2 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

No it does not. The original contract supercedes the Disney contracts. they are written to be binding over future owners of Lucas film. Specifically for this reason.

Unless the acquisition deal specifically transferred ownership without obligation. Please note that I’m not saying the acquisition deal absolutely does contain such terms. I’m saying that the possibility exists, as there’s precedent in the business world, and it’s not unrealistic for a company to want to come out of such an acquisition with as little new financial obligation as possible. (Another possibility, which I’ve heard of happening, is a royalty check showing up with fine print on it that endorsing the check and taking payment finalizes the deal, so no more royalties will be forthcoming. Pretty shady, but it happens. I believe that may be part of the Siegel and Shuster story, if I’m remembering properly.)

If you’ve got access to sources that can verify the acquisition didn’t dismiss the obligation, cool. That makes it pretty cut-and-dried, and would probably be of interest to all of us here. Otherwise, all we can really do is - just like Jeff Trexler from the CBLDF - look at existing precedents and speculate on the kind of clauses that might be involved.

5 hours ago, Daeglan said:

No it does not. The original contract supercedes the Disney contracts. they are written to be binding over future owners of Lucas film. Specifically for this reason.

Ehm... There is absolutely no way for you to know this unles you have read the specific contract in question.

14 hours ago, micheldebruyn said:

Ehm... There is absolutely no way for you to know this unles you have read the specific contract in question.

Well except Alan Dean Fosters Lawyer has said what is in the contract and they have those contracts and they said how it was set up. So yes I can know.

19 hours ago, Nytwyng said:

Unless the acquisition deal specifically transferred ownership without obligation. Please note that I’m not saying the acquisition deal absolutely does contain such terms. I’m saying that the possibility exists, as there’s precedent in the business world, and it’s not unrealistic for a company to want to come out of such an acquisition with as little new financial obligation as possible. (Another possibility, which I’ve heard of happening, is a royalty check showing up with fine print on it that endorsing the check and taking payment finalizes the deal, so no more royalties will be forthcoming. Pretty shady, but it happens. I believe that may be part of the Siegel and Shuster story, if I’m remembering properly.)

If you’ve got access to sources that can verify the acquisition didn’t dismiss the obligation, cool. That makes it pretty cut-and-dried, and would probably be of interest to all of us here. Otherwise, all we can really do is - just like Jeff Trexler from the CBLDF - look at existing precedents and speculate on the kind of clauses that might be involved.

yeah you cant remove the obligation with out renegotiating the contract that specifically says the obligation applies to the people who bought the rights. This is well established contract law. There is a video where this is explained. might be worth watching.

4 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

yeah you cant remove the obligation with out renegotiating the contract that specifically says the obligation applies to the people who bought the rights. This is well established contract law. There is a video where this is explained. might be worth watching.

Meanwhile, the CBLDF threads that I posted yesterday say otherwise.

But, do go on about absolutes.

Just now, Nytwyng said:

Meanwhile, the CBLDF threads that I posted yesterday say otherwise.

But, do go on about absolutes.

If it worked the way you think corporations would just spin up a corporations in order to strip obligations from the rights they purchase. And that would be the end of people selling rights. and poof no more movies based on books. And so on.

Just now, Daeglan said:

If it worked the way you think corporations would just spin up a corporations in order to strip obligations from the rights they purchase. And that would be the end of people selling rights. and poof no more movies based on books. And so on.

“The way I think?”

Are you under the impression that it was me who wrote the CBLDF threads? It was, in fact, Jeff Trexler, a lawyer currently serving as Interim Director of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, an organization largely centered around creators’ rights. So, if you disagree with the information he’s noted, perhaps take it up with him rather than dismissing it as simply “the way I think.”

Or, as noted earlier, if you’ve got access to all contracts involved, go ahead and post them.

26 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Well except Alan Dean Fosters Lawyer has said what is in the contract and they have those contracts and they said how it was set up. So yes I can know.

No, you can know what one party claims to be the case. If that’s all it takes to establish incontrovertible fact, then aren’t both sides to this or any other contract dispute incontrovertibly true? After all, both sides present their perspective as it most benefits them.

Just now, Nytwyng said:

“The way I think?”

Are you under the impression that it was me who wrote the CBLDF threads? It was, in fact, Jeff Trexler, a lawyer currently serving as Interim Director of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, an organization largely centered around creators’ rights. So, if you disagree with the information he’s noted, perhaps take it up with him rather than dismissing it as simply “the way I think.”

Or, as noted earlier, if you’ve got access to all contracts involved, go ahead and post them.

When a contract says it applies to future owners of a company it applies to future owners of a company. Otherwise the contracts would be worthless. What Disney is doing it wrong. And what the comic book lawyer is referring to is work for hire. If a company pays you as an employee to do art that art belongs to the company. If a company contracts you to write a book the contract dictates the terms. 2 very different things.

2 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

When a contract says it applies to future owners of a company it applies to future owners of a company. Otherwise the contracts would be worthless. What Disney is doing it wrong. And what the comic book lawyer is referring to is work for hire. If a company pays you as an employee to do art that art belongs to the company. If a company contracts you to write a book the contract dictates the terms. 2 very different things.

So, show us the contract in question.

(“Comic book lawyer.” Dude...there’s no such thing. He’s a lawyer with extensive experience in ethics and copyright law, who happens to work for an organization centered on the comic industry.)

3 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

So, show us the contract in question.

(“Comic book lawyer.” Dude...there’s no such thing. He’s a lawyer with extensive experience in ethics and copyright law, who happens to work for an organization centered on the comic industry.)

go watch the video with Alan Dean Foster and his lawyer,

4 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

go watch the video with Alan Dean Foster and his lawyer,

Which takes us back to the questions of why you’d expect them to say anything different, and why their take is incontrovertible, but Disney’s can’t be?

Does Disney have a legal obligation to Foster? Neither of us knows. We haven’t seen the contracts involved.

If not, does Disney have an ethical obligation to Foster? A strong argument can certainly be made. It took years, but DC/Warner Brothers finally came around regarding Siegel and Shuster, so maybe there’s hope.

1 minute ago, Nytwyng said:

Which takes us back to the questions of why you’d expect them to say anything different, and why their take is incontrovertible, but Disney’s can’t be?

Does Disney have a legal obligation to Foster? Neither of us knows. We haven’t seen the contracts involved.

If not, does Disney have an ethical obligation to Foster? A strong argument can certainly be made. It took years, but DC/Warner Brothers finally came around regarding Siegel and Shuster, so maybe there’s hope.

So your conclusion is that contract law doesnt have long established rules that cover this and that someone wouldnt be smart enough to hire a lawyer to make sure their contract protects them from this. That is ludicrous.

59 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Well except Alan Dean Fosters Lawyer has said what is in the contract and they have those contracts and they said how it was set up. So yes I can know.

He's not legally bound to tell the truth in public statements. He's also not an infallible god who is unable to make mistakes or be wrong. And if you read carefully, he's not actually saying what it says in Foster's contract.

11 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

So your conclusion is that contract law doesnt have long established rules that cover this and that someone wouldnt be smart enough to hire a lawyer to make sure their contract protects them from this. That is ludicrous.

No, my conclusion is that, as has been noted by at least one lawyer who heads an organization that prioritizes creators’ rights in exactly this type of situation, corporate acquisitions can have some truly astounding variances; that I don’t presume to know whether or not Foster secured representation when two companies he’d done work for in the past (whether directly or indirectly) were sold to a different company at two different times; that neither of us can say with certainty what the terms of the contracts involve say because we haven’t seen them. But one of us is still insisting that one party’s account is the gospel truth, while the other is saying that, without the details, all we’re doing is speculating based on how such things have been seen to work in the past.

Which part is ludicrous?

11 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

So your conclusion is that contract law doesnt have long established rules that cover this and that someone wouldnt be smart enough to hire a lawyer to make sure their contract protects them from this. That is ludicrous.

Are you seriously saying that people who aren't smart enough to hire a lawyer do not exist? And didn't exist in the 70s either?

Just now, micheldebruyn said:

He's not legally bound to tell the truth in public statements. He's also not an infallible god who is unable to make mistakes or be wrong. And if you read carefully, he's not actually saying what it says in Foster's contract.

You are correct it is not. But I do have to point out that one would have to be a certifiable idiot to not hore a lawyer to make sure the contract covers such things. seeing as how we have well established contract law on this. What you are trying to convince people of is that a long established writer would not hire a lawyer to make sure their contract covers such eventualities. I find that silly.

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

You are correct it is not. But I do have to point out that one would have to be a certifiable idiot to not hore a lawyer to make sure the contract covers such things. seeing as how we have well established contract law on this. What you are trying to convince people of is that a long established writer would not hire a lawyer to make sure their contract covers such eventualities. I find that silly.

You are overlooking that this isn't a contract signed in our 21st century, media-savvy world, but in the 1970s. And Foster may be a long-established writer now, but he definitely wasn't in 1976 when he started working for Lucasfilm.

2 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

Are you seriously saying that people who aren't smart enough to hire a lawyer do not exist? And didn't exist in the 70s either?

are you assuming a man with an agent would not have a lawyer look at the contract? At the point he wrote these books he was an already established writer. And sure I could see that happen with a writers first book because they dont know better. But I am calling bull on it happening after his third book. His agent would never allow it to happen because if the author gets cut out so does the agent. As that is how agent contracts work. My girlfriend is a publisher by the way.

5 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

You are overlooking that this isn't a contract signed in our 21st century, media-savvy world, but in the 1970s. And Foster may be a long-established writer now, but he definitely wasn't in 1976 when he started working for Lucasfilm.

incorrect. his first few books is before that. Which means he had an Agent because that is how writing worked back then. Step one get an agent. step 2 the agent sells your manuscript to a publishing house. There is no way an agent would let a contract that did not handle this happen. Because it would also cut them out of their portion of the royalties

He had 8 Star Trek books out before he wrote for star wars.

3 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

My girlfriend is a publisher by the way.

And Jeff Trexler is a lawyer currently heading an organization that, in part, works on creators’ rights cases. Your point?

Just now, Nytwyng said:

And Jeff Trexler is a lawyer currently heading an organization that, in part, works on creators’ rights cases. Your point?

My point is Trexler works for comic books that do not work the same way. Comic books are work for hire. It is a different animal than writing contracts.

2 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

incorrect. his first few books is before that. Which means he had an Agent because that is how writing worked back then. Step one get an agent. step 2 the agent sells your manuscript to a publishing house. There is no way an agent would let a contract that did not handle this happen. Because it would also cut them out of their portion of the royalties

Speaking so authoritatively, you have obviously read:

- Foster’s original contract with LFL that you’ve referred to.

- Foster’s original contract with 20th Century Fox and/or the licensee for whom he wrote the Alien novels in question

- The contracts for Disney’s purchase of Lucasfilm.

- The contracts for Disney’s purchase of 20th Century Fox.

Yes?

4 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

My point is Trexler works for comic books that do not work the same way. Comic books are work for hire. It is a different animal than writing contracts.

You’re letting some prejudice show here. For starters, Trexler has a work history prior to joining the CBLDF. For another, he doesn’t “work for comic books,” but for an organization that focuses on protecting creators’ rights (among other things) within the comics industry. (Are you suggesting these creators - some of whom also work in “writing” - are lesser in the publishing world?) For another, not all comics work is work for hire. (See, for example, the case of Gaiman v McFarlane.) And, for another, some novel work is work for hire.

So, we’ve got more of you speaking in absolutes about subjects you’re not party to, and that aren’t so absolute.

Just now, Nytwyng said:

Speaking so authoritatively, you have obviously read:

- Foster’s original contract with LFL that you’ve referred to.

- Foster’s original contract with 20th Century Fox and/or the licensee for whom he wrote the Alien novels in question

- The contracts for Disney’s purchase of Lucasfilm.

- The contracts for Disney’s purchase of 20th Century Fox.

Yes?

I dont need to. This is well established contract law. You cannot remove the obligation of an existing contract by selling the company. There is legal precedent that establishes these rules and as I said at the time he wrote the novelizations he had already done a lot of work for Star Trek. soo yeah I am pretty sure his contract is fine and covers this eventuality. We dont need to see the contracts. We already know Disney does shady **** with their artists. So why are you giving Disney the benefit of the doubt?