Art and Fear -
A good book about the internal and external challenges to making art, along with the rewards.
|
Sunday, 17 June 2018
quote [ “The ruling means that the rights to the film belong to Alfama. Any exploitation of the film up until now has been completely illegal and without the authorization of Alfama,” said Branco, in an interview with Screen Daily. “We will be seeking damages with interest from all the people involved in this illegal production and above all, all those who were complicit in its illegal exploitation. We’re holding everyone responsible.” ]
Worst case, a pristine 4k torrent suddenly becomes available, from an "unknown source." Gilliam just had a stroke a few weeks ago; I doubt he gives a flying fuck through a rolling doughnut what Paulo Branco thinks he owns. Case summary in extended.
Gilliam: Hey, will you give me some money to buy a truck?
Branco: Ok, but if I give you the money, I want the right to use the truck whenever I need it. Gilliam: Ok, that's fair. (Later, Gilliam buys truck with money from someone else.) Branco: Hey, I want the truck. Gilliam: No. You didn't give me any money to buy the truck. Branco: But I said I would give you the money to buy the truck. It doesn't matter that you didn't use my money to buy the truck. You broke the agreement. Give me the truck. Gilliam: Fuck you.
|
hellboy said @ 10:09pm GMT on 17th June
If Branco provided funding he should be able to produce bank records proving that fact - the burden of proof is on him, not on Gilliam. If Branco can't provide the proof, then there's no contract in effect. The contract fails if either party does not comply with the terms. Branco's mere promise to provide funding is not sufficient to complete the terms of the contract. Either the court fucked up, or Gilliam's lawyer fucked up and signed an incredibly poorly-written contract.
"But I was gonna fund the movie eventually, if you hadn't been so impatient" is not a legitimate claim. Something is seriously wrong here, Branco claiming ownership of something that someone else paid for is theft. Where is that other financier? If I were them I would be raising holy hell.
hellboy said @ 10:10pm GMT on 17th June
If Branco provided funding he should be able to produce bank records proving that fact - the burden of proof is on him, not on Gilliam. If Branco can't provide the proof, then there's no contract in effect. The contract fails if either party does not comply with the terms. Branco's mere promise to provide funding is not sufficient to complete the terms of the contract. Either the court fucked up, or Gilliam's lawyer fucked up and signed an incredibly poorly-written contract.
"But I was gonna fund the movie eventually, if you hadn't been so impatient" is not a legitimate claim. Something is seriously wrong here, Branco claiming ownership of something that someone else paid for is theft. Where is that other financier? If I were them I would be raising holy hell.
Sadly I know from personal experience that the independent film world is plagued with crooks and pathological liars.
<-- Entry / Current Comment
hellboy said @ 10:09pm GMT on 17th June
If Branco provided funding he should be able to produce bank records proving that fact - the burden of proof is on him, not on Gilliam. If Branco can't provide the proof, then there's no contract in effect. The contract fails if either party does not comply with the terms. Branco's mere promise to provide funding is not sufficient to complete the terms of the contract. Either the court fucked up, or Gilliam's lawyer fucked up and signed an incredibly poorly-written contract.
"But I was gonna fund the movie eventually, if you hadn't been so impatient" is not a legitimate claim. Something is seriously wrong here, Branco claiming ownership of something that someone else paid for is theft. Where is that other financier? If I were them I would be raising holy hell.
Sadly I know from personal experience that the independent film world is plagued with crooks and pathological liars.
