Happy Days Cast Not So Happy: Suing CBS & Paramount For Missing Royalties

from the the-fonz-is-too-cool-for-court dept

Wed, Apr 20th 2011 6:40am — Mike Masnick

Apparently most of the cast of the iconic sitcom Happy Days aren't particularly happy with CBS and Paramount right now, as they've filed a lawsuit against the two companies, saying those companies haven't been paying the royalties they owe the cast from home video sales and merchandise sales (there's still Happy Days merch on the market?!?). Notably missing from the lawsuit are stars Ron Howard and Henry Winkler, but much of the rest of the main cast is there. Amazingly, the lawsuit was apparently triggered by a Happy Days cast member seeing a Happy Days slot machine, and wondering why no royalties were being paid. After contacting Paramount to find out how much money was owed from merch, and being told the answer was (of course), none, they moved on to a lawsuit. What struck me as most interesting is that, typically in these types of lawsuits, the studios being sued claim that the actors are wrong. In this case, however, CBS actually put out a statement saying: "We agree that funds are owed to the actors and have been working with them for quite some time to resolve the issue." Of course, that should probably make you wonder if actors from other shows also need to file a lawsuit just to get what's owed to them...

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: happy days, lawsuit, royalties

34 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2011 @ 6:52am

Always a fascinating realisation.
The same companies who are endlessly whining about the money they are losing to file sharing, which in fact involves no money but manage to spend what few moments of free time they can tear away from whining about infringement very specifically and deliberately not paying money to people who by their own rules,they acknowledge they owe money to.

Of course it's still ludicrous that bit part players in an ancient tv series should think that anything using the name of the show they were once in should entitle them to payments, but at least they and the company they are suing are coming from the same bizarre belief circle.

Speaking of bizarre beliefs, I must go and make preparations for the Easter bunny who brings chocolate eggs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- chris (profile), 20 Apr 2011 @ 8:41am
  
  Re:
  The same companies who are endlessly whining about the money they are losing to file sharing... very specifically and deliberately not paying money to people who by their own rules,they acknowledge they owe money to.
  
  the thing we fear most is often the thing we see in the mirror, so it stands to reason that a company that has made its fortune by exploiting the works of others would fight to the death to stop what it believes to be the same thing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- FormerAC (profile), 20 Apr 2011 @ 10:37am
  
  Re:
  Of course it's still ludicrous that bit part players in an ancient tv series should think that anything using the name of the show they were once in should entitle them to payments
  
  What if the slot machine uses their images?
  You are assuming the machine just said "Happy Days." A quick google search (http://tinyurl.com/3r3cm87) brings up a picture of the machines themselves (http://southerngaming.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/pg56_a-copy_compressed.jpg)
  
  Looks like it is not only using the name Happy Days, but also images of Richie, Ralph, Potsie and the Fonz. Not having played the machine, I can't say what other elements of the show are used during play.
  
  While I agree that its ridiculous that a show from the 70s is IP that needs to be protected, that isn't the issue here. It is extremely hypocritical of them to not pay the people whose images they are licensing for profit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don, 20 Apr 2011 @ 7:02am

Scott Baio
I bet you Scott Baio was the one who triggered all this. After his failed spin off, Joanie Loves Chachi, his career went down hill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2011 @ 7:06am
  
  Re: Scott Baio
  He has all those Zapped residuals to life off of.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2011 @ 1:47pm
    
    Re: Re: Scott Baio
    What? 'Zapped'? What the hell is that?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2011 @ 7:38am
  
  Re: Scott Baio
  Someone is forgetting about the masterpiece that was Charles in Charge.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - mordred la fey, 27 Apr 2011 @ 7:40pm
    
    Re: Re: Scott Baio
    And Mr. Baio is earning a whole lot of money
    from the dvd sales and residuals of "CHARLES-IN-CHARGE"
    as well as the VH1 reality series "SCOTT BAIO IS 45 AND SINGLE/ 46 AND PREGNANT".
    He may not find it necessary anymore to participate in this current suit
    with his fellow castmates from "Happy Days".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2011 @ 8:57am
  
  Re: Scott Baio
  That makes sense. Bob Loblaw would be the most litigious of the bunch. Maybe he wrote something about it in the Bob Loblaw Law Blog. What a mouthful!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- the arcolytes, 27 Apr 2011 @ 7:32pm
  
  Re: Scott Baio
  Please do not involve Mr. Baio's good name into this mess.
  He's not included in this court action so far.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Jun 2011 @ 10:49am
  
  Re: Scott Baio
  How about Charles in Charge...? His own show...? Hmmm
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frankz (profile), 20 Apr 2011 @ 7:05am

Since the actors % share of the merchandising is based on Net profits, Hollywood Accounting will be in full force to show that there was no Net profit on any of it.

it's still ludicrous that bit part players in an ancient tv series should think that anything using the name of the show they were once in should entitle them to payments,

Not really, because this appears to be a direct contract issue. It's in their original contracts that they're supposed to be paid a % of all the merchandising. There was a ton of merchandising, but seems to have never been any payments on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FUDbuster (profile), 20 Apr 2011 @ 7:08am

Looking at the plaintiffs, I see we have Potsie, Mrs. C., Ralph Malph, Joanie, and Mr. C. (by his executor). In addition to the Fonz and Richie, I'd say that Chachi is conspicuously absent. God, I thought he was so cool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 20 Apr 2011 @ 8:10am
  
  Re:
  "Looking at the plaintiffs, I see we have Potsie, Mrs. C., Ralph Malph, Joanie, and Mr. C. (by his executor)."
  
  WTF? Someone KILLED Mr. C? And that guy now gets his royalties? Where is it in copyright law that if I shoot Mr. C in the head I get his checks?
  
  Damn it, now I have to buy a gun and look up Hugh Jackman's address....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - FUDbuster (profile), 20 Apr 2011 @ 8:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    You couldn't take Wolverine with a gun.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 20 Apr 2011 @ 8:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      But maybe by poisoning him with radioactive waste injected into his veins.
      
      Wait, no, that's too real...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 20 Apr 2011 @ 8:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Ah, but I wouldn't go after Wolverine Hugh Jackman. No sir, that'd be too tough. Stanley Jobson Swordfish Hugh Jackman, on the other hand....that cock sucker I can take out, I assure you.
      
      Hell, if that creepy scientologist from Welcome Back Carter can pull one over on him, Dark Helmet sure as shit could....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Greg G (profile), 20 Apr 2011 @ 10:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hell, if that creepy scientologist from Welcome Back Carter...
        
        *in Horshack's voice* Wait, Jimmy Carter, or Nell Carter?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 20 Apr 2011 @ 10:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Look, I'm not answering in character, Greg. I'm already super impressed that at 29 years old I can even MAKE a reference to Welcome Back Carter....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        slander (profile), 20 Apr 2011 @ 1:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        (cof)Kotter(cof)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- the arcolytes, 27 Apr 2011 @ 7:55pm
  
  Why is Chachi conspicuously absent in this suit??
  That may be due to the fact that the fifth season of "Happy Days" hasn't been released on DVD yet.
  Chachi Arcola first appears in the three-part "Hollywood" episode of season 5.
  
  You know who else are conspicuously absent?
  Roger (Ted McGinley), Lori Beth (Lynda Goodfriend), Flip (Billy Warlock), and K.C. (Crystal Bernard)
  And what about the relatives of the late Pat "Arnold" Morita and Al "Big Al" Molinaro??
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2011 @ 7:32am

Will this news bit ever make it on CBS?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AG Wright (profile), 20 Apr 2011 @ 7:40am

The rules
By the rules as they are written the money is owed to these performers. Their likeness and performances ARE getting Paramount money. Since I doubt that that money is going to stockholders, it's amazing how the big TV/movie companies never make any money on their productions, it might as well go to the actors.
I'll admit that the rules as they are right now are crazy but as long as the game is being played by those rules they might as well be applied to everyone. Unfortunately the only people that will get rich will be the lawyers but hey sharks have to eat too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2011 @ 10:41am
  
  Re: The rules
  My real question is how this sort of accounting doesn't lead to legal hazard under Sarbanes Oxley. If any of the corporate accounting is questionable it all is.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom The Toe, 20 Apr 2011 @ 7:47am

Changing The Rules
You will notice now that most stars of these series have their name as "Executive Produce" on their work to help ensure that they get paid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ed C., 20 Apr 2011 @ 7:54am

The fact that they hadn't been paid is not at all surprising. The slot machine also bears the Happy Days logo and has a wide-screen TV. Do the writers get copyright royalties for showing the episodes? Did the artist who created the iconic logo get paid either? If copyright is really about supporting the creative talent that actually did the work, then they all should be paid till the copyright falls into the public domain. Otherwise, the company is just a property owner collecting monopoly rents on the talents of others and don't deserve a dime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patrick, 20 Apr 2011 @ 8:20am

what's owed
"Of course, that should probably make you wonder if actors from other shows also need to file a lawsuit just to get what's owed to them..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patrick, 20 Apr 2011 @ 8:21am

re: what's owed
"Of course, that should probably make you wonder if actors from other shows also need to file a lawsuit just to get what's owed to them..."

Hmmm ... kind of like how inventors have to file a lawsuit against companies infringing their patents just to get what's owed to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- staff, 20 Apr 2011 @ 9:24am
  
  Re: re: what's owed
  That reminds me of an old tale from Poor Richard. A farmer shows up in court stating his neighbor's bull broke though the fence and killed his cow. The judge rules the neighbor is to recompense the farmer for the loss of his cow. When the farmer tells the judge it was his bull who killed the farmer's cow the judge says that is an important consideration and in that case the farmer should recompense the neighbor for the damage to his fence.
  
  When it comes to masnick's writing, it's all about the bull.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JEDIDIAH, 20 Apr 2011 @ 10:02am
    
    Tort reform for the rich, crime and punishment for the rich.
    With the copyright maximalists, it's all about making sure that nameless faceless corporations get what's due to them. Screw the individual. Any rhetoric about the actual talent is of course pure hypocrisy. The "little guy" is never the author or the artist. It's always about the large megacorp.
    
    If Patent Law and what not actually served to champion the actual talent, a lot of this maximalist rhetoric would seem less absurd.
    
    The talent are infact just corporate serfs and don't really matter.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 20 Apr 2011 @ 10:02am
  
  Re: re: what's owed
  Hmmm ... kind of like how inventors have to file a lawsuit against companies infringing their patents just to get what's owed to them
  
  Actually, no. Nothing likes that. One involves a signed and agreed upon contract, in which company A promises to pay person B $x for royalties.
  
  The other involves random company M with a silly patent suing a company who actually innovated, and demanding a cut of something they have no right to and don't deserve.
  
  See the difference?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frankz (profile), 20 Apr 2011 @ 10:57am

it was Welcome Back, Kotter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gotcha, 20 Apr 2011 @ 7:02pm

Another embarassing Masnick self-contradiction
Hmmm ... kind of like how inventors have to file a lawsuit against companies infringing their patents just to get what's owed to them

Actually, no. Nothing likes that. One involves a signed and agreed upon contract, in which company A promises to pay person B $x for royalties.

The other involves random company M with a silly patent suing a company who actually innovated, and demanding a cut of something they have no right to and don't deserve.

See the difference?

Mike, you don't get it and never will. A patent is the result of a contract - disclosure in return for period of exclusivity - and there is no substantive difference. If you had any substance you would understand, but alas you are too caught up trying to defend you "all patents are bad" nonsense. Here, when a clear analogy hits you in the face, you comment how unfair it is to the artist and yet don't recognize that these two things both come from the same clause of the Constitution. Mike, one thing is clear, you're no Thomas Jefferson. You're just a low life invention thief shill. Interesting you whine about Happy Day's actors getting cheated and then put on your own act about how you think that is unfair and yet continue to think it is okay for an inventor to get similarly cheated.

Absolutely disgusting dirt. I see the "dirt" in TechDirt must be your filth. More is the pity that you suck your sheepish readership in with your lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ed C., 20 Apr 2011 @ 10:32pm
  
  Re: Another embarassing Masnick self-contradiction
  First, you don't get what distinguishes an innovation from a mere invention. Inventions trivial things that are obvious to those skilled in the art--they're a proverbial dime a dozen. Only true innovations meet the constitutional requirement to "promote the progress of science" that patents are supposed to meet. Granting monopolies to lesser inventions, however, accomplishes the complete opposite by gridlocking markets with lawsuits over trivial things. Do you think that granting monopolies on things that could just as easily be invented by others somehow will "promote the progress of science"?
  
  As if that isn't bad enough, patents are even granted to mere ideas without any proof whether the concept even works as described. In other words, you can't prove that it works without testing it, but patents don't require that anymore. Then if someone makes an actual working model, possibly without having any prior knowledge of the patent, they can get sued. Do you think that granting monopolies on untested ideas, that might not even work, somehow will "promote the progress of science"?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]