Okay, so which is it? Did the contract guarantee a "wide theatrical release" or an "exclusive" release? It doesn't matter what is "well understood"; what matters is what's in black and white in the contract.
Yes and no. "[W]hat's in black and white in the contract" is the starting point, but it's rarely all there is to it. When you have terminology that has a "well understood" meaning in a particular industry in which both parties are sophisticated players, it very much DOES matter what is and isn't "well understood." Whether she can prove that it was, in fact, "well understood" is a different matter entirely.
The lawsuit alleges that Disney had two primary motivations for the hybrid release. First, it argues, Disney wanted to boost subscriber numbers for its streaming service and inflate its stock value. Second, the suit states, "Disney wanted to substantially devalue Ms. Johansson’s agreement and thereby enrich itself."
The second part is what will be hard to prove, if not impossible. No one could have forseen the pandemic, and I thought releasing it simultaneously in theaters and online was a decent compromise. Yes, it cuts into her take-home. But how do you prove that Disney did this with the expressed intention of "devaluing" her?
I haven't seen the complaint, so I don't know what causes of action were alleged, but in a breach of contract suit, the party's motivations for breaching aren't relevant. Assuming no other causes of action that might make the motivations relevant, these allegations are nothing more than press release fodder.
Would a force majeure clause cancel that out? I think it could be argued that a pandemic is one. (I of course know precisely dick about contract law and am more than anxious to hear from the lawyers)
Force majeure is a concept that almost no one cared about prior to 2020, but it's been the legal term of the year for the past year and a half. The answer to your question as it relates to this suit is maybe. It depends on what the FM clause (if there was one) says. That being said, it might not apply because there was arguably no force majeure event at the time this movie was released.
Thing is, it wasn't just added to vanilla Disney+, it was a premium thing you had to pay for (and in the UK at least, if your household only had one or two people watching it, like I did, it actually cost more than it would have done to watch in theaters).
So, on one hand yes of course it was completely reasonable for Disney to release it on premium streaming as well as in theaters, because of the pandemic. But on the other hand, Disney should absolutely treat that income as equivalent to box office income for the purpose of her salary. I doubt they would have been required to do so in terms of contract law, but frankly it's just common sense and basic decency. If they're not paying her anything from that pot, then while she may not have a strong legal case, I would be 100% on her side morally.
Studios and record companies have been (for decades) intractably resistant to paying royalties for media revenue other than those things expressly identified in the contract (for example, I'm pretty sure a LOT of artists are getting squat for streaming revenue for 5-10+ year old material). I could be wrong, but I think one of Johansson's allegations is that her contract did not provide for royalties based on this sort of streaming revenue (because it wasn't a thing in late 2018 or early 2019 when the contract was made). This isn't about "common decency" or anything like that, and that won't come into play at all.
Topic: The "Black Widow (2021)" Film Thread - SPOILERS!!! Now Out On Home Video Sept 14 (Read 20595 times)