Film Academy Sues Family Of Oscar Winner For Selling Trophy On Ebay

from the death-is-no-escape! dept

The Motion Picture Academy is notorious for being quite litigious, particularly when it comes to anything to do with the Oscars. Hell, even websites essentially promoting the Oscars get sued by the Academy, because why the hell not? And don't you dare try to sell your tickets to the Oscars on the secondary market. But even with all of that, I wouldn't have expected to see the Academy assert that they own the award hardware they hand out to Oscar winners, including after the death of those winners. Confused? Check this out.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has lined up a new lawsuit, painting the picture of a cinematographer's heir who ignored bylaws by selling a statuette on eBay. The statuette was awarded in 1953 to Robert Surtees for excellence in black-and-white cinematography for the film, The Bad and the Beautiful, which starred Kirk Douglas and Lana Turner. More than 60 years later, the Film Academy is in court after Carol Surtees allegedly auctioned the statuette for $40,500. The Academy makes its members agree that it has a "right of first refusal" if the statuettes are ever sold. To prevent a black market for the famous trophies, the Academy believes itself entitled to purchase the statuettes for $10 in the event they are ever sold.
Carol was the wife of Bruce Surtees, who in turn was the son of Oscar winner Robert Surtees. In other words, the Oscar statuette from 1953 had been passed down to Carol after her husband and father-in-law had both passed away. She's the widow of the winner's son. The point of me driving this home is that, even if we pretend that it makes sense for the Academy to be able to claim that an item worth thousands of dollars must first be offered to them for the price of 2/3 of a ticket to one of their movies, that agreement would have been with the award winner, not his or her heirs. In this case, the statuette had been passed on twice thanks to the grim reaper doing his thing. In what world does it makes sense for Carol Surtees to have to follow bylaws to which she never agreed?

Not that this lack of logic is keeping the Academy from suing for every last dollar she got for the statuette. You can read the full lawsuit [pdf and embedded below].
The Academy alleges that it sent a letter to Surtees on December 5, spoke on the phone with her on December 12, and despite reminders about the right of first refusal, the auction happened on or about that latter day. She's now being sued for breach of contract. The lawsuit also names John Does, who are being sued for alleged tortious interference. The Academy demands at least $40,500 in compensatory damages, punitive damages, and an order that the Oscar be put in a constructive trust, among other demanded relief.
I just can't seem to grasp how someone can be in breach of a contract to which they were not party. The Academy can assert they have these rights all they want, but I can't seem to find any reference to why those rights should exist with respect to Carol Surtees.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 17 Dec 2014 @ 7:19pm

    Small suggestion

    Might I suggest they change the award from whatever it is now, to a large, gold plated hand, middle finger raised? You know, just to make it perfectly clear what their stance is towards the recipients.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      twinsdad9901 (profile), 17 Dec 2014 @ 9:13pm

      Re: Small suggestion

      Maybe they think the statue is covered by copyright. That would make it life plus 70 years, clearly still in that range.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2014 @ 9:22pm

        Re: Re: Small suggestion

        They aren't reproducing it. It was akin to a gift at the time it was awarded so I would think the first sale doctrine would apply.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2014 @ 9:23pm

        Re: Re: Small suggestion

        It's not a copyright violation to sell an item that has copyrighted elements or else you'd never be able to resell your old ABBA CDs at the music store. The only exceptional circumstance would be a contractual right of first refusal, which would only apply to parties of the original contract.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 17 Dec 2014 @ 11:28pm

      Re: Small suggestion

      Remember this whenever they claim to be trampling everybody else's rights for the sake of the people working in the industry. These are the people voted their brightest and best, and this is the treatment they give even them...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      leehb9 (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 5:42am

      Re: Small suggestion

      I love this idea! This aught to be the logo of the MPAA!
      Middle-Finger-UP it is!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rob McMillin, 17 Dec 2014 @ 9:08pm

    AMPAS legal terms

    I understand that the Academy includes in its terms and conditions as part of the award a clause that gives them right of first refusal of any sale. That they are suing is a consequence of a contractual matter, and not mere litigiousness. (I believe this is not in effect for very old Oscars, before 1935 or so.)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2014 @ 9:19pm

      Re: AMPAS legal terms

      That they are suing is a consequence of their lawyers not understanding (or understanding and intentionally ignoring) that the terms of a contract can't be enforced against a non-party to the contract. Thus, it is merely litigious.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 17 Dec 2014 @ 11:16pm

      Re: AMPAS legal terms

      "That they are suing is a consequence of a contractual matter"

      This is stated in the article. The question is why the person who is being sued, who signed no such contract, is party to its terms.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2014 @ 11:57pm

      Re: AMPAS legal terms

      They might run into a little problem however, as it can't possibly be a contractual matter as there has never been a contract between them and the wife of the son of a dude they gave it to.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      G Thompson (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 1:18am

      Re: AMPAS legal terms

      A non party to a contract cannot be sued for any non performance or non compliance to that contract.

      This is absolutely established law and no matter how the Academy tries to spin it they are still beholden to that. Otherwise I for one will now create a contract with Donald Duck and sue Disney for there non compliance.

      Whether the Academy has within the terms of the contract this condition is absolutely moot in this instance.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Rekrul, 18 Dec 2014 @ 9:58am

        Re: Re: AMPAS legal terms

        A non party to a contract cannot be sued for any non performance or non compliance to that contract.

        This is absolutely established law and no matter how the Academy tries to spin it they are still beholden to that. Otherwise I for one will now create a contract with Donald Duck and sue Disney for there non compliance.

        Whether the Academy has within the terms of the contract this condition is absolutely moot in this instance.


        The strategy isn't to win in court, the strategy is to bully her into settling via the threat of a costly legal battle.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          G Thompson (profile), 19 Dec 2014 @ 9:49pm

          Re: Re: Re: AMPAS legal terms

          Absolutely correct, though this is just another absolute example of why the US sorely needs tort reform to the point of having a "Loser pays" system.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    mr. sim (profile), 17 Dec 2014 @ 9:16pm

    can she legally be held to a contract she wasn't a party too? i think not but then the courts bend over backwards for these hollywood criminals.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 17 Dec 2014 @ 9:38pm

    Can they show us her signature on the contract?

    I wonder what people might think to know that the Oscars think an Oscar is only worth $10, I think that takes a bit of shine off of such a cheap shitty award.

    You were so outstanding in your field we gave you this $10 trinket. It is such an honor to know all of my descendants will be hounded forever by these idiots over their $10 trophy, despite them GIVING it to me. Something something racially insensitive givers.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2014 @ 9:52pm

    "The lawsuit also names John Does, who are being sued for alleged tortious interference."

    So who are these people who they allege intentionally interfered with their contract? The ebay buyers? Ebay itself? Whoever advised Mrs. Surtees that she was not bound by a contract made with her late father in law, and well within her rights to sell the cheap trinket to whoever was foolish enough to pay big bucks for it?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2014 @ 10:08pm

    She now has to pay to defend herself. That's probably where most of the $40k will be headed. sad.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    RR, 17 Dec 2014 @ 10:13pm

    Who owns it?

    Maybe the original recipient had to agree to never pass ownership to anyone who didn't also agree to the policy.

    When I bought my house the contract said I had to join the HOA, and that I couldn't sell the house without putting the same requirement in the contract for the next owner. I don't remember what happens if my kids inherit the house, or the bank gets it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 12:06am

      Re: Who owns it?

      You can't sign a contract that enforces terms on other people though. If you agree not to not pass on your house/trophy without including the same terms for the next person, but do so anyway (via the pesky business of dying, for example), that again just makes you the one they have a case against, not the recipient.

      Signing a contract that says "Anyone I give this to is bound by the same contract I am signing" doesn't make any sense.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 9:01am

        Re: Re: Who owns it?

        Actually you can, but that generally is only enforceable on real property (legal term, meaning land). That's because the restrictions are placed on the deed, so even if the bank get's the house, the restrictions are still on the deed.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      art guerrilla (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 5:53am

      Re: Who owns it?

      well, in all likelihood, the terms of the covenant of your subdivision specify you must belong to the HOA...
      so, it IS part of the contract for sale for anyone who buys within that subdivision...

      in general, HOA SUCK big time... had to do it over, NO WAY i would have bought our property with the idiots who run the association...
      (picture petty asshole neighbors who team up with lawyers who are salivating because they 'earn' THOUSANDS of dollars filing liens, etc over $200 dues in arrears... yes, you heard right, we spent THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of dollars to hound one of our 'neighbors' to death over a couple hundred dollars not paid... about 3-4 fucktards out of the 15 properties make life miserable for everyone, but we can't get enough people involved to vote them out...)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 3:12pm

      Re: Who owns it?

      That's your first mistake. Buying a house that's in a HOA group. No freeken way would I have ever done such a thing. Talking about having few rights to do what you like with your own house or yard.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Sheogorath (profile), 19 Dec 2014 @ 9:18am

        Re: Re: Who owns it?

        You can't do whatever you want with your own house even if it's not in an HOA group. For example, there's an Autistic kid not allowed to keep his therapy animal because zoning laws say that Vietnamese pot bellied pigs are livestock when most people would consider them to be pets. Luckily for the boy, he's got a city councillor on his side, who's trying to change the definition of the above stated breed of pigs in the zoning laws or, failing that, to make an exception for therapy animals.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 1 Jan 2015 @ 2:33pm

          Re: Re: Re: Who owns it?

          Might want to check the ADA. As long as the animal is declared a service animal it should be exempt, anyways.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            best actor in a bleeding role (profile), 18 Jun 2015 @ 1:10pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Who owns it?

            I have been enjoying your comments on this subject. I know someone who has one of these post 1950 and with no contract, not a member of the academy. She has no intention of selling, wonder what they would do if she did and what it could be worth.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DOlz (profile), 17 Dec 2014 @ 10:36pm

    Perhaps I misunderstood

    I always thought the right of first refusal meant that if you matched the price being offered then you got to buy it. So if they had been willing to match the top bid of $40,500 they would have gotten it.

    If they say you have to give them the first chance to buy if at a price of their choosing, then that’s not the right of first refusal it’s returning a security deposit.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      David (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 5:52am

      Re: Perhaps I misunderstood

      I am not sure this is true, but the real fact is that they apparently knew it was on eBay when the auction was still live. If they wanted it that badly, why didn't they just outbid everyone?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 9:22am

        Re: Re: Perhaps I misunderstood

        They did bid , but they lost , this is just a sore loser attempt and stealing the glory.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 8:52am

      Re: Perhaps I misunderstood

      That's mostly correct. What the Acadamy is actually suing for is an option contract with price set at time of contract. However there was no separate consideration, so they will likely lose on those grounds.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Carl, 17 Dec 2014 @ 10:53pm

    Number of Oscar Winners

    I counted them according to the Wikipedia Article.

    Assuming that every year there was exactly one Oscar for each category offered on that year, and that all are still somewhere, there are 1877 Oscars currently in circulation (since 1928).

    Fore comparison, there have been 889 Nobel Laureates (sharing 567 prizes amongst themselves) since 1901.

    Just for the curious

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2014 @ 11:05pm

    Hi I'm from SF and I work in the tech industry. I hate LA and all the people that work there in the entertainment business.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Peter, 17 Dec 2014 @ 11:11pm

    Succession - imposing obligations

    It is conceivable that the Film Academy has a clause in its contracts, according to which successors/heirs have to become bound to the terms and conditions of the contract. This is a standard clause for certain matters where succession/inheritance can be an issue in the future. I am, however, not sure what happens, if the original contracting party does not bind his or her successors/heirs to the terms and conditions of the original contract.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JoeCool (profile), 17 Dec 2014 @ 11:22pm

      Re: Succession - imposing obligations

      It's obvious what happens then - they dig up their corpse and sue them!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      G Thompson (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 1:22am

      Re: Succession - imposing obligations

      They could bind there immediate heirs to such a contract, though its highly questionable and bound to be looked at under frustration.

      Though they cannot bind heirs of heirs (non immediate) to any contract no matter what. The Estate fell to the son, the son died. Instant termination of all contracts in original Estate.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 6:14am

      Re: Succession - imposing obligations

      It is conceivable that the Film Academy would like to have a clause in its contracts, according to which successors/heirs have to become bound

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anon, 18 Dec 2014 @ 8:30am

      Re: Succession - imposing obligations

      >It is conceivable that the Film Academy has a clause in its contracts, according to which successors/heirs have to become bound to the terms and conditions of the contract. This is a standard clause for certain matters where succession/inheritance can be an issue in the future. I am, however, not sure what happens, if the original contracting party does not bind his or her successors/heirs to the terms and conditions of the original contract.

      That's the $40,000 question (or the $10 question). Did the stipulation have a clause passing the obligation on to heirs? Is such a restriction legal?

      Also, in what way is this a contract? It's a gift. A contract requires quid pro quo, tit for tat; in return for getting the Oscar, the recipient also has to give the Academy something of value. Otherwise, it's one-sided, it's a gift. Without a tat, the Academy are just being tits.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        ANON, 18 Dec 2014 @ 8:57am

        Re: Re: Succession - imposing obligations

        IANAL but...

        Isn't there a thing in law that says if a term or condition does not have any reasonable extinguishment time, it is invalid? Perpetual contract clauses are not allowed. Everything must end at a roughly foreseeable time... (i.e. 99 years after the death of your youngest child at the time this contract was signed.)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Adam (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 10:59am

      Re: Succession - imposing obligations

      It has been years since I took any law course and I never completed any law degree or become a lawyer, but I do remember some part about rules against perpetuities. I think it was 21 years after the death of the original contract holder or something like that.

      So the requirement could be valid against the estate and holders of that property for 21 years, but he died in '85 and it has gone through a secondary estate so I don't think they have any valid claim, but I could always be wrong.

      But ignoring those facts it is still ridiculous in my opinion that they are trying to force this type of an issue and make this woman fight them in court over an award they gave to a man over 60 years ago.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Zinc Whiskers (profile), 17 Dec 2014 @ 11:28pm

    Sorry...I'm with the Academy on this one. Selling your father-in-laws' Oscar is just tacky.

    Next we'll have people selling their Nobel prizes...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Scote, 17 Dec 2014 @ 11:31pm

    "It's obvious what happens then - they dig up their corpse and sue them!"

    That could be who the John Does in the suit are :-0

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 1:00am

    She really ought to consider trying to get the statue back by refunding the money to the buyer - and then melting the statue down very publicly.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 2:12am

    Hollywood: where greed reigns supreme

    Just like spammers and other sociopaths, these are people who would sell their own children to violent sexual predators -- as long as the price was right. All the legal language, all the BS press releases, all the lies spouted by their spokespeople are just cover for their one and only agenda: make as much money as possible, and screw anyone who gets ripped off, damaged, hurt, or killed in the process.

    There are Mexican drug cartels with higher ethical standards than this filth.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      David, 18 Dec 2014 @ 2:43am

      Re: Hollywood: where greed reigns supreme

      Just like spammers and other sociopaths, these are people who would sell their own children to violent sexual predators -- as long as the price was right.

      They'd sell for a percentage of the profits and would sue if the buyer refused lucrative snuff video offers.

      Heck, those are the kind of people who'd let their daughters marry Dick Cheney.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Capt ICE Enforcer, 18 Dec 2014 @ 3:29am

    Here is what the contract states.

    Congratulations Sir/Ma'am,
    You have won the right to lease our award until death. Upon which our TOS agreement shall end and you will mail back the trophy in mint condition. Your rebate check of $10 will be sent in 6-8 weeks. We appreciate you choosing our service over the competition. Like us on Yelp, and Facebook to receive our custom dual ply trophy protection (TP) wipe.

    V/R,
    The Academy
    (Not the one from XMen)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      David (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 5:57am

      Re: Here is what the contract states.

      My guess is that the contract is not at the time you receive the award, but when you sign up with the academy (if you don't you are not eligible for awards...)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 5:08am

    seems to me they got some hints from how the Olympic Games is run and how the Olympic Committee behaves! if there is a chance of a law suit, take it. it would be real good to see this go to court and the Film Academy get shot down in flames!!
    does copyright (and patent law) law need totally scrapping and starting again in a much more open, sensible and C21 way or what?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 7:56am

      Re:

      This particular case isn't even copyright or patent law. It's contract law. The one aspect of the mentality that's lead to current copyright/patent laws (the control everything you've ever made aspect) certainly is driving it, but it's a straight up attempt to claim breach of contract.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 5:51am

    Somebody needs a better law firm and a better PR firm.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    scotts13 (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 7:10am

    Not about the money

    I doubt very much the Academy is concerned with the $40k. It's more like preserving the dignity of the institution; after all, selling family heirlooms on eBay IS kinda tacky. But, as I well know, sometimes you have to do unpleasant things. We know nothing of the financial circumstances of the heirs. Nor do we know the substance of any agreements between the Academy and the original recipient. It's vaguely possible there was an agreement that, like some other awards, grants only possession, not ownership.

    What we DO know is, it's in incredibly poor taste to publicly sue the heirs. if they were REALLY interested in dignity, they would have made a behind-the-scenes offer equivalent to the eBay selling price. Smooth move, Academy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      DOlz (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 7:21am

      "I doubt very much the Academy is concerned with the $40k. It's more like preserving the dignity of the institution …”

      Have you ever watched an Academy awards show?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 8:47am

      Re: Not about the money

      "It's more like preserving the dignity of the institution"

      Wait a minute -- when did the Oscars become dignified??

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 12:54pm

      Re: Not about the money

      It's more like preserving the dignity of the institution; after all, selling family heirlooms on eBay IS kinda tacky.

      If so, as the saying goes 'YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!'.

      Selling an award on Ebay may be 'tacky', and potentially damaging to the 'dignity of the institution', but it doesn't even come close to the hit to their dignity they've suffered from suing the descendant of the award.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 1:22pm

      Re: Not about the money

      It may not be the $40k per se, but it is definitely about money--anybody, anywhere, making any money off of anything that ever had anything to do with the Academy, intensely bothers their sense of entitlement if they aren't getting a cut.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Yes, I know I'm commenting anonymously, 18 Dec 2014 @ 7:32am

    The Ten Dollar Case

    If the Academy values the statue at $10, then their damages cannot rise above $10.
    Unfortunately, I do not see this case progressing that far.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Lance (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 8:42am

    In the future...

    I believe that the Film Academy will shift from giving the statue, with the understanding that they retain the "right of first refusal", and instead declare that they are bestowing upon the recipient "a non-transferable license to hold, display or otherwise use" the statue. There will probably be additional language that allows them to revoke said license for whatever reason they come up with.

    That will do away with any of this nasty concept that the individual actually owns the item in question.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 8:54am

    The Acadamy also should have intervened during probate and claimed the right then. They lost that right when they did not contest the transfer to his heir then.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 9:25am

    They'll be even more surprised when they find out the Oscar has been sold to a porn producer , with some very interesting plans for Oscar.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    mattshow (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 9:45am

    I actually think they do have a case to be made here, although I'd have framed it as a property law issue. When the Academy gave Robert Surtees the statute, they didn't give it to him outright. They gave it to him subject to a right of first refusal. He can only pass on the rights he has, which means when he died and the statute passed on to his heirs, it passed on subject to that same right of first refusal.

    But instead these lawyers have framed it as a contract law issue. That just seems odd to me. They may ultimately argue the property law issue but if that was their strategy, they certainly didn't make it clear in this claim.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 10:19am

      Re:

      OK, but if we frame it as a property law issue, then they can't actually sue the family for anything except possession of the statue. The family is not obligated to make the offer to the studio, the estate is. That the estate failed to do so would be an error, but one that would be corrected by suing the estate itself, not the family. It seems to me the largest penalty the family could incur would be an order to relinquish possession of the statue.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        mattshow (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 11:42am

        Re: Re:

        The argument would go: The estate didn't have the right to dispose of the statute without first giving the Academy the right of first refusal. So when they purported to transfer possession of the statute to the heirs, no actual rights to the statute were transferred. Then when the family disposed of the statute, without having any rights to it, there's a conversion claim there.

        Besides, maybe an order for possession of the statute is all they want. If you look at the prayer for relief, one of the things they ask for is a chance to buy the statue for $10. To me, that means their real goal in this lawsuit is not getting money but recovering the statute.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          John Fenderson (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 12:29pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "So when they purported to transfer possession of the statute to the heirs, no actual rights to the statute were transferred"

          Right, which would mean that the sole liability of the heirs would be that they have to fork over the statue. There would be no basis for monetary penalties of any sort from them.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            mattshow (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 12:49pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Where are you getting this idea that the sole liability of the heirs will be to give back the statute? The claim alleges the statute has been sold on eBay. The heir sold something they didn't have the right to sell, they can absolutely be liable for monetary damages.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              mattshow (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 12:59pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I guess that should say "IF the heir sold something they didn't have the right to sell". The claim doesn't seem too sure about what exactly happened to the statute, and I'm not saying my argument is absolutely watertight. I just think that there's enough going on here that we can't just throw our hands up and say "PRIVITY OF CONTRACT" and be done with it.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              John Fenderson (profile), 19 Dec 2014 @ 1:28pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "The heir sold something they didn't have the right to sell, they can absolutely be liable for monetary damages."

              Can they? Even though they acted in good faith?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              G Thompson (profile), 19 Dec 2014 @ 9:55pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              The heir never sold the statue.. The heir died and their heir sold the statue.. a totally different situation and one where placing a vicarious liability on the seller (heir of the heir) is both dangerous and unconscionable (frustration) and where privity has no basis

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          btr1701 (profile), 22 Dec 2014 @ 7:46pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Or, more accurately, the statue.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    mattshow (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 9:47am

    Actually, the bylaws state it cannot be "disposed of", even by operation of law, so there's even an argument to be made that the Academy should have been offered the chance to purchase the statue even before it passed on to his heirs.

    I'm not saying its definitely a winning argument, but it seems more plausible to me than this breach of contract approach.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 10:20am

      Re:

      " it seems more plausible to me than this breach of contract approach."

      Absolutely, since no breach of contract has occurred.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      DogBreath, 18 Dec 2014 @ 10:53am

      Re:

      Yes, "Bylaws" that only an actual member of the Academy are subject to.

      Now if the Academy would somehow offer and trick the inheritor of this Oscar into signing up with the Academy, they might have a case.

      But, as far as I know, Carol Surtees is not a member of the Academy, so the Academy can go suck rotten eggs.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        mattshow (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 11:47am

        Re: Re:

        I'd argue that the bylaws create a limit on the rights that were transferred to the original recipient. It's not a matter of being bound by a contract; it's a matter of only being able to pass on the rights that you have. He only ever had the right to dispose of the statute AFTER giving the Academy a chance to buy it back. When he died and it transferred to his heirs, they inherited those same rights. It's a matter of property rights, not contractual obligations.

        Or so I'd argue if it was my case.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          DogBreath, 18 Dec 2014 @ 12:32pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          He didn't dispose of the statue, death disposed of him, thus nullifying any contract alleging he only had the rights to sell it back to the Academy. Just the nature of the statement: "Selling it back to the Academy", implies the Academy no longer owned the statue. Otherwise they could just take it back after his death, because it was always their property and never really his.

          Perhaps the Academy should create a OOA (Oscar Owners Association) and attach the Oscar (physically) to a piece of property subject to an HOA (Deed), thereby granting the Academy the property rights to all fixtures in said property as defined by law (not just bylaws).

          Unless they want to lobby(bribe) congress to create them an exemption/property extension/special law for Oscar awards. Hey, it worked for Mickey Mouse and Copyright, why not Oscars.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 9:51am

    http://www.oscars.org/legal/regulations


    As far as I know, those 'regulations' are backed up only by copyright and trademark. If they have an actual contract they make the recipient sign, they don't advertise it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 9:54am

      Re:

      http://qz.com/55895/you-never-really-win-an-oscar-you-just-get-to-borrow-it/

      So a contract is mentioned, but except for the 'relevant' section, the contract isn't passed out to people who ask about it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      DogBreath, 18 Dec 2014 @ 11:16am

      Re:

      10. Academy Award winners have no rights whatsoever in the Academy copyright or goodwill in the Oscar statuette or in its trademark and service mark registrations. Award winners must comply with these rules and regulations. Award winners shall not sell or otherwise dispose of the Oscar statuette, nor permit it to be sold or disposed of by operation of law, without first offering to sell it to the Academy for the sum of $1.00. This provision shall apply also to the heirs and assigns of Academy Award winners who may acquire a statuette by gift or bequest.

      No matter what the "Academy" says, the inheritor of this item cannot be bound to a contract they never agreed to.

      It would make more legal sense for the "Academy" to lease ( with no subleasing rights) the Oscar statue to the original awardee ($1 per year sounds reasonable), thereby retaining all rights to said property because they are still the owner, and have the right of repossession should such lease contract be broken.

      This would also allow them to report the Oscar as stolen if it was ever sold. But that might make the Academy seem too evil and money grubbing and even rise to "Olympic Commitee" levels of control freakishness.

      Who are we kidding? I say, "Go for it Academy Awards. Take it all the way, and as god is your witness, you'll never go hungry again. Now eat your withered carrot and be happy."

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2014 @ 3:41pm

        Re: Re:

        And that is the current regulations, what were they in 1953 when he was awarded the Oscar?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          DogBreath, 18 Dec 2014 @ 9:04pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          According to this, it was the following:

          The Contract:

          Although a difficult concept to grasp today, some finacially struggling award recipients began to pawn or sell their awards in the 1940's. This troubled the Academy as it risked the stature of the Award becoming commercially exploited. There was also a concern over control of the closely gaurded copyright. As a result, in 1950 the Academy introduced a contractual agreement that all recipiants to this day must enter into upon being bestowed with the coveted trophy. The contract stipulates that should the Award winner or heirs wish to sell the award, (as the award may be passed down) they must offer the Academy first right to purchase the statuette back for the sum of ten dollars. In the 1980's the monetary figure was lowered to one dollar. The monetary figures of course had nothing to do with Oscars actual worth. This was more or less a legal formality insuring Oscar was in a sense "donated" back to the Academy for preservation. This agreement also addressed the concern over Oscars Stature becoming commercially cheapened.



          This was also found on the same link as above:

          In 2007 after four years of legal antics, the Oscar that Orson Welles won for co-writing "Citizen Kane" was allowed to be placed up for auction. Sotheby's put it up for auction on Dec. 11 2007.

          Christie's Auction House tried to sell the Oscar in 2003, but had to stop the auction due to intervention by academy lawyers. There should no have been any disaproval of the sale. Since Welles won the award in 1941, thus it fell outside the post 1950 agreement that banned winners from selling their Oscars to anyone but the academy for the sum of $1).

          Welles' Oscar was thought to have been lost, but surfaced in 1994 when it was put up for auction by Sotheby's. Evidently a cinematographer claimed that Welles had given him the Oscar as form of payment for work. Welles' youngest daughter Beatrice sued and got ownership of the Oscar, which she tried to sell at Christie's 9 years later, but in turn got sued by the academy.

          The academy's legal claim was his daughter couldn't sell it due to a agreement she signed in the 1980s when the Academy issued a replacement Oscar before the original surfaced. The agreement stated that the person who signed the contract agreed never to sell the replacement statuette or the original, if it ever resurfaced.

          When the case finally reached the court Welles' daughter won due to the language in the agreement. The agreemet only applied to members of the academy and she was not an academy member. She also retained the right to sell the lifetime achievement Oscar her father received in 1970.

          The Oscar however failed to draw suitable bids and thus was not sold. It is beleived an attempt to sell the Oscar privately will be made.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    bssellin (profile), 18 Dec 2014 @ 11:24am

    Selling an Oscar

    But if she's allowed to sell the Oscar then:

    1) The Terrorists will have won!

    or

    2) But think of the children!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Frok (profile), 19 Dec 2014 @ 12:29am

    film academy adopts playstation mindset

    Thou shall only use thy toaster for bread, never soup, while cursing electricity. Buy a new toaster on Holy Playstation dates.

    Documentary on ironic justice visitations

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Tanner Andrews (profile), 26 Dec 2014 @ 8:29am

    Right of First Refusal

    It is possible that the right of first refusal may have been lost when the academy did not exercise it at time of the original probate. Assuming always correct publication of notice and a hundred other things, most of which are covered by California law with which I am entirely unfamiliar.

    At any rate, I'd prefer to have the heir's case if I had to choose.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.