? Just wondering. Still don't know why they don't at least give us a Carridine Dracula if we can't have a Lugosi one. Marketing just don't get it.
It would be an awful shame if Universal goes to all generic Wolf Man items.
Lon deserves better.
Quote from: BaronNightshade on June 05, 2013, 07:49:53 AMOne thing mitigates against the Chaney family, Bela Lugosi tried to sue for the same thing in i believe 1972 and the court said that the likeness of a character belongs to the studio who owns that character.
Yes, but when Fred Astaire's image was used to sell a vacuum cleaner, this led to the California Celebrities Rights Act of 1985 (a.k.a. the Astaire Act), giving deceased actors' estates the rights to control their images. There are limits, of course. The celebrities must have died since 1938 (therefore exempting Lon Chaney, Sr.), and the protection lasted 50 years, but that was amended to 70 years recently. Actors who die without blood heirs can name legal heirs in their wills, as Elsa Lancaster left her estate to the Actors Guild Home for the Aged. So, yes, while Lugosi originally won his case, then lost on appeal, the Astaire Act s that ruling. Twelve other states have similar laws on the books. There was a New York case where a photographer was prevented from using photographs of Marilyn Monroe for commercial purposes, because her original contract with him for use had expired, and her estate wouldn't grant him a new contract.
Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2
Quote from: Universal Steve on June 05, 2013, 11:34:47 AMStill don't know why they don't at least give us a Carridine Dracula if we can't have a Lugosi one. Marketing just don't get it.
Because then they'd have to negotiate a deal with Carradine's heirs. Also, Carradine's costume was different enough (as was Chaney Jr's) that Universal sees it as confusing the "brand" in the eyes of the public. No medallion, y'see.
Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2
Quote from: Count_Zirock on June 05, 2013, 12:08:11 PM
...Elsa Lancaster left her estate to the Actors Guild Home for the Aged. ...
Bless her heart.
Quote from: Universal Steve on June 05, 2013, 11:34:47 AM
If this was the case how is it the only Lugosi Dracula items we get are the Broadway Dracula and anything Universal is a generic vampire? Just wondering. Still don't know why they don't at least give us a Carridine Dracula if we can't have a Lugosi one. Marketing just don't get it.
There is nothing stopping someone from working with the Carradine family to create their own Dracula figure from "Billy the Kid Meets Dracula".
Quote from: Haunted hearse on June 05, 2013, 01:06:55 PMThere is nothing stopping someone from working with the Carradine family to create their own Dracula figure from "Billy the Kid Meets Dracula".
Except, perhaps, whoever currently owns the copyright to that film. Or has it lapsed into public domain? I know there's a resin kit of Carradine's Dracula from HoD that's actually in 12" scale, and I believe the cape is cloth. I saw it on Monsters In Motion's site, I think.
Oh, and I recently read that Frank Langella refused to allow merchandising of his Dracula from the '79 remake in his original contract. So, no disco-Dracula figures, I'm afraid. (Hey, he was still better than all this "Twilight" garbage!)
Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2
Quote from: Count_Zirock on June 05, 2013, 12:13:40 PM
Because then they'd have to negotiate a deal with Carradine's heirs. Also, Carradine's costume was different enough (as was Chaney Jr's) that Universal sees it as confusing the "brand" in the eyes of the public. No medallion, y'see.
Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2
Universal thinks it would confuse people?????? As it is now most younger people must think Dracula is some mean looking guy with fangs and stands with wolves. It don't get more confusing than that! The fans are always the ones who suffer. At least Universal fans would get the Carradine idea. They just don't get it.
Hey, I never claimed it made sense! It is what it is: corporate suits being morons.
Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2
I'm probably going to have a very unpopular opinion here, but I think the studios should have the sole rights, not the actor's estates.
The actors were paid for their work when they played the role, but the studio owns the final product, the characters and the films.
Why should the heirs of these long dead actors be compensated today for work those actors were fully paid for decades ago?
If it weren't for said heirs, we'd have licensed merchandise that looked like the actors.
Bela Lugosi Jr. is a highly successful attorney...does he really need a cut of every Dracula toy and model that comes out? Of course not.
I'd just be thrilled to have people remember my dad and continue to honor the work he did with merchandise.
Do you also believe that actors should not receive residuals from TV series for which they were fully compensated years ago?
Quote from: Scatter on September 04, 2013, 07:46:27 PMDo you also believe that actors should not receive residuals from TV series for which they were fully compensated years ago?
That's contractual. Today, actors know that films & TV shows can live forever through syndication and home media. Back in the '30s & '40s, their contracts couldn't anticipate re-releases, let alone TV reruns and home media.
The California Celebrity Rights Act sought to remedy that oversight. Fred Astaire's estate objected to his likeness being used to hawk vacuum cleaners. Actors likenesses might otherwise be used for anything the movie studios and TV networks see fit. Lugosi's Dracula used to hawk home HIV-test kits? Gene Kelly's dance with Jerry the Mouse used to sell rat poison? Milton Berle selling condoms? Why not? The studios just cash the checks and rake in the royalties. Now, that can't happen. Today, celebrities can stipulate these things in their contracts. For example, we don't get to have a Frank Langella as Dracula '79 figure, because Langella had a very strict merchandising clause in his contract. Universal Pictures agreed to it, not thinking about 20, 30 years later, people might still actually be willing to buy merchandise from that film.
Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 4
Quote from: StyreneDude on September 04, 2013, 01:08:06 PM
I'm probably going to have a very unpopular opinion here, but I think the studios should have the sole rights, not the actor's estates.
The actors were paid for their work when they played the role, but the studio owns the final product, the characters and the films.
Why should the heirs of these long dead actors be compensated today for work those actors were fully paid for decades ago?
If it weren't for said heirs, we'd have licensed merchandise that looked like the actors.
Bela Lugosi Jr. is a highly successful attorney...does he really need a cut of every Dracula toy and model that comes out? Of course not.
I'd just be thrilled to have people remember my dad and continue to honor the work he did with merchandise.
StyreneDude, if
you were Bela or Ron or Sara or an heir of a famous actor or singer, I guarantee that your opinion would be completely opposite of what it is now. You say that because Bela Jr. "is a successful attorney...does he really need a cut of every Dracula toy and model that comes out? Of course not." Why should he be penalized for being successful? And how does that relate in any way to his legal rights? Sounds like certain groups out there, wanting to punish, take and redistribute from the evil successful.
And by saying "If it weren't for said heirs, we'd have licensed merchandise that looked like the actors", you're ignoring that fact that sometimes the studios are just plain greedy and don't want to pay 10% or anything for that matter. Licensing fees are not excessive -- when they're negotiated, it behooves the heirs to be reasonable or they risk souring the entire deal and winding up with nothing. So when the studio says "We ain't paying
any license fee, we want 100% or no deal" -- whose fault is that? There are plenty of items out there that
are licensed.
Quote from: Scatter on September 04, 2013, 07:46:27 PM
Do you also believe that actors should not receive residuals from TV series for which they were fully compensated years ago?
I actually don't. What makes them so special that they can continue to receive payments for something they did forty years ago, while the rest of the people in other jobs (whose work certainly lives on in one way or another -- teachers, firefighters, policemen) don't get paid for their old work? That being said, the studios should also lose ownership of old properties. Mankind really created all kinds of problems for itself when it invented "ownership" over non-physical entities.
That being said, the system that has been created makes it so that studios can still own old content, and as such, they need to share the profits with the people originally involved. Those original cast members deserve more than the current studio heads. That's for sure.
However, so long as there are protections for "parody," any legislation protecting the likenesses of celebrities and creative content is fairly pointless, imo. Get rid of parody protection, and I'll give extensive ownership over creative content another look. I cannot tell you how much the parody loophole infuriates me. In most cases, it's far less tasteful than Fred Astaire selling vacuums.
Quote from: aura of foreboding on September 04, 2013, 10:17:09 PM
I actually don't. What makes them so special that they can continue to receive payments for something they did forty years ago, while the rest of the people in other jobs (whose work certainly lives on in one way or another -- teachers, firefighters, policemen) don't get paid for their old work?
Are you serious? Public workers
live for their pensions, which is just another form of residual. I have a friend who worked for a public agency for 30 years here in Karloffornia, fully retired at 55 with 90% of his salary, and now gets a $90,000 per year pension payout for life, mostly compliments of the taxpayers. If he lives until 85, that's $2.7 million for NOT working. And you'd begrudge an actor (a non-public employee) a piddly residual that is probably a fraction of what it should be thanks to "creative accounting"?? Yikes!
I knew my opinion wasn't going to be well received...sorry. Didn't mean to ruffle any feathers.
I see it like this. When I do work for my company, I am paid for it. Anything I produce is owned by the company, and they can continue to profit off it for as long as they wish. I have no claim to it afterward, and my children and grandchildren certainly wouldn't. They don't owe me a thing. Why are actors any different?
I never said Bela Jr. should be penalized for being successful. I just don't get the sense of entitlement. Why should he be owed anything for work his father did 70 years ago? And if you want to get technical, then where do you draw the line? Should Jack Pierce's heirs get money too?
After all, without his famous makeup, would Frankenstein be the icon he is today?
What about the costume designers? Should Millicent Patrick's heirs get a cut of all Creature merchandise? After all, she designed it.
Bottom line, everyone involved in the creation of a character could stake some claim that they're owed compensation. At some point, whether it's the makeup man, the actor, or whoever, it's all work for hire. They were paid under contract to produce a product.
Quote from: McDougals House of Horror on September 04, 2013, 10:30:46 PM
Are you serious? Public workers live for their pensions, which is just another form of residual. I have a friend who worked for a public agency for 30 years here in Karloffornia, fully retired at 55 with 90% of his salary, and now gets a $90,000 per year pension payout for life, mostly compliments of the taxpayers. If he lives until 85, that's $2.7 million for NOT working. And you'd begrudge an actor (a non-public employee) a piddly residual that is probably a fraction of what it should be thanks to "creative accounting"?? Yikes!
Yeah, in weird places like California, not the rest of the world. Normal retirement, which is what public servants get where I'm from, is earned and taken out while you're working. It's not a residual. It's taken right out of your paycheck every month and put away for later. What you get is what you put in, unless you invest it for more.
Residuals are not retirement. There is a huge difference. Again, we're talking real-world people here, not Californians. ;D
Hmmmm...does George Washington's heirs get a hit every time a dollar bill is spent? Or does honest Abe's get a check from Ford every time they sell a Lincoln?
Quote from: Monster Bob on September 05, 2013, 12:02:00 AMHmmmm...does George Washington's heirs get a hit every time a dollar bill is spent? Or does honest Abe's get a check from Ford every time they sell a Lincoln?
Comparing apples to warthogs, really.
Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 4
Quote from: Scatter on September 04, 2013, 07:46:27 PM
Do you also believe that actors should not receive residuals from TV series for which they were fully compensated years ago?
Hmmmmmmm. Interesting. :o
Quote from: Monster Bob on September 05, 2013, 12:02:00 AM
Hmmmm...does George Washington's heirs get a hit every time a dollar bill is spent? Or does honest Abe's get a check from Ford every time they sell a Lincoln?
I have the feeling George Washington would have been flat out opposed to his use on coins and currency.
I don't see how one dead guy's image is different than any others.
Quote from: Monster Bob on September 05, 2013, 07:14:18 PM
I don't see how one dead guy's image is different than any others.
I think I would have no trouble telling President Lincoln from George Washington.