How Universal treats you, its customers
POSTED BY: SebastianFelis
UPDATED: Friday, September 16, 2005 19:32
VIEWED: 24499
PAGE 3 of 11
Cry, baby, cry. Make your mother sigh.
------------------
"Remember, there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Isn't this just a culture-clash? Universal is approaching this from the POV of a recreationally litigious society and our correspondent is a fair-go Antipodean. Wars have started over less 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MohrStoutbeard:
Cry, baby, cry. Make your mother sigh.
------------------
"Remember, there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over."
I recognise the quote from episode one. But if that's a swipe at my position, you might want to read your own sig.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by PurpleBelly:
Isn't this just a culture-clash? Universal is approaching this from the POV of a recreationally litigious society and our correspondent is a fair-go Antipodean. Wars have started over less
Oh great. Next I'll be labelled a potential terrorist and slapped into preventative detention... :)
I'll probably wind up with flashbacks to Payback, where nobody can believe how little Gibson's character is asking.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A quick Google search says you're out of luck in claiming copyright on "rampant lawyerism", so you may have to try your luck in trademarking it.
I'll try to remember not to infringe, though, just in case :)
The litigiousness isn't as bad here yet, but the unwashed masses are definitely warming up to the appeal of lawsuit as source of easy money. The apology is appreciated, though.
We'll see shortly how they respond to an initial challenge, as I'm about to fax them my response. Basically, I'm asking them not to use the footage unless they can provably get willing consent from everybody who appears in it, and suggesting they try being polite in future.
Such a class action suit could indeed have an impact, if it were successful. As for feeding the legal beast, well, sometimes they're useful. To bastardise William Gibson, cultivating a certain tame lawyer can be useful; the trick lies in not letting it get out of control. Then again, one of my best friends is a lawyer...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I wouldn't have been worried myself, I would have been happy to sign four of them, to be able to be interviewed and see the advance screening. They just want to make sure no one will sue them for money if they see themselves on the special features of the dvd.
I agree with whoever said upthread somewhere, we should be thankful Universal is doing so much for the movie.
I just don't see it as a big deal.
After all, you could have left when you saw the letter, if you were really concerned.
Sex and violence on the big screen, where it belongs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Annie:
I wouldn't have been worried myself, I would have been happy to sign four of them
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Annie:
I wouldn't have been worried myself, I would have been happy to sign four of them
As would I. But my point, which people keep ignoring, is that we never got the chance. They didn't ask us to sign. There was nowhere to sign. We were simply told that we had already given our rights away. _That_ is what got my back up. That, and the underhanded, sneaky way they went about "informing" us.
All they had to do was ask...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Taken from the Serenity Oz Forum, a copy of the text sent to Universal:
Q&A SESSION WITH JOSS WHEDON AT HOYTS ENTERTAINMENT QUARTER ON MONDAY, 12th SEPTEMBER, 2005
Firstly, thankyou for bringing Joss Whedon out here, and arranging his presence at the screening. It was an excellent opportunity to get a glimpse of the man, and his humour and insight made the evening particularly worthwhile.
Unfortunately, there was a less inspiring aspect to the evening, namely the release forms that were distributed to a subset of the audience. I include a copy for your reference.
I would like to make it clear that my issue is with the manner in which Universal went about this; had I been informed ahead of time that my consent was a condition of entry, and had I been presented with the terms and conditions prior to purchasing my ticket, I would cheerfully have signed. However, this was not the case.
Not only was the form not provided to all audience members, but it was given after we had paid for our tickets and been granted admission, and its tone verged on offensive. I understand that legal documents differ in nature from conversational English, but the presumption implied in the phrasing was startling. As far as I understand, not only is this document not legally binding, I’m curious about the legality of an “opt-out” stance being taken after the moment of purchase. Some of the phrasing also makes me wonder whether the Privacy Commissioner has reviewed the document.
Further, while attendees may have had the opportunity to leave after the screening and before the Q&A session began (i.e. before the cameras started rolling), we had all paid approximately twice the usual ticket price specifically for the opportunity to see Mr Whedon in the flesh. I don’t know about you, but a double-price movie doesn’t seem like a reasonable deal to me.
There is also the fact that at no time was I advised to the presence of a legal document, nor was anybody else, to my knowledge. The attendees can hardly be said to have been given a fair chance to decide whether to agree to the terms and conditions in a timely manner.
My signature does not appear on any copy of the release form, and with good reason: I did not, and do not, agree to the use of my name or likeness as recorded on any medium at, around, or in any way in conjunction with the above-mentioned screening. To the extent that any consent has been inferred, I withdraw such consent.
Unless Universal Pictures can provably obtain willing consent from all people whose likenesses would be used in any subsequent product, I request that any recordings of the event not be used for promotional, commercial or any other purpose.
Should my likeness be used in defiance of this communication, I will invoice Universal Pictures for royalties of one percent of gross revenue from sales of the infringing product. Use of my likeness will be taken as agreement to those terms. If this seems unreasonable, I invite you to re-read the release form.
I would like to re-iterate that Universal Pictures could have handled this in a much better manner, and would like to recommend that more consideration is taken in future. This heavy-handed approach is totally unnecessary when politeness is sufficient to get the desired results.
Regards...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If you received the documentation before the filming, you have no legal grounds to sue, regardless of whether you chose to read it or not. You were duly informed; the fact that you chose to ignore that fact is your responsibility.
While it's possible that others may not have received the proper documentation, I think it's also equally possible that there were posters up that you simply didn't see (which, again, is YOUR responsibility, not theirs... ignorance is no defense).
Further, I'm pretty sure that your recieving the proper compensation for the work you were involved in, given your role: nothing.
So, assuming you got the piece of paper before the Q&A session started, your now just whining for no good reason. And it's not that the rest of us are sheep who allow this to happen. You're basically crying and looking for a free handout, so get over it. Heck, if it was that important to you, YOU SHOULD HAVE READ THE PAPER.
I second the "cry baby, cry," quote.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME