Plus they got a ton of story facts wrong is what they describe happening on gh.

Which ton?

Now THAT's actually worth suing over.

The url's direct you to TOLN...

Also ABC still didn't release the allmychildren.com and onelifetolive.com to PP.... smh

Update just checked they did

Edited April 18, 201312 yr by Silver Lord

Well PP had to have licensed Tea and Blair to them too, so I have to wonder how much of this is about the use of the characters and how much of it is the disrespect that they showed them by not consulting them on storylines and then throwing that Tomas mix into the pot when he was 100% never licensed. I mean, did ABC really think PP wasn't going to get them off the ground? I'm starting to doubt it. They obviously had to talk to Jeff or Frank or someone to get the five characters. And they're saying they wanted storyline input - something they would only want if they intended to resurrect the soaps. And I bet they told ABC, Frank and Ron that. They just didn't listen or care and that's their own [!@#$%^&*] fault, plain and simple.

Some of the actors knew in the summer, and I think if the actors (always the last to know) knew then the network and GH had to know something before then. They were definitely informed in the fall. Yet they did nothing. I just don't think GH wanted to acknowledge it or accept that OLTL could be restored without Ron and Frank - they believed their own online hype. That much is on them, as is flouting the terms of the usage.

I really don't give a [!@#$%^&*] about it until and unless it can be proven that within legal rights, they did in fact violate some sort of control or use terms. It wouldn't surprise me at all, but it also wouldn't surprise me if they didn't and it's too murky to call.

It sounds like GH DID agree to allowing PP story input--and then never made advances to do that, to me. Killing off a character you lease is pretty major.

It's all part of negotiations after the licensing agreement of the 3 was to expire. GH wanted to keep the 3 characters, PP said only if we get to share them and have story input. ABC/GH said "bad idea" and tried to negotiate visits of the characters to LV. That went south, so ABC/GH made the decision to use the performers they had under contract in different roles. No breach there.

Okay. You can keep yelling at me in caps, lady, I'm just having a conversation.

My apologies. It's not my intent to antagonize you or anyone else. I'm more than happy to continue this conversation with you.

If I want to keep my response short and sweet, I will still use the word "baseless" but it won't be in insulting caps. Does that work for you?

Edited April 18, 201312 yr by ChitHappens

The url's direct you to TOLN...

Interesting. They directed to the ABC Daytime page two days ago

Edited April 18, 201312 yr by John

It's all part of negotiations after the licensing agreement of the 3 expired. GH wanted to keep the 3 characters, PP said only if we get to share them and have story input. ABC/GH said "bad idea" and tried to negotiation visits of the characters to LV. That went south, so ABC/GH made the decision to use the performers they had under contract in different roles. No breach there.

But - if they had them, against typical practice, under contract specifically in roles that had to have been very specified under the terms of the licensing agreement, for three years when those characters were only licensed for one year, that is a potential problem.

And you're assuming story control was only a factor recently. No, this recent snafu is just the first time we've heard of it. It is entirely possible they were promised story control and sold a line about how the characters would be used last year, only to turn around and discover this had gone on while they were getting capital and starting up. I can see PP being willing to be amicable about the morass so long as they got a fair shake at the negotiating table, but if not, here we are.

And it's fine if you find it baseless - it may well be. I just don't see a point in repeatedly posting it to me and others like some sort of mantra; you already said so once.

Edited April 18, 201312 yr by Vee

Personally I think PP has it undies in a bunch that they basically lost these actors to ABC well except for Roger and even then it didn't seem like he was interested at first

It's all part of negotiations after the licensing agreement of the 3 was to expire. GH wanted to keep the 3 characters, PP said only if we get to share them and have story input. ABC/GH said "bad idea" and tried to negotiate visits of the characters to LV. That went south, so ABC/GH made the decision to use the performers they had under contract in different roles. No breach there.

OK I guess i misunderstood it. I thought they meant the original license last year said they would have story consultation for these characters--and then ABC killed off two of them without asking PP (in the first week...)

so is this going to prevent you from seeing AMC and OLTL now?

Personally I think PP has it undies in a bunch that they basically lost these actors to ABC well except for Roger and even then it didn't seem like he was interested at first

SOUR GRAPES!!!!!

I somehow doubt Cole and Hope were even licensed characters, but then again, why didn't PP say something a year ago?

so is this going to prevent you from seeing AMC and OLTL now?

Me? no. *confused*

I somehow doubt Cole and Hope were even licensed characters, but then again, why didn't PP say something a year ago?

THIS

ABC knew damn well they were violating the licensing agreement and were warned several times by several different outlets about it but they just kept on and were cocky enough to think they could get away with it.