ABC Affiliates Blocked From Interviewing Johnny Depp Because He Is Promoting A Film Not Produced By Disney

from the taking-the-ball-and-going-home dept

Mon, Oct 31st 2011 3:46am — Zachary Knight

Disney recently released the fourth entry of the Pirates of the Caribbean on DVD. With this, the full force of Disney's marketing muscle is on the loose. This includes enforcement of a clause in Depp's contract that prevents any ABC affiliate from interviewing him if it relates to any non-Disney film.

Otm Shank writes in to let us know that the Austin based KVUE, an ABC affiliate not owned by Disney, attended a premiere of Depp's new movie The Rum Diary but was not allowed to interview him. As pointed out by TVSpy, KVUE reporter Shelton Green said:

We came here expecting to talk with one of the biggest names in Hollywood. But apparently Disney doesn't want Johnny Depp’s new movie, premiering here at the Paramount, to get more exposure than his newest 'Pirates of the Caribbean' movie. So they didn't allow us to interview him, nor did they allow us to get video of him.

Is there really a point to this embargo? I don't think so. By enforcing this embargo on ABC affiliates, Disney is not helping to promote its films, but is rather forcing these local stations to lose value with their viewers. Which do you think most viewers and fans of Johnny Depp want to watch, a report about not being able to interview Johnny Depp or an interview with Johnny Depp? I guess Disney doesn't care about the fans of the actors they work so hard to 'protect'.

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: films, johnny depp, pirates caribbean, promotions
Companies: disney

41 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

That Anonymous Coward (profile), 31 Oct 2011 @ 4:04am

While this is "minor" and "silly" I think this should highlight all the of the problems people pointed out in giant corporations owning all sorts of media outlets.

To take it to the furthest silly level (which will come to pass)...
A portion of the contract does not allow them to provide any coverage about a massive accident at Disneyland when Epcot ripped from his moorings and rolled killing 1500 people.

Now cue the AC brigade of "They would never do that! People saw it and they can't ignore it."
I point out our Government pretending nothing was leaked by keeping their employees from looking at what everyone else in the world can see.
I point out NYPD spokesweasel claiming Bologna was aiming for men, men that were super ninjas and managed to vanish, when he lost it and started pepperspraying women.

We are lied to on nearly a constant basis, but one would hope that trying to protect a movie studio's profits would maybe just maybe be the straw and broke the camels back. But I doubt it... we still have news "outlets" talking about secret muslims, fake birth certificates, and communists trying to steal all of the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 31 Oct 2011 @ 4:50am
  
  Re:
  What are you talking about. People don't die at Dizney Land. They get drug out of the property where they promptly "die".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- FYI ..., 31 Oct 2011 @ 7:46am
  
  Re:
  The giant ball at EPCOT is Tomorrowland and not the entirety of EPCOT. EPCOT is actually 100 or so acres.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2011 @ 7:55am
    
    Re: Re:
    The geodesic-ball is called Spaceship Earth. Or it was 15 years ago. Tomorrowland was a region of the Magic Kingdom.
    
    I had to.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Groove Tiger (profile), 31 Oct 2011 @ 7:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    That's a damn lie. All of EPCOT's rides are housed withing the giant sphere. It's actually larger inside than in the outside, because of some timey-wimey time-space continuum thingy.
    
    It's also completely sealed and there's no way to get inside, except by astral projection.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 31 Oct 2011 @ 8:21am
    
    Re: Re:
    I'm sorry the madeup story in my head did not ring true.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2011 @ 1:06pm
      
      And you SHOULD BE!
      This is why I don't trust people who smile too much. You should only be squashed by a rolling epcot!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- justok (profile), 31 Oct 2011 @ 6:03pm
  
  Re: All 2 real
  FIRE AT MAGIC CASTLE!!!!
  
  http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111025/10300216502/abc-affiliates-blocked-interview ing-johnny-depp-because-he-is-promoting-film-not-produced-disney.shtml
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 31 Oct 2011 @ 4:16am

So much for the news being unbiased
If this doesn't prove bias in the media I don't know what does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 31 Oct 2011 @ 6:35am
  
  Re: So much for the news being unbiased
  That's not so much bias as bi-ass. As in bend over and take it up the.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - AdamBv1 (profile), 31 Oct 2011 @ 2:33pm
    
    Re: Re: So much for the news being unbiased
    And here I was thinking bi-ass as in crap comes out both ends.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scooters (profile), 31 Oct 2011 @ 4:43am

"I guess Disney doesn't care about the fans of the actors they work so hard to 'protect'."
Duh. They're not cartoon mice under their control...

... yet.

Right now, they're merely puppets who'll drive out in force to get the "latest before it's gone forever".

Walt Disney would be furious to see his company like this.

Disgusting doesn't even begin to describe this company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Butcherer79 (profile), 31 Oct 2011 @ 5:07am

Partial Blame?
Shouldn't Depp himself be taking some of the blame here, after all, he must have willingly signed the contract that forbids him to talk about his other projects?
You could turn it around and say that he neither appreciates his fans nor his own publicity, or that of his other employers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 31 Oct 2011 @ 5:30am
  
  Re: Partial Blame?
  That implies a few things
  - That he reads the whole damn thing.
  - That there was not undo pressure to accept it.
  
  I highly doubt his legal team came to him and said, Oh yeah if we sign this all of your other work will get snubbed by all ABC stations.
  
  I am much more surprised this is the first time anyone brought this sort of thing to light, I am willing to bet this has been going on for a while and someone finally had had enough and spoke out.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Butcherer79 (profile), 31 Oct 2011 @ 5:51am
    
    Re: Re: Partial Blame?
    I don't think it's being snubbed, the film is getting publicity still, it's just that the star of the show can't be interviewed; which I still think his legal team ought to be all over. It cannot be doing his future employment opportunities (outside of disney) any favours if he cannot promote his own talent.
    
    On your first two points, if he doesn't read his contracts, then, in my opinion, he is just as much to blame for it's content as the people who wrote it. He's willing to put blind faith into said contract.
    He's a massive star, I think disney need him more than he needs disney, if there's any undue pressure being applied it ought to be from his legal team, not disney.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 31 Oct 2011 @ 6:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Partial Blame?
      This current version of the contract stops them from interviewing him. Looking at the insane amounts of control the big media corps demand in all things, I can see them trying to push to where they can try and choke out the competition by denying them coverage.
      
      He cannot promote the show on ABC stations, there are many other outlets still available to him. The public is now aware that Disney puts their profits above covering news.
      
      Reading the contracts is something most people can not do, they lack the legal education to unravel all of the confusing tiny print.
      
      He is a massive star, but Disney is a massive corporation and I doubt anyone would benefit if they decided to go to battle.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 31 Oct 2011 @ 1:45pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Partial Blame?
      > it's just that the star of the show can't
      > be interviewed
      
      Sure he can. Just not on ABC.
      
      > It cannot be doing his future employment
      > opportunities (outside of disney) any favours
      > if he cannot promote his own talent.
      
      Sure he can. Just not on ABC.
      
      Let's not make this into more than it is.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2011 @ 7:27am
  
  Re: Partial Blame?
  If I was paid the piles of money these actors get for working I would happily decline interviews to anyone my paying employer dictated. No sympathy for anyone here; Depp is filthy rich, and Disney doesn't care about him. I, in turn, don't care about either, helping preserving the balance of things in my own little way.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Butcherer79 (profile), 31 Oct 2011 @ 7:41am
    
    Re: Re: Partial Blame?
    In that case, this really doesn't affect you one iota, in fact, it would seem a bit of a waste of time in you commenting and in turn, me repl........
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2011 @ 5:11am

WHO FUCKING CARES............. Are people really reduced to pumping this up to something that actually matters?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Doe, 31 Oct 2011 @ 5:23am
  
  Re:
  Yes, it does matter. To me, the lesser important point here is that the studio is more concerned about themselves than the actor but when it comes to copyright issues they claim it is all done for the actor/musician/writer.
  
  The most important point here is that the media is being told what they can and can't report on. It isn't much of a stretch to believe that they are also being told how to report on it. So much for the new media being the fourth estate of the government.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2011 @ 6:25am
    
    Re: Re:
    The studios own the actor as the RIAA owns the musician.
    No one should be signing with MAFIAA.
    This is just one of the many stupid copyright and actor contract examples and there are many more dumb ones that people sign to advance their own money.
    I want nothing to do with MAFIAA.One hell of a greedy world in Hollywood the land of broken dreams
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Butcherer79 (profile), 31 Oct 2011 @ 5:25am
  
  Re:
  The original reporter, Mr Knight and the (currently) 6 other comment posters.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 31 Oct 2011 @ 5:35am
  
  Re:
  Now try to take a step back and look at the 2 weeks where OWS were mostly ignored in the media. Then they were being openly mocked as a buncha whiners. Now we have police beating citizens and using methods that horrify and there is now some SLIGHT reporting on the big picture, because they can't ignore it any more.
  
  When the TEA Party came to be, 10 people had a public meeting and there were 40 cameras. When the darling of the party was found to be living on SS, something they want done away with no one really wanted to cover that.
  
  We are always being manipulated with the reporting and coverage, and while you think this story is nothing the simple fact they will go this far to protect their movies by leashing media outlets they control really indicates serious problems.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 31 Oct 2011 @ 6:34am
  
  Re:
  Funnily enough, you're the first one to become emotional and start shouting. On a Monday morning. Because a single story in an opinion blog didn't match your own personal interests.
  
  You're right, we should ignore small examples of anti-competitive dealing within the industry because Mr. Random AC doesn't like it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AJBarnes, 31 Oct 2011 @ 5:12am

Yet again...
Short-sighted media idiots cut off nose to spite face... So every other news outlet will interview Johnny Depp and ABC will be the one to miss the story. Will someone with a brain every be employed by these companies? Or, is room-temperature IQ sufficient??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 31 Oct 2011 @ 10:08am
  
  Re: Yet again...
  Fahrenheit or Celsius?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jason, 31 Oct 2011 @ 5:44am

protecting Depp
You have this all wrong. Disney wants everyone to know about all their great products. But Depp is such an idiot he would mess up any interview that doesn't have a script with cue cards in front of him. This is purely protecting his image/character. After all, look at Mini Mouse. She is F'ing Goofy, and you know how that made Mickey feel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 31 Oct 2011 @ 5:54am

KVUE reporter Shelton Green won't be in the biz long,
if doesn't understand that reporting on "inside contracts" isn't a draw, either. It exposes the biz. Bad all around. Not smart for publicity. -- And the bit quoted simply sounds petulant, as if Green thinks /he's/ doing the studios a favor. Perhaps Green simply doesn't understand the contracts.

Isn't an unusual condition. Studios used to frequently have "exclusive" contracts: the trick was to snag the up and coming and sign them to an exclusive before they were wise to the game and valuable enough to get better terms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 31 Oct 2011 @ 6:30am
  
  Re: KVUE reporter Shelton Green won't be in the biz long,
  "It exposes the biz. Bad all around. Not smart for publicity."
  
  How dare a reporter actually point out the truth! It's bad for business! Yeah, I think that's kind of what's being discussed.
  
  "Studios used to frequently have "exclusive" contracts: the trick was to snag the up and coming and sign them to an exclusive before they were wise to the game and valuable enough to get better terms."
  
  Indeed... and then the studio system collapsed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2011 @ 5:59am

Hunter is probably rolling in his grave right now, but I bet part of him is smiling from the publicity its bringing anyway. Or maybe he isn't rolling at all, and he and Depp knew this would happen, to their ultimate advantage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 31 Oct 2011 @ 7:23am

We came here expecting to talk with one of the biggest names in Hollywood. But apparently Disney doesn't want Johnny Depp�s new movie, premiering here at the Paramount, to get more exposure than his newest 'Pirates of the Caribbean' movie. So they didn't allow us to interview him, nor did they allow us to get video of him.

Good all this BS is coming to rest right in the entertainment industry's lap.

Enjoy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2011 @ 7:32am

Don't they do this in China, Russia and other command and control countries?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
abc gum, 31 Oct 2011 @ 8:00am

ABC is not allowed to report this "news"?
Certainly this is advertisement rather than news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digitari, 31 Oct 2011 @ 8:04am

RE Reading ability
Am I the ONLY one that saw KVUE is NOT owned by Disney, That's Why they are upset, they WANT the interview, so Disney should just stuff it.....

I have not watched any disney film since the original herbie series, ( no not the lohan one, before that)

BTW if you have an "exclusive" contract, doesn't that mean he can't work on non-disney movies??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2011 @ 8:28am
  
  Re: RE Reading ability
  Terrific. Parade your ignorance of Disney movies for all to see.
  
  I have heard Depp interviewed regard The Rum Diary and his weary dullness was unmatched except for all his previous interviews. My guess is Disney knows he's a bore and are trying to protect him from himself.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2011 @ 9:03am
    
    Re: Re: RE Reading ability
    "My guess is Disney knows he's a bore and are trying to protect him from himself."
    
    By keeping him from talking about non-Disney movies? He can still be interviewed by ABC affiliates for his Disney movies.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 31 Oct 2011 @ 8:33am
  
  Re: RE Reading ability
  KVUE is an ABC affiliate, if they disobey Disney they lose their affiliate standing and all the things that come with it. I don't know what those things would be, but I would guess that they would lose access to TV shows, exclusive interviews, news reports, press passes, that kind of thing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ltlw0lf (profile), 31 Oct 2011 @ 8:28am

Just another copyright maximalist looking out for the welfare of their artist. Come-on guys...its for the children^Wartists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
c0c0c0 (profile), 31 Oct 2011 @ 2:44pm

Studios
When people choose a movie do they really take into consideration what studio it came from? The first 5 minutes of a movie is nothing but ads for production companies that people don't really even care about. Does it really matter anymore if it is Disney or Paramount or Fox or whoever else is out there? People only care about the movie it's self or who is staring in the movie.

Johnny Depp could have cross promoted both movies at the time of interviewing to satisfy Disney, instead Disney made themselves out to be Cruella de Vil � � � DisneyCo (The name was used in what this commenter assumes is Fair Use Tech Dirt assumes no responsibility of this commenter's use of DisneyCo's names.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2011 @ 2:51pm

The Disney company hasn't cared about anything but money since Eisner took over. Unfortunately, it seems Iger is the same way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]