Stan Lee Media Versus Stan Lee and a Lot of Other People

As previously noted, Stan Lee is the target of a new comic book related lawsuit filed in New York on January 20, 2009. Stan Lee, however, is just one of many names in the lawsuit, which is docketed with the Southern District of New York as Abadin et al v. Marvel Characters, Inc. et al.

As this is a "derivative" suit, the plaintiffs are shareholders in Stan Lee Media, Inc. (SLMI), a Colorado corporation that ultimately went into bankruptcy. Besides Stan Lee, the parties on the defendant's side of the "v." are Marvel Entertainment, Inc., Marvel Enterprises, Inc., Marvel Characters, Joan Lee (Stan Lee's wife), Joan C. Lee (Stan Lee's daughter), Isaac Perlmutter (Marvel executive), Avi Arad (Marvel executive) and Arthur M. Lieberman (Marvel executive).

The complaint presents a mix of 13 federal and state claims ranging from copyright and trademark infringement to right of publicity violations. The plaintiffs are seeking $750 million dollars or more in damages (!), based on a supposed ownership interest in numerous comic book characters. The factual basis for the complaint is summarized below.

The suit arises from Lee's involvement in Stan Lee Entertainment (SLE). SLE was eventually dissolved in a convoluted series of transactions; and SLMI succeeded to all SLE interests. As part of an employment agreement with SLE, Lee transferred the rights to a number of characters, trademarks and domain names to the company. Numerous assets were explicitly transferred in the original assignment agreement, including rights to such undeveloped comic book characters as The Accuser, Stan’s Evil Clone (Evil Clone), and The Drifter. SLMI shareholders are claiming that by terms of an assignment clause in Lee's employment agreement, rights in prime Marvel comic book characters such Spiderman and The Incredible Hulk were also transferred to the company.

SLMI's argument is interesting because as readers of this site may know, these suits are all about contracts and copyrights. SLMI claims that Lee created characters such as Spiderman outside of his scope of employment with Marvel (i.e., not as a work for hire). It is claimed that Lee had an interest as co-creator in these comic book characters at the time of contract formation with SLME, which was subsequently transferred to SLMI.

Certainly, if Lee retained an interest in the Marvel comic book characters as claimed (plaintiffs have to prove it), the assignment clause in the employment agreement cited in their complaint could be interpreted as giving them some rights in those characters (plaintiffs have to prove it). It is also interesting to note that in the related California case of QED LLC v. Nesfield, et. al, which involves a similar fight over SLMI assets, plaintiffs made no claims to Marvel assets. They only claimed an interest in materials explicitly outlined in their asset purchase agreement with Stan Lee; no claim was made to rights obtained via the employment agreement.

1. Stan Lee Media, Inc. complaint

Stan Lee Ridiculed From the Sidelines

Rarely does a plaintiff issue a press release that comments on a defendant's lack of success in a case to which they are not a party. This is exactly what happened on January 27, 2009 when a press release noting an unfavorable ruling in a lawsuit involving Marvel Comics founder Stan Lee hit the wires. The ruling in question, which was actually filed on January 20, 2009, is from the case of QED Production, LLC v. Nesfield, et al. The order can be accessed at the link provided at the bottom of this post. The press release, however, was not sent out by anyone involved in that case; it was sent out on behalf of plaintiffs in an entirely different case that was filed this week. This is revealed in the following excerpt:

Stan Lee, Arthur Lieberman and Marvel enterprises are being sued for looting the Estate of Stan Lee Media, Inc. in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection from 2001-2006. Martin Garbus, Esq., on behalf of shareholders of SLMI filed a Shareholder Derivative action on January 26, 2009 in Manhattan federal court claiming 50% percent ownership in such mega-popular Super Hero entertainment franchises as Spider Man, Iron Man and the X-Men.

An upcoming post will dig deeper into the case of QED Production, LLC v. Nesfield. Readers can expect posts about this new shareholder derivative suit as well.

1. QED v. Nesfield Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment As to Standing

Superman Copyright Trials Delayed

Hon. Stephen Larson, the presiding judge in the case of Siegel v. Time Warner, has moved the February 3, 2009 trial litigating "alter ego" issues related to the Superman copyrights to April 21, 2009. He has also moved the March 24, 2009 accounting trial to June 9, 2009. In the order resetting the dates, the judge indicated that the delays are due to "health issues related to one of plaintiff's [Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson], main expert witnesses." I want to thank Jeff Trexler at Newsarama for the tip.

1. Siegel v. Time Warner Continuance Order

Superman Copyright Trial Raises Corporate Alter-Ego Questions

As exemplified by movies like The Dark Knight and Iron Man, having a comic book publisher and a film distribution company under a single corporate umbrella creates some powerful synergies. Marvel Comics has film licensing deals with Fox (X-Men) and Sony (Spiderman) but they began producing movies in 2006. In the process, Marvel subsidiaries like Marvel Characters, Inc. became content farms for Marvel Studios by supplying film rights for various characters. A slightly different example is provided by Warner Brothers, who bought DC Comics in 1969. Since the original Superman films, DC Comics has almost exclusively sold film rights to its titles to Warner Brothers. In fact, the Watchmen movie represents one of the rare instances where DC sold film rights to a company besides Warner Brothers. As Warner Brothers is now learning in Siegel v. Time Warner, vertical integration may lead to some problems in copyright litigation.

Among the remaining claims to be resolved in Siegel v. Time Warner is an accounting for profits derived from Superman copyrights. Specifically, both sides are battling over whether profits obtained from a Superman license that DC Comics sold to Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc (WBEI). In 1992, DC Comics sold an exclusive license in the Superman copyright to WBEI to for the remainder of its extended renewal term in movies, television, and home video. One year later, DC entered a separate exclusive license with WBEI's television division.

Time Warner claims that the Siegels are entitled to an accounting of the profits made by DC Comics (in the form of the licensing fees it has collected), but are not entitled to an accounting of the profits WBEI made as a licensee. This is because licensees owe no duty of accounting to the non-licensor co-owner of a copyright.

The Siegels (through their lawyer Marc Toberoff), on the other hand, argue that WBEI took over DC Comics position as copyright holder when it bought the licenses. If this is the case, WBEI will be viewed as a co-owner of the Superman copyrights who owes an accounting to the Siegels. The argument does not work under general legal principles but it might apply in one situation: where the subsidiary is serving as "alter ego" of the parent corporation in order to avoid having to share fees with lawful co-owners. This issue will be addressed at the February 3, 2009 trial and the outcome might have interesting effects on the way some entertainment companies do business (with themselves).

Watchmen Lawsuit Pt. 29: One Dollar Buys the Right to Millions Worth of Litigation

Fox and Warner Brothers have settled the Watchmen legal case but Warner Brothers is probably examining their legal options against those who sold them the Watchmen film rights in the first place. Lawrence Gordon has been identified as one potential party but it looks like he will be joined by a less publicized defendant.

The 2006 Warner Brothers agreement to acquire the Watchmen film rights actually identifies two different parties as "seller": Golar Inc. (Gordon's company) and LEI Development Projects. Who in the world is LEI? Copyright records show that Largo Entertainment (Larry Gordon's company prior to Golar) assigned rights to dozens of screenplays, including one or more Watchmen scripts, to LEI in 2002. Warner Brothers acquired rights to Watchmen screenplays by Sam Hamm, Charles McKeown and Gary Goldman in the 2006 agreement. So all three scripts were probably part of the batch acquired (bought) by LEI in 2002. There is no indication of how much money, if any, was exchanged between LEI and Golar.

Confused yet? It gets even more confusing. Warner Brothers paid exactly $1 dollar in cash (read the agreement below) for the option to make a movie based on the Watchmen materials. In addition to that single dollar, Warner Brothers agreed to pay LEI, not Golar, an amount equal to 5% of 100% of the "defined proceeds" of any movies derived from the Watchmen materials. Apparently, a separate producer agreement with Warner Brothers gave Lawrence Gordon his own cut of the proceeds.

So, at least on paper, Golar received no money from the deal for the Watchmen materials but accepted liability under the agreement's indemnification clause. This clause states (in part) that:

Seller [Golar and LEI Development Projects] shall indemnify and otherwise hold WBP (its successors, assigns, licensees, agents and representatives) harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, liability or expense (including reasonable attorney's fees) arising out of or resulting from any breach of its representations, warranties and agreements hereunder.

Hopefully, LEI enjoyed spending their dollar.

1. Quitclaim Agreement between Warner Brothers, Golar, Inc. and LEI Development Projects

Watchmen Lawsuit Pt. 28: Dismissal With Prejudice

On January 16, 2009, Fox filed a Stipulation for Dismissal With Prejudice in the Watchmen legal case. Once the order is entered by the court, the lawsuit will officially come to an end. The text of the filing is as follows:

WHEREAS, Plaintiff Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation (“Fox”) and defendants Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., WB Studios Enterprises, Inc. and Warner Bros. Pictures (collectively “Warner Bros”) have entered into a confidential settlement agreement to fully settle and resolve the within action;

NOW THEREFORE, Fox and Warner Bros., by and through their respective undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree and ask the Court to enter an Order, dismissing the above-captioned action, with prejudice.

Fox's proposed order simply says: "The Court, having received the parties’ Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above–captioned action is dismissed with prejudice."

Since the terms of the agreement are confidential, media reports will be the only source of settlement terms. That is, until a complete leak occurs.

Watchmen Lawsuit Pt. 27: Settlement is Official

Initial skepticism about The Hollywood Reporter's opaque Watchmen settlement piece has been backed up by Nikki Finke. She provides the studio's joint statement confirming that Fox and Warner Brothers have settled the Watchmen legal case, while noting that the previous reports jumped the gun. In any case, the joint statement from the studios as follows:

Warner Bros. and Twentieth Century Fox have resolved their dispute regarding the rights to the upcoming motion picture Watchmen in a confidential settlement. Warner Bros acknowledges that Fox acted in good faith in bringing its claims, which were asserted prior to the start of principal photography. Fox acknowledges that Warner Bros. acted in good faith in defending against those claims Warner Bros. and Fox, like all Watchmen fans, look forward with great anticipation to this film's March 6 release in theatres.

I will also add that the court appearance date was apparently wrong (thanks, THR). The studios will present the settlement to the court on Friday, January 16, 2009 as opposed to Monday, January 19, 2009.

Watchmen Lawsuit Pt. 26: Settlement is Complete?

The Hollywood Reporter is now stating that Fox and Warner Brothers have come to terms on a settlement in the Watchmen legal case. Both parties will allegedly present their agreement to the court on Monday, January 19, 2009. As usual, the real story is in the court filings and there have been none since yesterday (January 14, 2009). In any case, there might be a conclusion to this case by next week. Expect more updates in the near future.

Watchmen Lawsuit Pt. 25: Settlement Status Has Been Filed

Reports of settlement progress in the Watchmen legal case have been confirmed by a new January 14, 2009 court filing. Both Fox and Warner Brothers filed a Notice of Settlement Status and Request for Further Hearing (see link below). According to the document, both parties apparently began talking about settlement after the December 29, 2008 status conference. Additionally, the filing says "the parties are continuing to address a few remaining settlement issues." Finally, Fox and Warner Brothers have requested a hearing on January 15, 2009 at 3:30 pm "to report on a final resolution or, alternatively, to discuss how to proceed on January 20, 2009."

1. Notice of Settlement Status and Request for Further Hearing

Foreseeable Problems in Superman's Future

The conclusion of the Siegel's Superman lawsuit in the next few months is unlikely to signal the end of Superman copyright disputes. Jerome Siegel's decedents own a one-half interest in the copyrights but the other half rests in the estate of Superman illustrator Joseph Shuster. On November 10, 1993, Mark Warren Peary (Shuster's nephew and the court-appointed representative of his estate) filed notice with the US Copyright Office of intent to terminate the 1938 grant of the Superman copyright to Detective Comics and its successors (i.e., Time Warner) effective on October 26, 2013. As the date of termination approaches, this issue will undoubtedly heat up.

Superman Copyright Trial is Looming Overhead

While the Watchmen movie legal dispute barrels forward, the trial date in a different comic book related case is approaching. A bench trial for "alter ego" claims in Siegel v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, which involves copyrights to Superman story materials, on February 3, 2009. A separate bench trial related to a claim for an accounting of profits is set for March 24, 2009. Coverage of this case on this site begins with the following summary. Those with an immediate interest in more detail should jump to the final paragraph for reading recommendations.

Siegel v. Warner Brothers Entertainment pits Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson (widow and daughter of Superman co-creator Jerome Siegel, respectively) against Warner Brothers in a complex, highly technical suit over termination of copyright transfers in the Superman stories. The February 2009 trial will address issues that were not resolved in a March 26, 2008 order for partial summary judgment. In March 2008, the judge in the case found that, among other things, notices of copyright termination sent to DC Comics by the Siegels were valid. In an amazing opinion tracing the history of the Superman character, the judge found that the Siegels recaptured, as of April 16, 1999, their one-half interest (Joseph Shuster's estate holds the other half) in the Superman story material as first published. The judge also ruled that the subsequent accounting for Superman profits would not include those monies derived from foreign exploitation, republication of pre-termination works and trademark exploitation.

The best background information about the Superman copyright case is: 1) William Patry's commentary on the Superman summary judgment decision; and 2) Jeff Trexler's detailed up-to-date analysis at Newsarama.

Watchmen Lawsuit Pt. 24: Procedural Errors

As previously noted, presiding judge Gary Feess criticized Lawrence Gordon in his summary judgment order. Additionally, Feess stated that he would hear no evidence from Gordon on the case after his order was issued. Despite the judge's admonitions, Gordon sent a letter to the judge on January 7, 2009 that explained his side of the story. Gordon's letter is floating around the Internet in some form or another but the letter will not be presented on this site until a version with no watermarks appears. Instead, here is the judge's response, which is consistent with local court rules and his original position:

Today [January 7, 2009], the Court received by fax a letter from Patricia A. Millett, Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert, LLP regarding the above entitled action. Insofar as this is an improper communication to the Court, and is in fact in violation of Central District Local Rule 83-2.11, the Court will not consider this letter, or review the facts presented therein, in connection with the case presently pending before this Court. The original hand-delivered letter will be returned to Attorney Millett when it is received.

For sake of completeness, Local Rule 83-2.11 is as follows:

L.R. 83-2.11 Communications With the Judge . Attorneys or parties to any action or proceeding shall refrain from writing letters to the judge, making telephone calls to chambers, or otherwise communicating with a judge in a pending matter unless opposing counsel is present. All matters shall be called to a judge’s attention by appropriate application or motion filed in compliance with these Local Rules.

Why send a letter to the court when it is certain that it will be rejected? Answers to this very leading question are welcomed in the comments to this post. I will provide my own if asked.

Watchmen Lawsuit Pt. 23: Time to Play Nice

Since the Watchmen legal case has now officially entered the twilight zone, a recap of events from the past few days seems useful. First, a joint stipulation agreement and a permanent injunction application were filed in the case. Soon after, Warner Brothers asked to move the January 20, 2009 hearing to January 12, 2009. In addition to reports that the Watchmen case may soon be settled, there is now information indicating that one of the more publicized issues in the case has been resolved.

Some might recall that Motion in Limine Number 2 sparked speculation about studio infighting, specifically due to the fact that the motion was about the relevance of (a) Fox's budgets for recent pictures; and (b) details of Fox studio executive Tom Rothman's contract. On January 8, 2009, Warner Brothers filed an application to withdraw their opposition to Fox's Motion in Limine Number 2. Additionally, Warner Brothers requested that this information be placed under seal in accordance with a protective order between Warner Brothers and Fox that was filed in September 2008. At the apparent behest of Fox, Warner Brothers even went so far as to file an ex parte application to shorten the amount of time it would take Judge Feess to issue an order regarding the application. Judge Feess implemented the request on January 9, 2009 and the document is now off the public record. Anyone who has a copy should speak up!

Warner Brothers ex parte application provides the following reason for this maneuver (citations removed):

When Warner Bros. filed its Opposition, it inadvertently did not file it under seal. On January 6, 2008, Fox brought this to Warner Bros.' attention and requested that Warner Bros. file the Opposition under seal. The next day, Warner Bros. manually lodged the Opposition, requesting that it be filed under seal. Warner Bros. asked that Fox stipulate to the withdrawal of the Opposition found at Docket No. 231, but Fox requested that Warner Bros. proceed by means of an ex parte application, which Fox said that it would not oppose.

Watchmen Lawsuit Pt. 22: The Latest Updates

There are two important items to report today. As noted by Jeff Trexler at Newsarama, Warner Brother's response to Fox's Application for a Permanent Injunction requests that the presiding judge move the January 20, 2009 hearing to Monday, January 12, 2009. Warner Brothers' request explains that "because the release date for Watchmen is less than two months away and Warner Bros. must imminently commit to spending tens of millions of dollars on its marketing and promotional campaign for the picture, time is of the essence, and every day counts." Second, Judge Feess has issued an order implementing the joint stipulation agreement between Fox and Warner Brothers. Anyone who still thinks the parties in this case are bluffing their way to a settlement might want to reconsider their position.

1. Order Implementing Joint Stipulation Agreement Between Warner Brothers and Fox
2. Warner Brothers Response to Fox's Application for a Permanent Injunction
   

Watchmen Lawsuit Pt. 21: Permanent Means Forever

As discussed in the post regarding the Watchmen joint stipulation agreement, the January 20th, 2009 hearing between Fox and Warner Brothers is now solely focused on whether a permanent injunction will be issued to shutdown the release of the Watchmen movie. Fox's court filing, which features their main legal arguments in support of the injunction, is provided below. Look for a discussion of the arguments therein in the near future.

1. Fox's Application for Permanent Injunction and Request for Briefing Schedule
   

Watchmen Lawsuit Pt. 20: Is The End in Sight?

Outside of the December 24, 2008 summary judgment order, the new joint stipulation agreement between Fox and Warner Brothers in the Watchmen case is perhaps the biggest news in the case so far. Why? It pushes settlement off the immediate timetable and accelerates the determination of the biggest issue in the case: whether or not to shut down the Watchmen movie permanently.

The stipulation reflects an agreement between both studios on 9 different points. At the risk of over-simplification, I have summarized the points below. A link to the original document is provided at the bottom as usual.

Point 1: Fox is waiving any and all rights to seek injunctive relief for any claim or matter other than the one determined by the judge (i.e., distribution rights). In exchange, Warner Brothers is agreeing that if the judge believes an injunction is appropriate, Fox is entitled to stop release of the Watchmen movie.

Point 2: The scheduled January 20, 2009 non-jury hearing will be limited to the question of whether Fox is entitled to a permanent injunction on its distribution claim. The injunction application filed by Fox will be discussed in a different post.

Point 3: This point says that if the judge grants an injunction on January 20, Fox will immediately dismiss, without prejudice (subject to various terms) any and all claims in the case except its distribution claim.

Points 4-7: These points define the terms of any appeals by both parties, including pushing any determination of damages until after the Watchmen movie is released (if not enjoined later in this month).

Points 8-9: These points outline an understanding re: various civil procedure issues (res judicata, collateral estoppel, jurisdiction).

1. Joint Stipulation Agreement between Fox and Warner Brothers

Watchmen Lawsuit Pt. 19: Major Legal Developments Today

There were some rather radical developments in the Watchmen legal case today. I will provide more detailed information after examining the documents that were filed in more detail. Some rough highlights of what I have read so far are featured below. Stay tuned for more detailed analysis.

First, Fox and Warner Brothers filed a joint stipulation agreement. One point of agreement is that is waiving injunctive claims for any claim or matter other than the distribution claim. In exchange, Warner Brothers agrees that, if the Court determines that an injunction is an appropriate remedy, Fox is entitled on the distribution claim to stop the release of the Watchmen picture produced by Warner Brothers.

Second, the scheduled January 20, 2009 hearing will be limited to the question of whether Fox is entitled to a permanent injunction on its distribution claim with respect to the Watchmen picture produced by Warner Brothers. This will be a non-jury hearing.

Watchmen Lawsuit Pt. 18: Studio Sniping Over Who is Better is Really About Stopping Watchmen

It was previously mentioned that both sides in the Watchmen legal case filed multiple Motions in Limine to exclude evidence from trial. I noted that some of the Motions are strange but I didn't go much further than that. Now that the responses are filed, I will describe two Motions by Fox:

• Motion in Limine 2, which is an attempt to exclude (a) Fox's budgets for recent pictures; and (b) details of studio executive Tom Rothman's contract; and
• Motion in Limine 6, which is an attempt to exclude evidence or argument that Fox is an “underperforming studio” or that Warner Brothers is a “better” studio.
  

On the surface, arguing over who is a better studio may seem like petty sniping. The studios are actually fighting about something kind of important: the injunction to stop the Watchmen movie from being released on March 6, 2009.

In anticipation of Warner Brothers trial arguments, Fox filed the previously mentioned Motion in Limine to prevent Warner Brothers from presenting trial evidence that Fox studio is "underperforming," or that Warner Bros. is a "better" studio. Fox simply claimed that this evidence is irrelevant and unduly prejudicial to the issues in the case. Warner Brothers' response filled in the blanks left by Fox's skeletal motion. Warner Brothers said that this information is relevant to Fox's request for an injunction to stop the Watchmen movie, specifically Fox's claim that it would be irreparably harmed by the film's release. Warner Brothers bolstered its argument with various reasons why information about comparative studio performance and market share should be allowed at trial. Whether the evidence will actually be allowed is entirely up to the judge.

Watchmen Lawsuit Pt. 17: Timing The Next Steps in The Case

The judge in the Watchmen case ruled for Fox on their original summary judgment motion but the contract claims and damages are still dangling. Some are presenting arguments about why the Watchmen case will not go to trial but the case moves on and the flow of trial-related filings continues unabated. For example, various responses to Motions in Limine were filed by Fox and Warner Brothers on December 31, 2008. A summary of past and future dates provides a realistic picture of where the case is headed. These times were pulled from various court documents (corrections are welcome where necessary). The appeal deadline is based on Rules 4 and 26 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The proposed time line is as follows:

• Order granting Fox's Summary Judgment Motion entered on December 24, 2008;
  
• lodging of all pre-trial conference documents, including settlement status report, by December 31, 2008;
• filing of pre-trial conference order by January 2, 2009;
• holding pre-trial conference on January 7, 2009;
• starting trial on January 20, 2009;
  
• filing an appeal of December 24, 2008 order by January 23, 2009; and
  
• releasing Watchmen movie on March 6, 2009.

Watchmen Lawsuit Pt. 16: Updated List of Watchmen Court Filings

A non-comprehensive list of documents filed in the Watchmen lawsuit was posted early on. Here is an updated list including my index of the Motions in Limine. As noted before, some documents are separated from larger filings for easier access.

1. D.C. Watchmen Copyright Forms
   
2. Distribution Agreement between Fox and Largo Entertainment
3. Addendum to Distribution Agreement Between Fox and Largo Entertainment
4. Quitclaim Release between Fox and Largo Entertainment
5. Settlement and Release Agreement between Fox and Lawrence Gordon, Inc.
6. Quitclaim Agreement between Warner Brothers, Golar, Inc. and LEI Development Projects
7. Fox's Original Complaint
8. Warner Brothers' Motion to Dismiss
9. Fox's response to Warner Brothers' Motion to Dismiss
10. Judge's Order re: Warner Brothers' Motion to Dismiss
11. Fox's Summary Judgment Motion
12. Index of all Motions in Limine
13. Judge's December 24, 2008 Order re: Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment
    
14. Warner Brothers Memorandum in Support of Motion in Limine No. 4
    

Watchmen Lawsuit Pt. 15: Angry Fans Equals Damages

Evidence of fan anger about the Watchmen legal case is pretty easy to find on the Internet. Some are even suggesting a boycott against Fox for filing the Watchmen lawsuit. Certainly no film studio files such a big lawsuit without awareness of the reaction of their potential audience. Fox is no exception. Alexander Young of Twentieth Century Fox was deposed in November 2008 by Warner Brother about Fox's request for an injunction to stop Watchmen from being released. In explaining how Fox might be harmed by allowing the project to go forward, Young made a point of mentioning the fan base. He started out on a positive note:

The Watchmen is one of a unique brand of properties in these comic book franchises that come with a fan base that is passionate and shows up and follows not just the property, but then has benefits to all of the other movies we make.

He then provided the following observation:

And so not only have we lost an opportunity, a fantastic opportunity to appeal to that fan base and show them that we are a company that does these kind of movies and does them exceptionally well, but as a result of this action, we've also potentially alienated a section of this fan base that now looks at us as philistines for enforcing our rights.