Julie Taymor sues SPIDER-MAN producers

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/8/11 at 3:14pm

And here it is ...

[quizking101]

Posted: 11/8/11 at 3:20pm

Yawn...Same ****, same horse.

[GlindatheGood22]

Posted: 11/8/11 at 3:21pm

I'm thinking she should count herself lucky that she's not getting what she deserves for her efforts with Spiderman.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 11/8/11 at 3:22pm

She wants this show shut down badly.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 11/8/11 at 3:25pm

This should be interesting. I can't imagine producers would have done this unless they were absolutely sure they had their asses covered in STEEL, legally.

Posted: 11/8/11 at 3:42pm

I hope this doesn't hurt her Tony chances.

[blaxx]

Posted: 11/8/11 at 4:09pm

I hope this doesn't hurt her Tony chances.

She had any?

[dreaming]

Posted: 11/8/11 at 4:57pm

I think he was being facetious. She should be grateful that she is eligible. If it were up to me she would not be.

[MusicalComedyMan]

Posted: 11/8/11 at 5:00pm

They are still using large chunks of her book and using her masks. SO she needs to be paid her royalties. SDC will make sure she will get her royalties for the Direction - again which she deserves. The producers are new to theatre and have no clue what they're doing... obviously!

[rorschach37]

Posted: 11/8/11 at 7:01pm

Let it go Julie. For the sake of all that is good and decent, let it go.

[trentsketch]

Posted: 11/8/11 at 7:23pm

She deserves to be paid for what they kept of her vision of the production. Whether or not that is worth as much as her contract originally stated really should be the only part up for negotiations. She designed, wrote, and directed scenes and elements that are still in that show.

[Idiot]

Posted: 11/8/11 at 7:28pm

Chiiilddd.... she's seeking injunctive relief -- in other words, to close the show. It says so in the beginning of the actual complaint.

Them there's the big guns.

[Proper Villain]

Posted: 11/8/11 at 7:40pm

The joys of being a contracted artist. It would've saved them money to just honor the contract instead of piling up legal fees (hers as well). Pay her.

[theatreguy]

Posted: 11/8/11 at 8:29pm

The New York Times has provided us all with a copy of suit:

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/document-taymors-spider-man-lawsuit/

[scott68]

Posted: 11/8/11 at 8:55pm

I find it quite interesting that she names Glen Berger, her former co-writer, as a defendant in the suit, but NOT Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa, who came on when she left.

[trentsketch]

Posted: 11/8/11 at 9:08pm

Glen Berger might be receiving royalties for stuff from the original version of the book and have a contract stating the producers have to get his permission to license Spider-Man for future productions/adaptations.

[theatreguy]

Posted: 11/8/11 at 9:41pm

Read through it. The producers, Taymor and Berger signed an agreement that gave Taymor full authority over the book. Berger did not have the power to make any changes to the book or to use Taymor's contributions in the new book. Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa had nothing to do with that agreement (since it happened years before he was hired) so he has not been included.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 11/8/11 at 10:24pm

"she's seeking injunctive relief -- in other words, to close the show. It says so in the beginning of the actual complaint.

Them there's the big guns."

She doesn't want the show shut down. That would be stupid. She wants the money due her. Shut down the show = no money for her. It's a standard legal tactic. Proper Villain is right. A contract is a contract. They should pay her and have done with it.

Updated On: 11/8/11 at 10:24 PM

[broadwaydevil]

Posted: 11/8/11 at 11:17pm

I'm not an attorney so I may be missing some legal issues here but how could she not be owed the royalties that were stipulated in the contract especially when parts of her vision is being used? I'm not a Taymor fan - but I'm going to have to side with her on this one.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/9/11 at 6:36am

One of the things I don't understand is that despite all the stipulations of her control as a director and book-writer, she was FIRED. That should negate the contract, to some extent. They "voided" her association with the show by terminating her, and she wouldn't have continued control over anything being done creatively, moving forward, after being sacked.

She would be owed royalties for the work already done (including future royalties), however. At least I would think so. Depends on the wording and the interpretation of it ... hence, the lawsuit.

Updated On: 11/9/11 at 06:36 AM

[MusicalComedyMan]

Posted: 11/9/11 at 8:09am

Well it's very complicated cause you can't 'fire' a bookwriter. They OWN the book. So if you no longer want to use that book in your musical you can stop using it, but you can't 'fire' the bookwriter and then change her script. That would be like any high school doing rent and deciding they didn't like the ending so they 'fire' Jonathan Larson, write a new ending, and tell the license company they're not going to pay for it.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/9/11 at 8:56am

But you're comparing something that was in the middle of a creative process to something that is a completed licensed work. I understand what you're saying, but in some respects it's not the same thing.

Screenwriters are fired from films all the time, and new writers are brought in to rewrite their work and/or "doctor" it during the "development" phase. I'm assuming they allow for something similar for a theatrical work.

Updated On: 11/9/11 at 08:56 AM

[Fosse76]

Posted: 11/9/11 at 10:01am

"She doesn't want the show shut down. That would be stupid. She wants the money due her. Shut down the show = no money for her. It's a standard legal tactic. Proper Villain is right. A contract is a contract. They should pay her and have done with it."

Injuctive Relief means she wants them to stop using the script that she authored (even if that script is only fragments of her authorship). An injunction, which she is seeking, is a legal tool that requires a party to either do something or refrain from doing something. There is no monetary award from the court in this type of action. She wants them to stop using her script. There's no show without the script. Therefore she wants to shut them down. In theory, her seeking injuctive relief can be a method to force a monetary settlement, but they would have to be confidant that the Court would grant the relief without a doubt.

[theatreguy]

Posted: 11/9/11 at 10:26am

best12bars, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't screenwriters sell their scripts to the movie studios and/or producers? In theater a writer owns their work and it cannot be used or changed without their permission.

As for the injuctive relief section, as I understood it she would like to be paid any fees and royalties she is due and as long as that happens the Broadway production may continue. She doesn't, however, want her work used for any further productions. Which means if they plan to tour or go to London they would need an entirely new book that doesn't utilize any of her copyrighted contributions.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/9/11 at 10:29am

A couple of other points of contention:

Well it's very complicated cause you can't 'fire' a bookwriter. They OWN the book.

1) Yes, you can fire a book writer.

2) Book writers may or may not "own" the book. It's more likely they would if it's an entirely original story. Julie Taymor doesn't "own" the Spider-Man characters or legend/story, so it isn't a case of being her original work. Chances are, this book was contracted as a "work for hire," which means Julie wouldn't own it at all. That's not to say she doesn't have protected rights for creating the work, and money due to her, but she is not the "owner" of this created work.

It's the same thing when we used to design logos, added content, interactive and menu designs for DVDs of films and TV shows. We were "work for hire." Anything we created: video documentaries, games with original story lines, graphic design elements for promotional purposes, etc., were all owned by the studios. We were contracted for this work and paid accordingly, but we could never claim "ownership" of the work. Since Julie definitely can't claim "ownership" of Spider-Man (TM), I am assuming her contract was some sort of "work for hire" arrangement. She is still due whatever was agreed upon in that contract, but she can't take "her" book and walk away with it, when she most likely doesn't own it outright to begin with. She can definitely file an injunction (which she has), asking them to stop until her contract is honored. And of course "stopping" a Broadway show means closing it down.