And Friedman himself doesn't exactly have the highest reputation--I think in this case there is some sort of sour grapes (especially bringing in the fact that Kwatinetz briefly dated a troubled, dead, starlet--and this has to do with anything, why?) Funny, it's been over 9 hours and my polite comment (pointing out that PP did exactly what he suggested, trying to negotiate a deal for essentially crossovers) still has not been approved. Hrmm.

Not sure what was said in relation to GL on OLTL, but if Tad said Liza moved to Springfield, I don't see a problem with it. Springfield could be Springfield from The Simpsons or any number of towns in the US or beyond. If they said she specifically lives in the same town as Reva Shayne and Josh Lewis, then there would be something there.

There wouldn't be a problem with it. HOWEVER, if he said that Liza was actually posing as "Tangie Hill" in Springfield while she was away, there would be a problem.

I still don't see how you guys aren't freaking getting this!

ETA: And Errol, yes, I do realize that we are in agreement and I was merely quoting your post and specifying the difference in simpler terms.

Edited April 21, 201312 yr by juniorz1

I get it, I just think it's stupid.

Its not petty for PP to protect the investments they paid millond into. ABC is petty here. Wanting to still have control as PP pays all the money and ABC doesnt. However ABC still profits. That is so ABC shady.

That's a matter of personal opinion. It could appear petty but it could also be an attempt to set a precedent for future negotiations with these shows. If you let someone off the hook or roll over you one time, they'll think they can do it again. You view it as petty. I view it as strategic. Then again, you're sick with Horse Flu, so we know your views are a little wonky lately.

That to me is why they filed. PP tried to work it out but ABC wouldnt. So PP filed the suit.

^^^YES TO ALL OF THIS! Thank GOD people with some sense started chiming in on this thread. I was beginning to think that this argument that is completely invalid and pointless was going to go on and on forever. It's so damn basic that it's mind-boggling watching the rampant speculation. Business majors, lawyers, criminal justice majors, and paralegals clearly aren't watching ABCDaytime (shocker! I've been to SSW- it was like a Target and Whistle Pig convention combined!).

I get it, I just think it's stupid.

Obviously you don't own the rights to something, nor have paid for those rights, or you might not think it so petty. They're filing suit to set precedent instead of allowing ABC to have their cake and eat it too. It's a smart business tactic that shows they're thinking long-term. It's the only way to nip this in the bud before ABC starts taking more creative liberaties that they aren't legally allowed to take anymore.

^^^YES TO ALL OF THIS! Thank GOD people with some sense started chiming in on this thread. I was beginning to think that this argument that is completely invalid and pointless was going to go on and on forever. It's so damn basic that it's mind-boggling watching the rampant speculation. Business majors, lawyers, criminal justice majors, and paralegals clearly aren't watching ABCDaytime (shocker! I've been to SSW- it was like a Target and Whistle Pig convention combined!).

To be fair, early on the thread myself and a few others did point out that PP's had a legal basis for suit before giving up and ducking out. I mean, for goodness sake how long can one continue a debate when the opposition refuses to recognize that it has no basis for its position? Kudos to John for his persistence though.

I have noticed ABC has already started to respond to the allegations in PP's lawsuit. The Web site situation was quickly addressed and now OLTL and AMC actors are appearing on The View. It will be interesting to see what ABC does next.

Edited April 21, 201312 yr by Ann_SS

Here's my final word on the matter: Vee is right. Party on.

Here's my final word on the matter: Vee is right. Party on.

LOL....

I think what it boils down to is we're speaking about different things (and going in endless circles, but that's not new for this forum )

While I think ABC is being petty *as well as* PP, that's a personal thing. But they *do* have a legal case. A lot of valid leagl cases are even stupider (much much more) than this. But they still have a case. The end.

Well then since ABC owns PC and GH they can sue themselves if they want to. Sounds fun. I don't think that's possible, but if it is somehow then--they have a valid case!

It doesn't matter whether anyone is being "petty" or reacting "too late" in the opinion of SON posters. Our opinions and personal feelings and what may or may not have motivated any party in this lawsuit have absolutely no real-world relevance to the case. No amount of frothing at the mouth and heated tempers is going to change that.

It doesn't matter whether or not they did any lasting damage to the Tomas character or any other from OLTL, like Cole or Hope, Tea and Victor's child, Natalie and Clint, etc. or whether that can all be easily undone. It can, but that is not the point or the issue.

The issue is: GH allegedly did it all outside the purview of their agreement with PP. They agreed to a certain limited usage of certain characters (Todd, John, Starr, Blair, Tea, Cole, Hope) within certain parameters, and then they did everything else - like going forward with major storylines on their own, or referencing Clint and Natalie and creating their offscreen attitudes and ongoing actions, choices attributed to them without their being cleared for use by PP. Or killing off three characters without getting clearance for that from PP, or playing around with Tomas's identity and sending him off to Narnia without clearing use of him (offscreen or otherwise) with PP. That is why they are culpable and that is why they are in the wrong.

It doesn't matter whether you or I care about all of these characters, or whether what was done to them is easy enough to roll back. The point is they apparently had no right to do it. It doesn't matter how we feel. It doesn't matter if it's "petty". All that matters is the letter of the law.

GH clearly believed it wouldn't matter and that they could get away with anything and everything extra-normal outside the initial agreement because pfft, they had Ron and Frank who know and love OLTL and OLTL would never really come back, right? Who cares? But they were wrong, and now they get to own it.

Exactly what Vee said. That's why arguments (like the pretty inane linked one above) are, frankly, irrelevant. A court case like this isn't about opinion (and frankly the argument that any damage can be rectified by undoing a story, while true, strikes me as disingenous for a soap fan to say, when the same soap fans more often than not complain about how soaps should no longer do back from the dead stories, etc...)

That's why most of the angry soap bloggers, Bibel, etc. are wasting their time pooh-poohing the complaint and saying how easy it is to fix. Of course it's easy. That is not the issue. The issue is that GH did what it wanted with OLTL property outside the scope of their legal agreement because they felt they could get away with it, because they felt PP would never return and RC and FV were as good as any executors of the show's estate. Unfortunately the legalities, and reality didn't work that way.

Yes, yes, yes, yes!! To all of this!! Thank you all for jumping into this thread and putting an end to the insanity.

To be fair, early on the thread myself and a few others did point out that PP's had a legal basis for suit before giving up and ducking out. I mean, for goodness sake how long can one continue a debate when the opposition refuses to recognize that it has no basis for its position? Kudos to John for his persistence though.

I have noticed ABC has already started to respond to the allegations in PP's lawsuit. The Web site situation was quickly addressed and now OLTL and AMC actors are appearing on The View. It will be interesting to see what ABC does next.

I saw you peeking in the thread earlier today and was hoping you'd chime in, but I guess you had already tried. To be fair, I couldn't stomach reading all 29 pages of this crap because I skipped about 20 when I realized this thread was going in circles. When it comes to issues like these, which are black and white and are grounded 100% in reality, there are certain posters on this board I can generally count on to chime in and speak the truth. You are one of them, and some of the others that posted the same very basic black and white issue are among them. Unfortunately, some of them have gone the way of the P&G soaps.

It doesn't matter whether anyone is being "petty" or reacting "too late" in the opinion of SON posters. Our opinions and personal feelings and what may or may not have motivated any party in this lawsuit have absolutely no real-world relevance to the case. No amount of frothing at the mouth and heated tempers is going to change that.

It doesn't matter whether or not they did any lasting damage to the Tomas character or any other from OLTL, like Cole or Hope, Tea and Victor's child, Natalie and Clint, etc. or whether that can all be easily undone. It can, but that is not the point or the issue.

The issue is: GH allegedly did it all outside the purview of their agreement with PP. They agreed to a certain limited usage of certain characters (Todd, John, Starr, Blair, Tea, Cole, Hope) within certain parameters, and then they did everything else - like going forward with major storylines on their own, or referencing Clint and Natalie and creating their offscreen attitudes and ongoing actions, choices attributed to them without their being cleared for use by PP. Or killing off three characters without getting clearance for that from PP, or playing around with Tomas's identity and sending him off to Narnia without clearing use of him (offscreen or otherwise) with PP. That is why they are culpable and that is why they are in the wrong.

It doesn't matter whether you or I care about all of these characters, or whether what was done to them is easy enough to roll back. The point is they apparently had no right to do it. It doesn't matter how we feel. It doesn't matter if it's "petty". All that matters is the letter of the law.

GH clearly believed it wouldn't matter and that they could get away with anything and everything extra-normal outside the initial agreement because pfft, they had Ron and Frank who know and love OLTL and OLTL would never really come back, right? Who cares? But they were wrong, and now they get to own it.

See, that's just it. You cannot contribute to your own "damage" and expect to be rewarded. "Reacting too late" is a big deal. A very big deal. Again, PP allowed ABC/GH to continue "harming" them because they thought something was in it for them (if you are being harmed and can stop it, you have an obligation to do so...not keep quiet and negotiate another deal). Can PP bring this to court? Absolutely! The bigger question is, why would they? While ABC might have breached, it was not that big of a deal because PP did nothing to stop it as long as they benefited. They didn't so to court we go.

Facts:

PP currently owns the rights to the 3 characters (and the other 4 who they really don't give 2 chits about)

PP did NOT have to negotiate with GH about anything. They chose to!

GH determined that sharing the characters long term would be a bad idea and broke off negotiations.

The 3 performers are contracted with ABC and will return to GH as different characters, w/in their right to do and w/in ABC's rights to hire them.

PP enforced a cease and desist in February and ordered that GH refrain from using the 3 in any way shape or form after March xx, 2013, GH acquiesced

Opinions:

GH wronged PP

PP wronged GH

Scenario:

Vee unexpectedly comes home in the middle of the afternoon to find Marceline's 20th Century Painting at his (Vee, you're a guy, right) house with the intent to paint the house. So far, they only paint the front door a nice light green that really blends with the neighborhood. The house is pretty big. Vee pulls into the drive way because he knows he contracted no one to paint the house. V discovers that these people s/b next door painting the neighbor's house. Vee says nothing because he's been meaning to get around to painting the house anyhow, but due to the economy, postponed it. Vee returns home 7 hours later only to see that not only did Marceline's crew paint the house a lovely light green, but there are brown cows with pink polka dots painted over the green. It's truly hideous and embarrassing. Vee files a suit against M20CP for the cost to have the house stripped and repainted.

Vee will only be compensated for the door, if that, because he could have stopped M20CP from harming him but didn't because he could have gained from the paint job (as long as his presence was not acknowledged at the house during the project).

This scenario is not about contracts or breach but about damages. Anyone can file a suit, but not everyone is entitled to a reward.

Are ABC a bunch of low lifes? Absolutely! I didn't watch AMC when Jesse and Angie returned because it happened to coincide with the "Return of The Real Greenlee" campaign which I found to be one of the most heinous things on Daytime. Closely followed by Tracy Melchoir (ex Kelly) filming on the set of OLTL as her replacement, Heather Tom, is being escorted around the set to meet her new co-workers. TM said she was physically ill and didn't even bother to show up for her last day. Who does that to someone?

However, PP and ABC/GH were playing the same game, but ABC happens to be a bit better at it. PP should drop this part of the lawsuit and just go with the damn URLs and the ads.

Edited April 21, 201312 yr by ChitHappens

No they should Not, GH used a OLTL character that was not on loan to them. They can sue for that and should. it's a matter of principle. Someone creates something and then someone else uses it without permission, but just because that someone says I meant you harm, the creator shouldnt sue? BULL [!@#$%^&*]

Edited April 21, 201312 yr by John

No they should Not GH used a OLTL character that was not on loan to them. They can sue for that and should. END!!!

Baseless!

It is not baseless. GH used Tomas who OLTL never loaned to GH. That is Breach. Its Plain & Simple,

Baseless!

Hope your on ABC's legal team then. Since the word baseless seems to be your only retort

Edited April 21, 201312 yr by John

It is not baseless. GH used Tomas who OLTL never loaned to GH. That is Breach. Its Plain & Simple,

Hope your on ABC's legal team then. Since the word baseless seems to be your only retort

John, honey, what does "END" mean to you? To me it means done, over and out. Why do you continue coming at me when you are supposedly done?

Dang, why are people getting so PRESSED over this?

Vee unexpectedly comes home in the middle of the afternoon to find Marceline's 20th Century Painting at his (Vee, you're a guy, right) house with the intent to paint the house. So far, they only paint the front door a nice light green that really blends with the neighborhood. The house is pretty big. Vee pulls into the drive way because he knows he contracted no one to paint the house. V discovers that these people s/b next door painting the neighbor's house. Vee says nothing because he's been meaning to get around to painting the house anyhow, but due to the economy, postponed it. Vee returns home 7 hours later only to see that not only did Marceline's crew paint the house a lovely light green, but there are brown cows with pink polka dots painted over the green. It's truly hideous and embarrassing. Vee files a suit against M20CP for the cost to have the house stripped and repainted.

Vee will only be compensated for the door, if that, because he could have stopped M20CP from harming him but didn't because he could have gained from the paint job (as long as his presence was not acknowledged at the house during the project).

This made me laugh so hard it gave me an asthma attack.