Cameo Clips

Film Financing/Breach Of Contract

No reasonable jury would find a meeting of the minds was reached on the essential elements of an alleged agreement for the plaintiff to produce an educational film in return for the defendants' promise to finance an unrelated feature film, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held. Baker v. The Robert I. Lappin Charitable Foundation, 04 Civ. 426. Robert I. Lappin and The Robert I. Lappin Charitable Foundation hired plaintiff Gil Baker as writer and producer of the film 'Great Jewish Achievers' (GJA). Baker sued after the Lappin defendants failed to provide funding for the full-length film 'Bungalow 6' that Baker wished to make. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on Baker's breach-of-contract claim. The court explained: 'As Baker conceded at his deposition, there was no discussion, much less any agreement, on critical items such as the nature of the investment (whether loan or equity or otherwise); the time of performance (when Lappin was to provide the $500,000 [for 'Bungalow 6']); the manner of performance (whether the funds would be paid in a lump sum or installments); the terms of repayment (if the monies were to be repaid at all); whether interest would be paid and if so at what rate; whether Lappin would share in profits and if so in what manner and to what extent; whether and to what extent Lappin would have any control over content, casting, or other creative issues; and who would own the copyrights.'

A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Paramount Pictures expressly conditioned licensing its TV shows 'Judge Judy' and 'Judge Joe Brown' on a broadcaster also licensing the show 'Becker,' or whether Paramount licensed the programs together to permit the broadcaster to obtain lower prices for 'Judge Judy' and 'Judge Joe Brown,' the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, decided. Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Johnson Broadcasting Inc., H-04-03488. Paramount filed a breach-of-contract suit alleging that Johnson Broadcasting failed to make payments for some licensed TV shows and failed to air others. The broadcaster then alleged that Paramount had engaged in anti-trust activity. The district court explained: 'Tying arrangements, which are prohibited under the [federal] Sherman Act and the [federal] Clayton Act, occur when a seller agrees to sell one product only on the condition that the buyer also purchases a different, or 'tied,' product. ' Block-booking is a type of tying arrangement in which a distributor licenses one film or group of films to exhibitors on the condition that the exhibitor will also license another film or group of films released by the distributor. ' While conditioning the sale of one product on the sale of another violates antitrust laws, selling multiple products as a package is permissible.'

Paramount emphasized in part that language in the program-licensing agreements with Johnson Broadcasting stated that the shows had been separately negotiated. But the district court noted: '[W]here a written contract is alleged to reflect circumstances different from those that actually occurred, so as to conceal illegality, a court should look beyond the language of the contract and consider evidence showing that the contract embodies an illegal agreement. ' Here, Defendant has presented evidence that, despite any contractual language to the contrary, Plaintiff illegally tied its license of Becker to the licenses of Judge Judy and Judge Joe Brown. Plaintiff cannot nullify such an antitrust violation with a contractual provision.'

But the court went on to find breach of contract on Paramount's claim that Johnson Broadcasting had failed to pay license fees for 'Judge Joe Brown' and the show 'The Parkers' and to follow the broadcast terms for the latter show. According to the court: 'It would be unfair and unnecessary for this Court to augment the penalties imposed by the antitrust statutes by allowing Defendant to reap the benefit of the license that it desired and utilized without fulfilling its contractual duty to pay for it.'

Film Financing/Breach Of Contract

No reasonable jury would find a meeting of the minds was reached on the essential elements of an alleged agreement for the plaintiff to produce an educational film in return for the defendants' promise to finance an unrelated feature film, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held. Baker v. The Robert I. Lappin Charitable Foundation, 04 Civ. 426. Robert I. Lappin and The Robert I. Lappin Charitable Foundation hired plaintiff Gil Baker as writer and producer of the film 'Great Jewish Achievers' (GJA). Baker sued after the Lappin defendants failed to provide funding for the full-length film 'Bungalow 6' that Baker wished to make. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on Baker's breach-of-contract claim. The court explained: 'As Baker conceded at his deposition, there was no discussion, much less any agreement, on critical items such as the nature of the investment (whether loan or equity or otherwise); the time of performance (when Lappin was to provide the $500,000 [for 'Bungalow 6']); the manner of performance (whether the funds would be paid in a lump sum or installments); the terms of repayment (if the monies were to be repaid at all); whether interest would be paid and if so at what rate; whether Lappin would share in profits and if so in what manner and to what extent; whether and to what extent Lappin would have any control over content, casting, or other creative issues; and who would own the copyrights.'

A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Paramount Pictures expressly conditioned licensing its TV shows 'Judge Judy' and 'Judge Joe Brown' on a broadcaster also licensing the show 'Becker,' or whether Paramount licensed the programs together to permit the broadcaster to obtain lower prices for 'Judge Judy' and 'Judge Joe Brown,' the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, decided. Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Johnson Broadcasting Inc., H-04-03488. Paramount filed a breach-of-contract suit alleging that Johnson Broadcasting failed to make payments for some licensed TV shows and failed to air others. The broadcaster then alleged that Paramount had engaged in anti-trust activity. The district court explained: 'Tying arrangements, which are prohibited under the [federal] Sherman Act and the [federal] Clayton Act, occur when a seller agrees to sell one product only on the condition that the buyer also purchases a different, or 'tied,' product. ' Block-booking is a type of tying arrangement in which a distributor licenses one film or group of films to exhibitors on the condition that the exhibitor will also license another film or group of films released by the distributor. ' While conditioning the sale of one product on the sale of another violates antitrust laws, selling multiple products as a package is permissible.'

Paramount emphasized in part that language in the program-licensing agreements with Johnson Broadcasting stated that the shows had been separately negotiated. But the district court noted: '[W]here a written contract is alleged to reflect circumstances different from those that actually occurred, so as to conceal illegality, a court should look beyond the language of the contract and consider evidence showing that the contract embodies an illegal agreement. ' Here, Defendant has presented evidence that, despite any contractual language to the contrary, Plaintiff illegally tied its license of Becker to the licenses of Judge Judy and Judge Joe Brown. Plaintiff cannot nullify such an antitrust violation with a contractual provision.'

But the court went on to find breach of contract on Paramount's claim that Johnson Broadcasting had failed to pay license fees for 'Judge Joe Brown' and the show 'The Parkers' and to follow the broadcast terms for the latter show. According to the court: 'It would be unfair and unnecessary for this Court to augment the penalties imposed by the antitrust statutes by allowing Defendant to reap the benefit of the license that it desired and utilized without fulfilling its contractual duty to pay for it.'