[ad_1]
The temperature in the legal battle between Disney and Scarlett Johansson over her compensation for “Black Widow” has not cooled in the week since Johansson’s lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court.
Longtime Disney lawyer Daniel Petrocelli said Variety that the claims in Johansson’s lawsuit far exceed the boundaries of the actor’s contract with the studio. He called it an attempt to force Disney to write a check that backfired on him.
“It is obvious that this is a highly orchestrated public relations campaign to achieve a result that cannot be achieved in the trial,” said Petrocelli. “No public pressure can modify or mask explicit contractual commitments. The written contract is as clear as a bell.
Meanwhile, in another sign that the conflict has struck a chord at a time of uncertainty for the industry, SAG-AFTRA president Gabrielle Carteris weighed in on Friday with a lengthy statement lambasting Disney. She said Disney should be “ashamed” and criticized the “sexist tone” of the company’s statement on the costume last week.
“Scarlett Johansson shines the spotlight on inappropriate compensation changes that companies are trying to pass up on talent as distribution models change,” Carteris said. “No one in any area of work should fall victim to unexpected reductions in expected pay. It is unreasonable and unfair. Disney and the other content companies are doing very well and can certainly meet their obligations to compensate performers whose art and talent are responsible for the profits of the company.
Additionally, Carteris presented the dispute as a gender pay equity issue in Hollywood.
“Women are not ‘callous’ when they stand up and fight for a fair wage – they are leaders and champions of economic justice,” she said. “Women have been the victims of wage inequality for decades, and they have suffered even more from comments like those in Disney press releases. This kind of attack has no place in our society and SAG-AFTRA will continue to defend our members against all forms of prejudice. “
Petrocelli, a partner at O’Melveny, said Variety the contract calls on the parties to resort to arbitration for disputes rather than opening a court. But even that point can be disputed as Johansson’s contract is with Marvel Studios, but the lawsuit was brought against Disney over the legal thesis that Disney’s corporate priorities to support its new streaming platforms were being forced on Marvel.
The Johansson Pact calls for “Black Widow” to run on a minimum of 1,500 screens, which Disney has more than seen on 9,000 US screens and 30,000 globally, said Petrocelli. More than once, he has pointed out that distribution decisions are entirely up to the studio and that a day and date strategy is necessary due to the devastating impact of the global pandemic on mainstream cinema.
The crux of the Disney-Johansson dispute is the latter’s assertion that the decision to make “Black Widow” a day and date release in theaters and online via the Disney Premier Access platform had the effect of bypassing Johansson. on the bonuses she was to receive if the film hit certain box office thresholds. The simultaneous release strategy limited the film’s box office prospects and thus denied Johansson the opportunity to get those pre-determined bonuses, according to Johansson.
Petrocelli countered that the release of Disney Premier Access was a boost for Johansson, as that revenue is factored into the box office tally for the purpose of calculating bonuses. Disney Premier Access charged $ 29.99 for “Black Widow”. Disney shares some of that revenue with distribution partners such as Verizon, but whatever the studio’s share will factor into the calculation of bonuses for actors, he said.
“We have treated Disney Premier Access (revenue) as a box office for the purposes of the bonus requirements in the contract. It only improved Ms. Johansson’s economy, ”said Petrocelli.
Johansson’s legal team claimed that Disney had not reacted in its efforts to settle the dispute in the months leading up to the film’s July 9 premiere, which was twice delayed by pandemic conditions. Disney has firmly claimed that Johansson’s team did not warn them that the explosive depot was coming on July 29. Sources close to Johansson’s team vehemently dispute this, saying there have been numerous warnings to the point of alerting Disney executives that a complaint has already been drafted.
In a statement, Johansson’s attorney John Berlinski criticized Disney’s initial statement regarding the lawsuit last week as a “personal intimidating and misogynistic attack on Scarlett Johansson” and said Petrocelli’s comments were ” a desperate attempt “to rehabilitate the image.
“But Disney lawyers cannot erase the company’s previous public statements, the terms of Ms. Johansson’s contract, the history of what actually led to this lawsuit, or the implications of her behavior on the talent community in its whole, ”said Berlinski. “If Disney sincerely believed what its lawyers are now claiming, it would be happy if the dispute was decided in open court, instead of seeking to hide its misconduct from the public in confidential arbitration.”
Berlinski, partner at Kasowitz Benson Torres, and Petrocelli are no strangers to each other. The two were on the side of the fight that the actors and producers of the Fox drama series “Bones” waged against 21th Century Fox from 2015 to 2019. In 2019, before Petrocelli joined the case, Berlinski secured a gigantic judgment of $ 179 million from an arbitrator. . Then the case returned to open court, when Petrocelli was chosen to represent Fox, and the price was reduced to $ 51 million. Although both sides promised to appeal, a settlement was reached in September 2019.
In the “Black Widow” case, Petrocelli criticized Johansson’s litigation as short-sighted given the extraordinary conditions created by the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the tens of millions of dollars invested in “Black Widow”, Disney had no choice but to seek innovative solutions to distribute the film.
“You had an unexpected COVID crisis and the studio was trying to accommodate millions of nervous and uncomfortable fans to walk into theaters,” Petrocelli said. “All the studios had to adapt.
Petrocelli acknowledged that the conflict is exacerbated by unfolding in the larger context of an industry in transition. Critical details of talent contracts and compensation formulas have not kept pace with changes in the way movies and TV shows are produced and distributed.
Petrocelli predicted that in the near future, talent agreements “will become much more specific on the requirements of any conditional pay.” The longtime legal warrior added: “There is a drastic change due to the advent of the internet and the ability to put things online. It will take time to resolve.
[ad_2]
Source link