But PP could choose to ignore the GH story and bring back Tomas as Tomas. Again, it wouldn't be the first time continuity between soaps was ignored.

Oh Yeah but thats not the sticking point for PP. Its that GH used Thomas without permission in the first place.

But PP could choose to ignore the GH story and bring back Tomas as Tomas. Again, it wouldn't be the first time continuity between soaps was ignored.

Khan, not sure if you saw it, but the "story" was for one week, and I seriously doubt the fans will be holding OL 2.0 accountable. Tomas could return, and not one person would care how or why?

Oh Yeah but thats not the sticking point for PP. Its that GH used Thomas without permission in the first place.

You're right in that GH never should have implied Tomas was Alcazar without consulting PP. I wrote what I did before w/o realizing I was echoing Chit and Cheap. But does it count as a breach of contract if Tomas never appeared on-screen? That's my question.

Khan, not sure if you saw it, but the "story" was for one week, and I seriously doubt the fans will be holding OL 2.0 accountable. Tomas could return, and not one person would care how or why?

I did see it.

This argument is 73 types of stupid. Did GH have the rights to Tomas? Maybe not. But in the long run the non-story doesn't affect [!@#$%^&*] nor prevent PP from utilizing the character.

This argument is 73 types of stupid. Did GH have the rights to Tomas? Maybe not. But in the long run the non-story doesn't affect [!@#$%^&*] nor prevent PP from utilizing the character.

However ABC breached its agreement with PP by Using Tomas. That is the point.

This argument is 73 types of stupid. Did GH have the rights to Tomas? Maybe not. But in the long run the non-story doesn't affect [!@#$%^&*] nor prevent PP from utilizing the character.

boy save yourself the hassle and don't even bother

boy save yourself the hassle and don't even bother

Lol I'm just sitting here like It's just not that serious, you and An are right.

Because ABC played dirty. If General Hospital wanted to employ Howarth, Easton and that other one, that's great. Create new characters. But to bring them on as their OLTL characters and then sign them to a contract KNOWING the characters they're playing are licensed to Prospect Park is dirty pool. If ABC went with the plan to create new characters for the actors to begin with, none of this would be happening and Prospect Park wouldn't have a leg to stand on. However, they didn't because ABC wanted to use the OLTL actors and characters to bring the OLTL audience to GH. Yet Prospect Park wants to do the same to bring the OLTL audience back to OLTL and that's wrong?

And as for the "why didn't Prospect Park say anything until now" rhetoric... Are we sure they haven't? Didn't Valentini say something about how Natalie couldn't come over to GH for the John the Deadbeat Father storyline because of legalese surrounding the character and Prospect Park? Maybe that was part of a larger discussion about using the characters on GH. We don't know!

Prospect Park doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the actors. It was stupid of ABC to sign the actors to long term contracts when the characters they were playing are licensed to PP but it does not cause damages to PP and is something that ABC has the legal right to do, it didn't make it difficult for PP to get the characters back just their protrayers.

There's nothing wrong with PP wanting to bring the OLTL audience back to PP, but imo it is wrong to file a lawsuit against ABC over the actors because they have no legal right to the actors services since they have no contract with ME/KA and only a short term one with RH. If PP has said something about the breach of contract when it was happening, it doesn't look like they cared because they could have filed a ceased and desist order and was willing to share the characters, it only became an issue when they "lost" the actors to ABC/GH. I bet that if ABC got RH, ME and KA to agree to make appearances on OLTL in exchange for PP dropping the lawsuit , they would. I believe that is what PP cares about especially since they whine in the lawsuit document about ABC misleading the actors and some of the actors relocating their family to LA to do GH, even though it is none of their business.

Edited April 20, 201312 yr by Crystal_Ann

Ok so its not serious that GH used a OLTL character that wasnt loaned to them? I guess then it would be ok if Gh just stated using the character of Reva Shaye from GL without permission from GL. No it wouldnt. P&G would sue & GH would be at faukt. Same thing here. You cant use a character in story that you dont have the rights to. Plain & simple.

But GH didn't use Tomas. He was never on the show. It caused no long term damage.

Prospect Park doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the actors. It was stupid of ABC to sign the actors to long term contracts when the characters they were playing are licensed to PP but it does not cause damages to PP and the legally had the right to do, it didn't make it difficult for PP from their characters back just their protrayers.

There's nothing wrong with PP wanting to bring the OLTL audience back to PP, but imo it is wrong to file a lawsuit against ABC over the actors because they have no legal right to the actors services since they have no contract with ME/KA and only a short term one with RH. If PP has said something about the breach of contract when it was happening, it doesn't look like they cared because they could have filed a ceased and desist order and was willing to share the characters, it only became an issue when they "lost" the actors to ABC/GH. I bet that if ABC got RH, ME and KA to agree to make appearances on OLTL in exchange for PP dropping the lawsuit , they would. I believe that is what PP cares about especially since they whine in the lawsuit document about ABC misleading the actors and some of the actors relocating their family to LA to do GH, even though it is none of their business.

Its not filed over the actors. Just the roles. PP does state that ABC lied to KA, ME & RH by signing them to long term deals to play their OLTL roles when ABC only had these roles for a year.

John, seriously. What do you care about Tomas? I'm thinking you are as passionate about Tomas as PP was, and we all know that amounts to nothing.

While we are accusing folks of stuff, I'm just gonna say it. I'm seeing, in this thread, quite a bit of bitterness over losing AMC and OLTL, and now that PP is bringing them back, they are just so wonderful so this makes them right in all this. Some of you want the 3 performers back just as much as PP does and might not care about OLTL [as much as you think you do] unless you have them (some of you, not all).

I mean no disrespect at all, but some of this passion is a bit transparent to me. You want ABC nailed for canceling your shows - am I wrong?

Folks, you're missing the point. The rights to the character of TOMAS belonged to PP when GH brought him on as (TAH DAH!) TOMAS!!! That IS BREACH OF CONTRACT and is certainly an upholdable cause of action for a lawsuit. It doesn't matter whether they made him Alcazar or Balthazar, the point is they had no right to use him. PP has ABC on a technicality and like it or not, they are well within their right to sue, which I'm sure the ABC Legal Department already realizes. I know we're soap fans here, but geesh. You're all missing the point. It's not about whether or not John agrees with what PP is doing, it's that they are well within their right to do it.

You're arguing apples vs oranges.

Let me put it in Leigh-men's terms. I own the rights to Sunset Beach and its characters. Days of our Lives decides to bring back Sarah Buxton and reveal that Crystal Galore is really Annie Douglas. Ergo, I can sue Sony/Corday Productions for Breach of Contract because they don't own the rights to the character. It's as simple as that. Get it?

Geesh, I can't stand to read this asinine argument because you're arguing as a soap fan when in reality, it all boils down to a legal issue. Is PP justified in making this choice? That's debatable. But there is no debate on whether or not they are within their legal rights to do it because they ARE. Google Breach of Contract for Pete's Sakes!

Where is Bridget Dobson when I need her? I'm sure she could educate the hell out of this board about this very issue.

Edited April 20, 201312 yr by juniorz1

But GH didn't use Tomas. He was never on the show. It caused no long term damage.

It doesnt matter that he wasnt physically on GH. GH wrote Tomas into an arc that was all about is he Tomas or alcazar & Gh never had the right to do that.. So really it has nothing to do with Tomas' story it has to do with they couldnt legally use that character but they did it anyway.

Folks, you're missing the point. The rights to the character of TOMAS belonged to PP when GH brought him on as (TAH DAH!) TOMAS!!! That IS BREACH OF CONTRACT and is certainly an upholdable cause of action for a lawsuit. It doesn't matter whether they made him Alcazar or Balthazar, the point is they had no right to use him. PP has ABC on a technicality and like it or not, they are well within their right to sue, which I'm sure the ABC Legal Department already realizes. I know we're soap fans here, but geesh. You're all missing the point. It's not about whether or not John agrees with what PP is doing, it's that they are well within their right to do it.

You're arguing apples vs oranges.

Let me put it in Leigh-men's terms. I own the rights to Sunset Beach and its characters. Days of our Lives decides to bring back Sarah Buxton and reveal that Crystal Galore is really Annie Douglas. Ergo, I can sue Sony/Corday Productions for Breach of Contract because they don't own the rights to the character. It's as simple as that. Get it?

Geesh, I can't stand to read this asinine argument because you're arguing as a soap fan when in reality, it all boils down to a legal issue. Is PP justified in making this choice? That's debatable. But there is no debate on whether or not they are within their legal rights to do it because they ARE. Google Breach of Contract for Pete's Sakes!

Where is Bridget Dobson when I need her? I'm sure she could educate the hell out of this board about this very issue.

Thank you. This has been my stance since the beginning. Perfectly said.

Folks, you're missing the point. The rights to the character of TOMAS belonged to PP when GH brought him on as (TAH DAH!) TOMAS!!! That IS BREACH OF CONTRACT and is certainly an upholdable cause of action for a lawsuit. It doesn't matter whether they made him Alcazar or Balthazar, the point is they had no right to use him.

.

did you even watch the show? I ask this bc Tomas was never brought on GH

Do these people not remember that P&G wouldn't give up the rights to Felicia Gallant, so we got stuck with Gretel "Rae" Cummings on an ABC search for her daughter Lorna Skye instead?