New TISA Leak: US On Collision Course With EU Over Global Data Flows

Film Academy Sues Family Of Oscar Winner For Selling Trophy On Ebay

from the death-is-no-escape! dept

Wed, Dec 17th 2014 9:00pm — Timothy Geigner

The Motion Picture Academy is notorious for being quite litigious, particularly when it comes to anything to do with the Oscars. Hell, even websites essentially promoting the Oscars get sued by the Academy, because why the hell not? And don't you dare try to sell your tickets to the Oscars on the secondary market. But even with all of that, I wouldn't have expected to see the Academy assert that they own the award hardware they hand out to Oscar winners, including after the death of those winners. Confused? Check this out.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has lined up a new lawsuit, painting the picture of a cinematographer's heir who ignored bylaws by selling a statuette on eBay. The statuette was awarded in 1953 to Robert Surtees for excellence in black-and-white cinematography for the film, The Bad and the Beautiful, which starred Kirk Douglas and Lana Turner. More than 60 years later, the Film Academy is in court after Carol Surtees allegedly auctioned the statuette for $40,500. The Academy makes its members agree that it has a "right of first refusal" if the statuettes are ever sold. To prevent a black market for the famous trophies, the Academy believes itself entitled to purchase the statuettes for $10 in the event they are ever sold.

Carol was the wife of Bruce Surtees, who in turn was the son of Oscar winner Robert Surtees. In other words, the Oscar statuette from 1953 had been passed down to Carol after her husband and father-in-law had both passed away. She's the widow of the winner's son. The point of me driving this home is that, even if we pretend that it makes sense for the Academy to be able to claim that an item worth thousands of dollars must first be offered to them for the price of 2/3 of a ticket to one of their movies, that agreement would have been with the award winner, not his or her heirs. In this case, the statuette had been passed on twice thanks to the grim reaper doing his thing. In what world does it makes sense for Carol Surtees to have to follow bylaws to which she never agreed?

Not that this lack of logic is keeping the Academy from suing for every last dollar she got for the statuette. You can read the full lawsuit [pdf and embedded below].

The Academy alleges that it sent a letter to Surtees on December 5, spoke on the phone with her on December 12, and despite reminders about the right of first refusal, the auction happened on or about that latter day. She's now being sued for breach of contract. The lawsuit also names John Does, who are being sued for alleged tortious interference. The Academy demands at least $40,500 in compensatory damages, punitive damages, and an order that the Oscar be put in a constructive trust, among other demanded relief.

I just can't seem to grasp how someone can be in breach of a contract to which they were not party. The Academy can assert they have these rights all they want, but I can't seem to find any reference to why those rights should exist with respect to Carol Surtees.

Academy v Carol Buby Oscar Resale Complaint (PDF)Academy v Carol Buby Oscar Resale Complaint (Text)

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: bruce surtees, carol surtees, contracts, first sale, lawsuits, oscars, ownership, resales, robert surtees, sales
Companies: motion picture academy

97 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

That One Guy (profile), 17 Dec 2014 @ 7:19pm

Small suggestion
Might I suggest they change the award from whatever it is now, to a large, gold plated hand, middle finger raised? You know, just to make it perfectly clear what their stance is towards the recipients.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- twinsdad9901 (profile), 17 Dec 2014 @ 9:13pm
  
  Re: Small suggestion
  Maybe they think the statue is covered by copyright. That would make it life plus 70 years, clearly still in that range.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2014 @ 9:22pm
    
    Re: Re: Small suggestion
    They aren't reproducing it. It was akin to a gift at the time it was awarded so I would think the first sale doctrine would apply.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2014 @ 9:23pm
    
    Re: Re: Small suggestion
    It's not a copyright violation to sell an item that has copyrighted elements or else you'd never be able to resell your old ABBA CDs at the music store. The only exceptional circumstance would be a contractual right of first refusal, which would only apply to parties of the original contract.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 17 Dec 2014 @ 11:28pm
  
  Re: Small suggestion
  Remember this whenever they claim to be trampling everybody else's rights for the sake of the people working in the industry. These are the people voted their brightest and best, and this is the treatment they give even them...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- leehb9 (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 5:42am
  
  Re: Small suggestion
  I love this idea! This aught to be the logo of the MPAA!
  Middle-Finger-UP it is!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rob McMillin (profile), 17 Dec 2014 @ 9:08pm

AMPAS legal terms
I understand that the Academy includes in its terms and conditions as part of the award a clause that gives them right of first refusal of any sale. That they are suing is a consequence of a contractual matter, and not mere litigiousness. (I believe this is not in effect for very old Oscars, before 1935 or so.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2014 @ 9:19pm
  
  Re: AMPAS legal terms
  That they are suing is a consequence of their lawyers not understanding (or understanding and intentionally ignoring) that the terms of a contract can't be enforced against a non-party to the contract. Thus, it is merely litigious.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 17 Dec 2014 @ 11:16pm
  
  Re: AMPAS legal terms
  "That they are suing is a consequence of a contractual matter"
  
  This is stated in the article. The question is why the person who is being sued, who signed no such contract, is party to its terms.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2014 @ 11:57pm
  
  Re: AMPAS legal terms
  They might run into a little problem however, as it can't possibly be a contractual matter as there has never been a contract between them and the wife of the son of a dude they gave it to.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 1:18am
  
  Re: AMPAS legal terms
  A non party to a contract cannot be sued for any non performance or non compliance to that contract.
  
  This is absolutely established law and no matter how the Academy tries to spin it they are still beholden to that. Otherwise I for one will now create a contract with Donald Duck and sue Disney for there non compliance.
  
  Whether the Academy has within the terms of the contract this condition is absolutely moot in this instance.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rekrul, 18 Dec 2014 @ 9:58am
    
    Re: Re: AMPAS legal terms
    A non party to a contract cannot be sued for any non performance or non compliance to that contract.
    
    This is absolutely established law and no matter how the Academy tries to spin it they are still beholden to that. Otherwise I for one will now create a contract with Donald Duck and sue Disney for there non compliance.
    
    Whether the Academy has within the terms of the contract this condition is absolutely moot in this instance.
    
    The strategy isn't to win in court, the strategy is to bully her into settling via the threat of a costly legal battle.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - G Thompson (profile), 19 Dec 2014 @ 9:49pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: AMPAS legal terms
      Absolutely correct, though this is just another absolute example of why the US sorely needs tort reform to the point of having a "Loser pays" system.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
mr. sim (profile), 17 Dec 2014 @ 9:16pm

can she legally be held to a contract she wasn't a party too? i think not but then the courts bend over backwards for these hollywood criminals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 17 Dec 2014 @ 9:38pm

Can they show us her signature on the contract?

I wonder what people might think to know that the Oscars think an Oscar is only worth $10, I think that takes a bit of shine off of such a cheap shitty award.

You were so outstanding in your field we gave you this $10 trinket. It is such an honor to know all of my descendants will be hounded forever by these idiots over their $10 trophy, despite them GIVING it to me. Something something racially insensitive givers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 5:14am
  
  Re:
  It may have been a $10 trophy in the 30's and they haven't adjusted the value and that still seems low. The 2013 cost of the award was estimated to be $900 due to the gold used. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/oscars-what-costs-create-academy-422001
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 5:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    well ... that changes everything.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 22 Dec 2014 @ 7:32pm
  
  Re:
  This is nothing new for AMPAS. They've even gone after recipients who have tried to *give* their Oscars away to charities and museums. They absolutely hate that the statues pass down to family members along with the rest of a recipient's property and would love to be able to include a "right of reclamation" upon the death of the recipient to the award conditions, but their lawyers have told them that's a step too far even for them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2014 @ 9:52pm

"The lawsuit also names John Does, who are being sued for alleged tortious interference."

So who are these people who they allege intentionally interfered with their contract? The ebay buyers? Ebay itself? Whoever advised Mrs. Surtees that she was not bound by a contract made with her late father in law, and well within her rights to sell the cheap trinket to whoever was foolish enough to pay big bucks for it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2014 @ 10:08pm

She now has to pay to defend herself. That's probably where most of the $40k will be headed. sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RR, 17 Dec 2014 @ 10:13pm

Who owns it?
Maybe the original recipient had to agree to never pass ownership to anyone who didn't also agree to the policy.

When I bought my house the contract said I had to join the HOA, and that I couldn't sell the house without putting the same requirement in the contract for the next owner. I don't remember what happens if my kids inherit the house, or the bank gets it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 12:06am
  
  Re: Who owns it?
  You can't sign a contract that enforces terms on other people though. If you agree not to not pass on your house/trophy without including the same terms for the next person, but do so anyway (via the pesky business of dying, for example), that again just makes you the one they have a case against, not the recipient.
  
  Signing a contract that says "Anyone I give this to is bound by the same contract I am signing" doesn't make any sense.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 9:01am
    
    Re: Re: Who owns it?
    Actually you can, but that generally is only enforceable on real property (legal term, meaning land). That's because the restrictions are placed on the deed, so even if the bank get's the house, the restrictions are still on the deed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- art guerrilla (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 5:53am
  
  Re: Who owns it?
  well, in all likelihood, the terms of the covenant of your subdivision specify you must belong to the HOA...
  so, it IS part of the contract for sale for anyone who buys within that subdivision...
  
  in general, HOA SUCK big time... had to do it over, NO WAY i would have bought our property with the idiots who run the association...
  (picture petty asshole neighbors who team up with lawyers who are salivating because they 'earn' THOUSANDS of dollars filing liens, etc over $200 dues in arrears... yes, you heard right, we spent THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of dollars to hound one of our 'neighbors' to death over a couple hundred dollars not paid... about 3-4 fucktards out of the 15 properties make life miserable for everyone, but we can't get enough people involved to vote them out...)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 3:12pm
  
  Re: Who owns it?
  That's your first mistake. Buying a house that's in a HOA group. No freeken way would I have ever done such a thing. Talking about having few rights to do what you like with your own house or yard.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Sheogorath (profile), 19 Dec 2014 @ 9:18am
    
    Re: Re: Who owns it?
    You can't do whatever you want with your own house even if it's not in an HOA group. For example, there's an Autistic kid not allowed to keep his therapy animal because zoning laws say that Vietnamese pot bellied pigs are livestock when most people would consider them to be pets. Luckily for the boy, he's got a city councillor on his side, who's trying to change the definition of the above stated breed of pigs in the zoning laws or, failing that, to make an exception for therapy animals.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jan 2015 @ 2:33pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Who owns it?
      Might want to check the ADA. As long as the animal is declared a service animal it should be exempt, anyways.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - best actor in a bleeding role (profile), 18 Jun 2015 @ 1:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Who owns it?
        I have been enjoying your comments on this subject. I know someone who has one of these post 1950 and with no contract, not a member of the academy. She has no intention of selling, wonder what they would do if she did and what it could be worth.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DOlz (profile), 17 Dec 2014 @ 10:36pm

Perhaps I misunderstood
I always thought the right of first refusal meant that if you matched the price being offered then you got to buy it. So if they had been willing to match the top bid of $40,500 they would have gotten it.

If they say you have to give them the first chance to buy if at a price of their choosing, then that’s not the right of first refusal it’s returning a security deposit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 5:52am
  
  Re: Perhaps I misunderstood
  I am not sure this is true, but the real fact is that they apparently knew it was on eBay when the auction was still live. If they wanted it that badly, why didn't they just outbid everyone?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 9:22am
    
    Re: Re: Perhaps I misunderstood
    They did bid , but they lost , this is just a sore loser attempt and stealing the glory.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 8:52am
  
  Re: Perhaps I misunderstood
  That's mostly correct. What the Acadamy is actually suing for is an option contract with price set at time of contract. However there was no separate consideration, so they will likely lose on those grounds.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Carl, 17 Dec 2014 @ 10:53pm

Number of Oscar Winners
I counted them according to the Wikipedia Article.

Assuming that every year there was exactly one Oscar for each category offered on that year, and that all are still somewhere, there are 1877 Oscars currently in circulation (since 1928).

Fore comparison, there have been 889 Nobel Laureates (sharing 567 prizes amongst themselves) since 1901.

Just for the curious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2014 @ 11:05pm

Hi I'm from SF and I work in the tech industry. I hate LA and all the people that work there in the entertainment business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 17 Dec 2014 @ 11:17pm
  
  Re:
  What about people who work in the San Francisco based entertainment companies?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 6:09am
  
  Re:
  Hi, I'm from silly commentland and work in the silly comment industry. I hate all the comments not from silly commentland and all the people who comment there.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 9:58am
  
  Re:
  That's about the worst insult I've ever seen on TechDirt.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Peter, 17 Dec 2014 @ 11:11pm

Succession - imposing obligations
It is conceivable that the Film Academy has a clause in its contracts, according to which successors/heirs have to become bound to the terms and conditions of the contract. This is a standard clause for certain matters where succession/inheritance can be an issue in the future. I am, however, not sure what happens, if the original contracting party does not bind his or her successors/heirs to the terms and conditions of the original contract.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JoeCool (profile), 17 Dec 2014 @ 11:22pm
  
  Re: Succession - imposing obligations
  It's obvious what happens then - they dig up their corpse and sue them!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 1:22am
  
  Re: Succession - imposing obligations
  They could bind there immediate heirs to such a contract, though its highly questionable and bound to be looked at under frustration.
  
  Though they cannot bind heirs of heirs (non immediate) to any contract no matter what. The Estate fell to the son, the son died. Instant termination of all contracts in original Estate.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Peter, 18 Dec 2014 @ 2:34am
    
    Re: Re: Succession - imposing obligations
    That is interesting. So there is probably just simply no case here.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 6:14am
  
  Re: Succession - imposing obligations
  It is conceivable that the Film Academy would like to have a clause in its contracts, according to which successors/heirs have to become bound
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anon, 18 Dec 2014 @ 8:30am
  
  Re: Succession - imposing obligations
  >It is conceivable that the Film Academy has a clause in its contracts, according to which successors/heirs have to become bound to the terms and conditions of the contract. This is a standard clause for certain matters where succession/inheritance can be an issue in the future. I am, however, not sure what happens, if the original contracting party does not bind his or her successors/heirs to the terms and conditions of the original contract.
  
  That's the $40,000 question (or the $10 question). Did the stipulation have a clause passing the obligation on to heirs? Is such a restriction legal?
  
  Also, in what way is this a contract? It's a gift. A contract requires quid pro quo, tit for tat; in return for getting the Oscar, the recipient also has to give the Academy something of value. Otherwise, it's one-sided, it's a gift. Without a tat, the Academy are just being tits.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ANON, 18 Dec 2014 @ 8:57am
    
    Re: Re: Succession - imposing obligations
    IANAL but...
    
    Isn't there a thing in law that says if a term or condition does not have any reasonable extinguishment time, it is invalid? Perpetual contract clauses are not allowed. Everything must end at a roughly foreseeable time... (i.e. 99 years after the death of your youngest child at the time this contract was signed.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Adam (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 10:59am
  
  Re: Succession - imposing obligations
  It has been years since I took any law course and I never completed any law degree or become a lawyer, but I do remember some part about rules against perpetuities. I think it was 21 years after the death of the original contract holder or something like that.
  
  So the requirement could be valid against the estate and holders of that property for 21 years, but he died in '85 and it has gone through a secondary estate so I don't think they have any valid claim, but I could always be wrong.
  
  But ignoring those facts it is still ridiculous in my opinion that they are trying to force this type of an issue and make this woman fight them in court over an award they gave to a man over 60 years ago.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zinc Whiskers (profile), 17 Dec 2014 @ 11:28pm

Sorry...I'm with the Academy on this one. Selling your father-in-laws' Oscar is just tacky.

Next we'll have people selling their Nobel prizes...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 12:58am
  
  Re:
  The Nobel Prize is a cash award (the medal is a tchotchke). I'm pretty sure the Swedes do not have a contract you sign saying "Here is $1M. Under no circumstances are you to let any of it leave your possession."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 6:10am
  
  Re:
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/russias-richest-man-buys-james-watsons-nobel-m edal-at-auction--to-return-it-to-him/2014/12/15/014b5030-8144-11e4-9f38-95a187e4c1f7_story.html
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 6:17am
  
  Re:
  There have been and will continue to be attempts to legislate against "tacky" things people do. However, those attempts usually end up in the trash where they belong.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Brand, 18 Dec 2014 @ 10:14am
  
  Re:
  If US law is based on the idea of "preventing people doing tacky things", it's failing miserably.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scote, 17 Dec 2014 @ 11:31pm

"It's obvious what happens then - they dig up their corpse and sue them!"

That could be who the John Does in the suit are :-0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 1:00am

She really ought to consider trying to get the statue back by refunding the money to the buyer - and then melting the statue down very publicly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 1:23am
  
  Re:
  I think more than 40K people would pay $1 a view to see that!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 2:28am
  
  Re:
  Or she could get the statuette back and auction a sheet of typing paper. Purchase includes a complimentary paperweight.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 2:12am

Hollywood: where greed reigns supreme
Just like spammers and other sociopaths, these are people who would sell their own children to violent sexual predators -- as long as the price was right. All the legal language, all the BS press releases, all the lies spouted by their spokespeople are just cover for their one and only agenda: make as much money as possible, and screw anyone who gets ripped off, damaged, hurt, or killed in the process.

There are Mexican drug cartels with higher ethical standards than this filth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 18 Dec 2014 @ 2:43am
  
  Re: Hollywood: where greed reigns supreme
  Just like spammers and other sociopaths, these are people who would sell their own children to violent sexual predators -- as long as the price was right.
  
  They'd sell for a percentage of the profits and would sue if the buyer refused lucrative snuff video offers.
  
  Heck, those are the kind of people who'd let their daughters marry Dick Cheney.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Capt ICE Enforcer, 18 Dec 2014 @ 3:29am

Here is what the contract states.
Congratulations Sir/Ma'am,
You have won the right to lease our award until death. Upon which our TOS agreement shall end and you will mail back the trophy in mint condition. Your rebate check of $10 will be sent in 6-8 weeks. We appreciate you choosing our service over the competition. Like us on Yelp, and Facebook to receive our custom dual ply trophy protection (TP) wipe.

V/R,
The Academy
(Not the one from XMen)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 5:57am
  
  Re: Here is what the contract states.
  My guess is that the contract is not at the time you receive the award, but when you sign up with the academy (if you don't you are not eligible for awards...)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 5:08am

seems to me they got some hints from how the Olympic Games is run and how the Olympic Committee behaves! if there is a chance of a law suit, take it. it would be real good to see this go to court and the Film Academy get shot down in flames!!
does copyright (and patent law) law need totally scrapping and starting again in a much more open, sensible and C21 way or what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 7:56am
  
  Re:
  This particular case isn't even copyright or patent law. It's contract law. The one aspect of the mentality that's lead to current copyright/patent laws (the control everything you've ever made aspect) certainly is driving it, but it's a straight up attempt to claim breach of contract.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 5:51am

Somebody needs a better law firm and a better PR firm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
scotts13 (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 7:10am

Not about the money
I doubt very much the Academy is concerned with the $40k. It's more like preserving the dignity of the institution; after all, selling family heirlooms on eBay IS kinda tacky. But, as I well know, sometimes you have to do unpleasant things. We know nothing of the financial circumstances of the heirs. Nor do we know the substance of any agreements between the Academy and the original recipient. It's vaguely possible there was an agreement that, like some other awards, grants only possession, not ownership.

What we DO know is, it's in incredibly poor taste to publicly sue the heirs. if they were REALLY interested in dignity, they would have made a behind-the-scenes offer equivalent to the eBay selling price. Smooth move, Academy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DOlz (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 7:21am
  
  "I doubt very much the Academy is concerned with the $40k. It's more like preserving the dignity of the institution …”
  
  Have you ever watched an Academy awards show?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - scotts13 (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 7:32am
    
    Re:
    (GRIN) Yes. They claim to take themselves seriously, though.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 8:47am
  
  Re: Not about the money
  "It's more like preserving the dignity of the institution"
  
  Wait a minute -- when did the Oscars become dignified??
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 12:54pm
  
  Re: Not about the money
  It's more like preserving the dignity of the institution; after all, selling family heirlooms on eBay IS kinda tacky.
  
  If so, as the saying goes 'YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!'.
  
  Selling an award on Ebay may be 'tacky', and potentially damaging to the 'dignity of the institution', but it doesn't even come close to the hit to their dignity they've suffered from suing the descendant of the award.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 2:27pm
    
    Re: Re: Not about the money
    *award recipient
    
    As far as I know, the awards themselves don't have family.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 1:22pm
  
  Re: Not about the money
  It may not be the $40k per se, but it is definitely about money--anybody, anywhere, making any money off of anything that ever had anything to do with the Academy, intensely bothers their sense of entitlement if they aren't getting a cut.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, I know I'm commenting anonymously, 18 Dec 2014 @ 7:32am

The Ten Dollar Case
If the Academy values the statue at $10, then their damages cannot rise above $10.
Unfortunately, I do not see this case progressing that far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lance (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 8:42am

In the future...
I believe that the Film Academy will shift from giving the statue, with the understanding that they retain the "right of first refusal", and instead declare that they are bestowing upon the recipient "a non-transferable license to hold, display or otherwise use" the statue. There will probably be additional language that allows them to revoke said license for whatever reason they come up with.

That will do away with any of this nasty concept that the individual actually owns the item in question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 9:23am
  
  Re: In the future...
  Like Microsoft! LOL. Bastards!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 8:54am

The Acadamy also should have intervened during probate and claimed the right then. They lost that right when they did not contest the transfer to his heir then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 9:25am

They'll be even more surprised when they find out the Oscar has been sold to a porn producer , with some very interesting plans for Oscar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mattshow (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 9:45am

I actually think they do have a case to be made here, although I'd have framed it as a property law issue. When the Academy gave Robert Surtees the statute, they didn't give it to him outright. They gave it to him subject to a right of first refusal. He can only pass on the rights he has, which means when he died and the statute passed on to his heirs, it passed on subject to that same right of first refusal.

But instead these lawyers have framed it as a contract law issue. That just seems odd to me. They may ultimately argue the property law issue but if that was their strategy, they certainly didn't make it clear in this claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 10:19am
  
  Re:
  OK, but if we frame it as a property law issue, then they can't actually sue the family for anything except possession of the statue. The family is not obligated to make the offer to the studio, the estate is. That the estate failed to do so would be an error, but one that would be corrected by suing the estate itself, not the family. It seems to me the largest penalty the family could incur would be an order to relinquish possession of the statue.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - mattshow (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 11:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    The argument would go: The estate didn't have the right to dispose of the statute without first giving the Academy the right of first refusal. So when they purported to transfer possession of the statute to the heirs, no actual rights to the statute were transferred. Then when the family disposed of the statute, without having any rights to it, there's a conversion claim there.
    
    Besides, maybe an order for possession of the statute is all they want. If you look at the prayer for relief, one of the things they ask for is a chance to buy the statue for $10. To me, that means their real goal in this lawsuit is not getting money but recovering the statute.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 12:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "So when they purported to transfer possession of the statute to the heirs, no actual rights to the statute were transferred"
      
      Right, which would mean that the sole liability of the heirs would be that they have to fork over the statue. There would be no basis for monetary penalties of any sort from them.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - mattshow (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 12:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Where are you getting this idea that the sole liability of the heirs will be to give back the statute? The claim alleges the statute has been sold on eBay. The heir sold something they didn't have the right to sell, they can absolutely be liable for monetary damages.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        mattshow (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 12:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I guess that should say "IF the heir sold something they didn't have the right to sell". The claim doesn't seem too sure about what exactly happened to the statute, and I'm not saying my argument is absolutely watertight. I just think that there's enough going on here that we can't just throw our hands up and say "PRIVITY OF CONTRACT" and be done with it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 19 Dec 2014 @ 1:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The heir sold something they didn't have the right to sell, they can absolutely be liable for monetary damages."
        
        Can they? Even though they acted in good faith?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        G Thompson (profile), 19 Dec 2014 @ 9:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The heir never sold the statue.. The heir died and their heir sold the statue.. a totally different situation and one where placing a vicarious liability on the seller (heir of the heir) is both dangerous and unconscionable (frustration) and where privity has no basis
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        G Thompson (profile), 19 Dec 2014 @ 9:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        oops.. *where privity has absolute basis
        
        (I blame the silly season and being old LOL )
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 22 Dec 2014 @ 7:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Or, more accurately, the statue.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
mattshow (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 9:47am

Actually, the bylaws state it cannot be "disposed of", even by operation of law, so there's even an argument to be made that the Academy should have been offered the chance to purchase the statue even before it passed on to his heirs.

I'm not saying its definitely a winning argument, but it seems more plausible to me than this breach of contract approach.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 10:20am
  
  Re:
  " it seems more plausible to me than this breach of contract approach."
  
  Absolutely, since no breach of contract has occurred.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 10:21am
    
    Re: Re:
    Corrected: no breach of contract by the parties being sued has occurred.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DogBreath, 18 Dec 2014 @ 10:53am
  
  Re:
  Yes, "Bylaws" that only an actual member of the Academy are subject to.
  
  Now if the Academy would somehow offer and trick the inheritor of this Oscar into signing up with the Academy, they might have a case.
  
  But, as far as I know, Carol Surtees is not a member of the Academy, so the Academy can go suck rotten eggs.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - mattshow (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 11:47am
    
    Re: Re:
    I'd argue that the bylaws create a limit on the rights that were transferred to the original recipient. It's not a matter of being bound by a contract; it's a matter of only being able to pass on the rights that you have. He only ever had the right to dispose of the statute AFTER giving the Academy a chance to buy it back. When he died and it transferred to his heirs, they inherited those same rights. It's a matter of property rights, not contractual obligations.
    
    Or so I'd argue if it was my case.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DogBreath, 18 Dec 2014 @ 12:32pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      He didn't dispose of the statue, death disposed of him, thus nullifying any contract alleging he only had the rights to sell it back to the Academy. Just the nature of the statement: "Selling it back to the Academy", implies the Academy no longer owned the statue. Otherwise they could just take it back after his death, because it was always their property and never really his.
      
      Perhaps the Academy should create a OOA (Oscar Owners Association) and attach the Oscar (physically) to a piece of property subject to an HOA (Deed), thereby granting the Academy the property rights to all fixtures in said property as defined by law (not just bylaws).
      
      Unless they want to lobby(bribe) congress to create them an exemption/property extension/special law for Oscar awards. Hey, it worked for Mickey Mouse and Copyright, why not Oscars.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 9:51am

http://www.oscars.org/legal/regulations

As far as I know, those 'regulations' are backed up only by copyright and trademark. If they have an actual contract they make the recipient sign, they don't advertise it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 9:54am
  
  Re:
  http://qz.com/55895/you-never-really-win-an-oscar-you-just-get-to-borrow-it/
  
  So a contract is mentioned, but except for the 'relevant' section, the contract isn't passed out to people who ask about it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DogBreath, 18 Dec 2014 @ 11:16am
  
  Re:
  10. Academy Award winners have no rights whatsoever in the Academy copyright or goodwill in the Oscar statuette or in its trademark and service mark registrations. Award winners must comply with these rules and regulations. Award winners shall not sell or otherwise dispose of the Oscar statuette, nor permit it to be sold or disposed of by operation of law, without first offering to sell it to the Academy for the sum of $1.00. This provision shall apply also to the heirs and assigns of Academy Award winners who may acquire a statuette by gift or bequest.
  
  No matter what the "Academy" says, the inheritor of this item cannot be bound to a contract they never agreed to.
  
  It would make more legal sense for the "Academy" to lease ( with no subleasing rights) the Oscar statue to the original awardee ($1 per year sounds reasonable), thereby retaining all rights to said property because they are still the owner, and have the right of repossession should such lease contract be broken.
  
  This would also allow them to report the Oscar as stolen if it was ever sold. But that might make the Academy seem too evil and money grubbing and even rise to "Olympic Commitee" levels of control freakishness.
  
  Who are we kidding? I say, "Go for it Academy Awards. Take it all the way, and as god is your witness, you'll never go hungry again. Now eat your withered carrot and be happy."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 3:41pm
    
    Re: Re:
    And that is the current regulations, what were they in 1953 when he was awarded the Oscar?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DogBreath, 18 Dec 2014 @ 9:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      According to this, it was the following:
      
      The Contract:
      
      Although a difficult concept to grasp today, some finacially struggling award recipients began to pawn or sell their awards in the 1940's. This troubled the Academy as it risked the stature of the Award becoming commercially exploited. There was also a concern over control of the closely gaurded copyright. As a result, in 1950 the Academy introduced a contractual agreement that all recipiants to this day must enter into upon being bestowed with the coveted trophy. The contract stipulates that should the Award winner or heirs wish to sell the award, (as the award may be passed down) they must offer the Academy first right to purchase the statuette back for the sum of ten dollars. In the 1980's the monetary figure was lowered to one dollar. The monetary figures of course had nothing to do with Oscars actual worth. This was more or less a legal formality insuring Oscar was in a sense "donated" back to the Academy for preservation. This agreement also addressed the concern over Oscars Stature becoming commercially cheapened.
      
      This was also found on the same link as above:
      
      In 2007 after four years of legal antics, the Oscar that Orson Welles won for co-writing "Citizen Kane" was allowed to be placed up for auction. Sotheby's put it up for auction on Dec. 11 2007.
      
      Christie's Auction House tried to sell the Oscar in 2003, but had to stop the auction due to intervention by academy lawyers. There should no have been any disaproval of the sale. Since Welles won the award in 1941, thus it fell outside the post 1950 agreement that banned winners from selling their Oscars to anyone but the academy for the sum of $1).
      
      Welles' Oscar was thought to have been lost, but surfaced in 1994 when it was put up for auction by Sotheby's. Evidently a cinematographer claimed that Welles had given him the Oscar as form of payment for work. Welles' youngest daughter Beatrice sued and got ownership of the Oscar, which she tried to sell at Christie's 9 years later, but in turn got sued by the academy.
      
      The academy's legal claim was his daughter couldn't sell it due to a agreement she signed in the 1980s when the Academy issued a replacement Oscar before the original surfaced. The agreement stated that the person who signed the contract agreed never to sell the replacement statuette or the original, if it ever resurfaced.
      
      When the case finally reached the court Welles' daughter won due to the language in the agreement. The agreemet only applied to members of the academy and she was not an academy member. She also retained the right to sell the lifetime achievement Oscar her father received in 1970.
      
      The Oscar however failed to draw suitable bids and thus was not sold. It is beleived an attempt to sell the Oscar privately will be made.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
bssellin (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 11:24am

Selling an Oscar
But if she's allowed to sell the Oscar then:

1) The Terrorists will have won!

or

2) But think of the children!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frok (profile), 19 Dec 2014 @ 12:29am

film academy adopts playstation mindset
Thou shall only use thy toaster for bread, never soup, while cursing electricity. Buy a new toaster on Holy Playstation dates.

Documentary on ironic justice visitations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tanner Andrews (profile), 26 Dec 2014 @ 8:29am

Right of First Refusal
It is possible that the right of first refusal may have been lost when the academy did not exercise it at time of the original probate. Assuming always correct publication of notice and a hundred other things, most of which are covered by California law with which I am entirely unfamiliar.

At any rate, I'd prefer to have the heir's case if I had to choose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]