Roscoe P. Coltrane Claims Warner Bros. Stiffed Him On Millions In Merch
from the but-he's-in-hot-pursuit dept
There have been a number of lawsuits filed recently by former TV show stars claiming that the studios are cheating them out of downstream revenue as promised by their contracts. Perhaps the most high profile one involved members from the cast of Happy Days suing for not getting a cut of home video and merch sales. In that case, it appears CBS tried to buy off the actors with a few thousand dollars, rather than the millions they claim they're owed. In another such lawsuit, James Best, the actor behind the famed Sheriff Roscoe P. Coltrane on The Dukes of Hazzard, is similarly claiming that Warner Bros. is stiffing him for millions on merchandise:Best says his original contract with Warners entitled him to 5% of merchandising revenue from products that featured his identity, or 2.5% of total revenue for merchandise when other cast members were incorporated. The agreement purportedly covers not only the initial run on television, but also is said to give him "financial participation in spinoffs."Best claims he's been asking Warner for an accounting of merch sales for 22 years, and finally got it in 2009. However, he notes that the numbers provided to him do not match, at all, with the numbers that Warner Bros. has bragged about publicly concerning merch sales. With all of these disputes, it's not entirely clear who's really right, though it does sound like contracts weren't always clearly written and, even worse, the studios have been dreadful at actually properly accounting for things.
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: dukes of hazzard, james best, merchandise, roscoe p. coltrane, royalties
Companies: warner bros.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Boss Hogg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On paper they are used to showing a film that earned 200 million at the box office lost 640 million after everyone got their cut.
The mistake was giving out a press release touting how much they earned, before they applied the accounting methods to show that they lost $250 for every trinket sold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The studios should be able to provide a clear and concise accounting of how much money a given franchise has made and who has made what.
James Best may or may not be owed millions, but he, along with anyone else that signed a studio contract is owed an accurate accounting of whatever they were involved in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who is copyright helping?
I guess this helps highlight a common theme found here on techdirt: Copyright doesn't protect the artists and increase their revenue, copyright helps the companies holding the copyright to make more money, then stiff the artists who made that money possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who is copyright helping?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you had a contract that stipulated that you got 2.5% of merchandise sales and you saw your face plastered all over lunch boxes, toys, games, DVD's and other merchandise wouldn't you want an accurate accounting of that too?
Also, head over to his website, he has found a way to make money off his fame and he isn't starving. But that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve an accurate statement form the studios.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because he signed a contract with his employer to that effect.
"I don't get paid today for work I did that long ago, what makes him special?"
He has a contract that says he's due money. If you don't get paid decades after the fact that's really your decision, many employers have some form of retirement plan built into the employment contracts. It's really not that unusual to defer some payments into the future for when you know you won't be working.
"If he can't figure out how to turn that much fame into revenue today, he deserves to starve."
He already figured out how to turn that much fame into revenue today: merchandising revenue. The issue is he's not being paid what he was promised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To be precise, he is asking for money still owed him FROM decades ago. I can't speak for everyone but if my employer failed to pay me wages I earned I wouldn't dismiss the money just because it's been a few years since I did the work...
Also, this is another example of studios NOT supporting the artists they claim to be helping.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The best answer I can come up with is that the merch is selling because of the show's popularity, and his efforts increased the show's popularity. In other words, the payout is not for the use of his likeness, but completes the compensation for his acting services. I hope any legal action, and the contract, are phrased that way and there is no tie between the compensation and the use of his likeness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now if only law makers were willing to discuss these matters with such open-mindedness and clarity of thought...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: FAIL
"Best says his original contract with Warners entitled him to 5% of merchandising revenue from products that featured his identity, or 2.5% of total revenue for merchandise when other cast members were incorporated."
He is contractually entitled to receive 5% of merchandise sales of merchandise FEATURING HIS IDENTITY, and 2.5% of all other merchandise.
I would hope basic reading comprehension wasn't this poor, but all it takes is looking around here on a daily basis....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stiffing the talent
Forgetting for a moment that this guy signed a contract...
The copyright is still in effect. As long as the fat cats get to have a pay day then the talent should be compensated as well.
Roscoe's potential revenue stream should only end when the revenue stream of the "owner" of the intellectual property ends. If anyone is still milking the cow, then everyone should be able to benefit.
The only way that Roscoe should be cheated out of what's due him under contract is if the relevant works have lapsed into the public domain. Until that happens, Roscoe should expect to get his due.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> Why should he have any right to collect for that?
He has a right because Warners signed a legally-binding contract making him that promise.
We still enforce contracts in this country, do we not? Why is this so hard to understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Special
> decades ago?
Because Warners entered into a legal contract with him and agreed to pay him those monies.
> what makes him special?
The fact that he had the bargaining power at the time to induce a major TV studio to agree to those contract terms.
You don't.
It's really that simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He should be paid because
It shouldn't take 30 years to get an accounting of what and where those monies were received and spent on. It should take a few months to get everything together and it should be finished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He should be paid because
It is not simple. To the degree his contract is intended to set up a stream to pay him for future uses of his likeness, it is a licensing agreement. Although practically speaking this happens all the time, jurisprudentially it is suspect - the "right of publicity" is not a right at all, it is a (common law most places, statutory in California) tort. In general, it is difficult or impossible to release future torts. Contracts to do so are ineffective. This is a consumer protection mechanism - if you could release future torts, every company would include in its shrinkwrap license a clause that releases it from any product liability. If Best did not actually release anything (because his release is not effective,) there is no consideration for the license royalty. The contract is unenforceable and the studio was right not to pay.
I am not saying that is going on here - I have not taken the time to read the contract or even Best's claims, other than as reported by Mike. But there is an important question here as to the reason the backend was included. If it was to compensate him for the use of his likeness, it is icky. If it was to compensate him for his contribution to the popularity of the show, it is less icky. If the latter, it might have been cleaner to have created a company for this purpose and given Best 2.5% of the company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: He should be paid because
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
James Best is connecting with his fans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: James Best is connecting with his fans.
He's not a bumbling idiot?
Well, you've ruined the series for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Their accounting schemes.
If anybody else did half what those executives do, they be in jail for fraud, embezzlement and tax evasion why AG are not all over this?
[sarc]
Those are billions of dollars and jobs lost, creative accounting finances terrorists.
[/sarc]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
butbutbutbut
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Says who?
I'm sure the studios think its perfect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And Yes they apply shady and should be illegal accounting to show how movies that make 100's of millions all of a sudden are shown to be in the RED.
Fuck the MAFIAA !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Courts allow for this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Roscoe playing Roscoe in real life
[ link to this | view in chronology ]