Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Soap Opera Network Community

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Prospect Park Sues ABC Over ‘One Life To Live’ & ‘All My Children’ Licensing Agreement

Featured Replies

  • Replies 725
  • Views 52k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Member

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

Tomas physivally doesnt have to be seen on screen cheap. Fact is they wrote an arc with the character at the center of it. ABC had no right to do so. PP never loaned that character to ABC/GH. ABC Breached its contract on that move. Case closed.

  • Member

Oh Moses smell the roses. You're right. GH's writing did nothing to hinder Tomas, who is a useless character and Prospect Park is a bunch of whiny babies.

Are you a Criminal Justice major? A Paralegal? A LAW STUDENT? Clearly F-Ing not.



This prett much sums it up

It's spelt 'pretty.'

LOL This makes me happy that I mostly stay out of the ABC threads and always have. Talk about RABID!



Tomas physivally doesnt have to be seen on screen cheap. Fact is they wrote an arc with the character at the center of it. ABC had no right to do so. PP never loaned that character to ABC/GH. ABC Breached its contract on that move. Case closed.

Thank You. Kinda like they had to get Eileen Davidson's permission to show her picture on DAYS back in the day, no?

  • Member

Tomas physivally doesnt have to be seen on screen cheap. Fact is they wrote an arc with the character at the center of it. ABC had no right to do so. PP never loaned that character to ABC/GH. ABC Breached its contract on that move. Case closed.

yeah yeah, yada yada. You already said this multiple times and it didnt need to be repeated for the umpteenth time as a response to my post which wasn't debating that
  • Member

The longer this thread goes on the more I think ABC and PP cooked this up to watch everyone here go nuts and they're all eating popcorn right now.

  • Member

It was hardly an arc. It was 3 episodes.

an arc is a multple of episodes. 3 is an arc

Edited by John

  • Member

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

It's about rights to a character, not long-term damage. You can't sue because someone damaged your character. You sue because they USED YOUR CHARACTER WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSSION!!!

Brick. Freaking. Walls.

Seriously, it's not that complex of an issue you guys. It's been spelt out in terms of Reva Shayne, Felicia Gallant, and Annie Douglass. Do I need to bring Mason Capwell into this next? Because LORD knows if GH made Cameron be Mason Capwell, Bridget Dobson would be coming at them with a flucking vengeance!

  • Member

It's about rights to a character, not long-term damage. You can't sue because someone damaged your character. You sue because they USED YOUR CHARACTER WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSSION!!!

Brick. Freaking. Walls.

Seriously, it's not that complex of an issue you guys. It's been spelt out in terms of Reva Shayne, Felicia Gallant, and Annie Douglass. Do I need to bring Mason Capwell into this next? Because LORD knows if GH made Cameron be Mason Capwell, Bridget Dobson would be coming at them with a flucking vengeance!

Right the character doesnt have to appear on screen. However Tomas was never on loan to GH, but Gh used Tomas to drive story on GH. That is a breach.

  • Member

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.

It was also filed over the actors (I personally believe it was the only reason). Because they state in the document that ABC encouraged the actors not to cooperate with them and offered them different roles in the middle of PP's negotiations with certain actors, that has nothing to do with the OLTL roles.

  • Member

It was also filed over the actors (I personally believe it was the only reason). Because they state in the document that ABC encouraged the actors not to cooperate with them and offered them different roles in the middle of PP's negotiations with certain actors, that has nothing to do with the OLTL roles.

Well PP cant control the actors so they will lose on that point but PP still has claims that have a lot of merit.

  • Member

Maybe you should stay out of this one too. smile.png

I would, if anyone besides John had any inclination about the law. Instead, you're all arguing over "character damage" as though that is what merits the lawsuits.

Screw your head on, yo. I'm no genius but this is a pretty black and white issue.

The longer this thread goes on the more I think ABC and PP cooked this up to watch everyone here go nuts and they're all eating popcorn right now.

This board truly gives itself too much credit sometimes.

Hogan Sheffer is stealing our story ideas.

Prospect Park is suing so SON can get 10,000 hits and have 6 posters uttering the same inane arguments that have no basis in the real issue.

Sorry Carl, but just no. SON isn't even a blip on the radar of this suit.

It was also filed over the actors (I personally believe it was the only reason). Because they state in the document that ABC encouraged the actors not to cooperate with them and offered them different roles in the middle of PP's negotiations with certain actors, that has nothing to do with the OLTL roles.

Oh for Pete's sake, nobody is arguing about the reason. I'm sure there's a MYRIAD of reasons that they're doing this. Who gives a s.hit?

The point being made is that they are well within their legal rights to do so, arc or no arc, character damage or no character damage, character appearance or character written into storyline.

Edited by juniorz1

  • Member

It's about rights to a character, not long-term damage. You can't sue because someone damaged your character. You sue because they USED YOUR CHARACTER WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSSION!!!

It seems pretty simple to me. There are authors who go after fanfic writers who use their characters. This is just the same situation writ large.

  • Member

I'm really enjoying this clusterfvck of a situation. I love it when there's no one to root for, because the bottom line is, both parties are behaving like spoiled children.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.