Jump to content
Thatguyinktown

Cunningham v Miller lawsuit, explained.

Recommended Posts

Do people really think a judge actually gives a shit if people can’t get new content for a fucking video game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Toddarino said:

Do people really think a judge actually gives a shit if people can’t get new content for a fucking video game. 

Yes, people are stupid enough to believe that this game is somehow the most important thing to be affected by this lawsuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been here for three years (2015) this September/October. Patience running thin with the social media community now though. Constant abuse to Victor Miller. 

Most of the shithead trolls you've met in online games over the last year are the same trolling, cockwomble cunt idiots that are now trolling Victor Miller's Twitter and email accounts.

Starting to feel ashamed to be a part of this community.

The original "Bloody Disgusting" article states that the lawsuit was Millers....that's when the snowball turned into the avalanche. It's shite. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is embarrassing. The fucking entitlement people have. Social media is fucking awful. It’s given people the access to knowledge and to communicate with friends and family, but at the same time it’s given a voice to millions who use it for the wrong reasons.

I’m just too old I guess.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Toddarino said:

Do people really think a judge actually gives a shit if people can’t get new content for a fucking video game. 

We'll put.....but yes, yes people believe this.  I am a realistic person and I am upset about this entire thing, that doesn't change anything though and no judge gives a rats ass whether we get new content tomorrow or 10 years from now, or even if the game wets the bed or ceases to exist period.  Too busy playing golf and is the LAST thing on his mind... I promise you that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Toddarino said:

It is embarrassing. The fucking entitlement people have. Social media is fucking awful. It’s given people the access to knowledge and to communicate with friends and family, but at the same time it’s given a voice to millions who use it for the wrong reasons

I like to scare my nieces with horror stories about what the world was like before the Iternet and cell phones.  It's so fun and easy to troll them, and it pisses my sister in law off like crazy, so it's a win on multiple fronts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't blame Gun/Illfonic. They were shackled by Cunningham. Miller was an older writer wanting to reach a settlement two years ago....Cunningham launched the lawsuit against him, that had a detrimental effect on the game. It's very simple, join the dots shit. The information is out there.

Gun won't comment on it because they are tied to Cunningham Palace through business and law.  I totally get that. If he had reached a genuine lawful settlement with Miller none of this shit would've happened. 

It's Cuntingham's fault. No one elses. Root and branch, the buck stops with his Cunningham's greed. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Splatterhouse said:

You can't blame Gun/Illfonic. They were shackled by Cunningham. Miller was an older writer wanting to reach a settlement two years ago....Cunningham launched the lawsuit against him, that had a detrimental effect on the game. It's very simple, join the dots shit. The information is out there.

Gun won't comment on it because they are tied to Cunningham Palace through business and law.  I totally get that. If he had reached a genuine lawful settlement with Miller none of this shit would've happened. 

It's Cuntingham's fault. No one elses. Root and branch, the buck stops with his Cunningham's greed. 

 

Why should Cunningham have to give Miller his money or his franchise? He purchased it legally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, MichaelMemers said:

Why should Cunningham have to give Miller his money or his franchise? He purchased it legally.

Well, there lies the rub. If he did purchase it, then Miller has a claim. But as has been repeated in countless documentaries and interviews, that's not what went down. But despite the situation being a work-for-hire, there is no contract supporting it. So now a judge has to decide if the facts are enough to support the law, or if the contract is required. Either judgment is sticky. But if Miller were an ethical man, he wouldn't be trying to exploit this technicality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Millers original script shown in the Crystal Lake documentary, it shows the date of the first murders as July 4th, instead of June 13th which was changed after Cunningham came in.  I wonder if how much of the original script was changed to fit Cunninghams vision makes a difference in the outcome of the lawsuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MichaelMemers said:

Why should Cunningham have to give Miller his money or his franchise? He purchased it legally.

http://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3504232/part-iii-star-larry-zerner-now-lawyer-clearly-explains-messy-friday-13th-lawsuit/

Larry Zerner says it better than I can...

Miller doesn't want the franchise?!  Do your research?!

The blame inside the law falls on Cunningham... not Miller??? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait... Its Cunninghams fault? Lets get him!

torches_pitchforks.jpg

DISCLAIMER : this post is meant for satirical purposes only you schmucks.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, guitar.zombie said:

In Millers original script shown in the Crystal Lake documentary, it shows the date of the first murders as July 4th, instead of June 13th which was changed after Cunningham came in.  I wonder if how much of the original script was changed to fit Cunninghams vision makes a difference in the outcome of the lawsuit.

There was no original script without Cunningham. Look at this way -- at no point could Miller ever have taken this script as his own original work and sold it to someone else. He never outright owned this script -- it wasn't an original work of art, and therefore falls outside of the Copyright Act. (Cunningham went to Miller; hired him to write the story based on his concept; vetted the concept with him before sending Miller off to write the first draft; supplied revision notes.)

However, because Cunningham either failed to include the "work-for-hire" language in the contract, or he lost the contract, or because he didn't have Miller sign the contract before writing the script, Miller is able to exploit that technicality and claim that he was an independent contractor, and therefore NOT an employee (not a work-for-hire contract), and thus this IS an original work of art that he outright owned.

But IT WASN'T. And he's only able to make the claim because of a fuck-up in paperwork. Period. So this is Miller's fault, ethically. Though technically Cunningham's fault for not having proper paperwork.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Smitty_Voorhees said:

There was no original script without Cunningham. Look at this way -- at no point could Miller ever have taken this script as his own original work and sold it to someone else. He never outright owned this script -- it wasn't an original work of art, and therefore falls outside of the Copyright Act. (Cunningham went to Miller; hired him to write the story based on his concept; vetted the concept with him before sending Miller off to write the first draft; supplied revision notes.)

However, because Cunningham either failed to include the "work-for-hire" language in the contract, or he lost the contract, or because he didn't have Miller sign the contract before writing the script, Miller is able to exploit that technicality and claim that he was an independent contractor, and therefore NOT an employee (not a work-for-hire contract), and thus this IS an original work of art that he outright owned.

But IT WASN'T. And he's only able to make the claim because of a fuck-up in paperwork. Period. So this is Miller's fault, ethically. Though technically Cunningham's fault for not having proper paperwork.

 

@Smitty_Voorhees sells a song and its rights in 2018 for 100,000. It's been covered and is world famous in 2053 when the copyright laws change he can actually earn a reasonable settlement from that world famous song. The record company sues him for trying to do that. What a wanker...how dare he try to claim future percentages from the song he wrote 35 years ago.

He better not try to...they made a game about the song. FFS. When you take your "Friday the 13th: The Game" glasses off, how blind are you? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Splatterhouse said:

@Smitty_Voorhees sells a song and its rights in 2018 for 100,000. It's been covered and is world famous in 2053 when the copyright laws change he can actually earn a reasonable settlement from that world famous song. What a wanker...how dare he try to claim future percentages from the song he wrote 35 years ago.

He better not try to...they made a game about the song. FFS. When you take your "Friday the 13th: The Game" glasses off, how blind are you? 

The Copyright Act is intended to help artists who sold away their rights. Miller was hired to write the script -- he didn't write it and then take it to Cunningham. This would be like if the guy who designed the McDonald's logo claimed it as a work of art after 35 years and tried to rescind the copyright because of a loophole in the contract that McDonald's wrote, and demand McDonald's pay him a huge sum of money because they made a lot of money.

I mean, I usually side with the writers. But I've taken my fair share of terrible deals as work-for-hires on projects that were brought to me, and while none of them have gone on to the kind of breakout success that FRIDAY has, even if one of them did, I know I wouldn't be entitled to those profits because I knew what the deal was going into it. And if I suddenly decided that I wanted a piece of that pie because I know how much they're making, then I'm being shady and unethical, because I already agreed to the original deal. We can all empathize with Miller and where he's coming from, but it doesn't make it right. 

 

EDIT TO ADD: It should also be noted that in 1988, Miller sued Georgetown Productions and Cunningham, claiming he was co-creator and therefore entitled to more of the film's profits. They settled with Miller and paid him an undisclosed amount of money. (Citation: On Location in Blairstown -- The Making of Friday the 13th by David Grove.)

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Splatterhouse said:

http://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3504232/part-iii-star-larry-zerner-now-lawyer-clearly-explains-messy-friday-13th-lawsuit/

Larry Zerner says it better than I can...

Miller doesn't want the franchise?!  Do your research?!

The blame inside the law falls on Cunningham... not Miller??? 

It would seem to me that Miller wants the franchise.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Splatterhouse said:

Been here for three years (2015) this September/October. Patience running thin with the social media community now though. Constant abuse to Victor Miller. 

Most of the shithead trolls you've met in online games over the last year are the same trolling, cockwomble cunt idiots that are now trolling Victor Miller's Twitter and email accounts.

Starting to feel ashamed to be a part of this community.

The original "Bloody Disgusting" article states that the lawsuit was Millers....that's when the snowball turned into the avalanche. It's shite. 

Yep, perfect example of how there is no such thing as real journalism these days just click bait bullshit. Miller didn't file the lawsuit...Cunningham did. Without facts people just assume and create their own narrative. And when you assume you make an ass out of you and me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, undrtkr said:

Yep, perfect example of how there is no such thing as real journalism these days just click bait bullshit. Miller didn't file the lawsuit...Cunningham did. Without facts people just assume and create their own narrative. And when you assume you make an ass out of you and me.

Yep. I mean social media has always been the bowels of the internet where people can say what they want without consequence - but this has really opened up my eyes. Most of these keyboard warrior muppets wouldn't say anything to someone's face - but only do behind the safety of a Twitter handle.    

It's beyond moronic. 

Bloody Disgusting should have posted a public correction of their original article, stating that it was not Miller's lawsuit. The original article was one-sided shit derived from the email they received from Gun Media who have obviously only had contact with Horror Inc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MichaelMemers said:

It would seem to me that Miller wants the franchise.

Yup. Or more specifically, control of the first film, and Cunningham is suing to prevent from happening.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you not get prosecuted and convicted for threats to kill in the USA?

I know you guys love your freedom of speech over there - but if you threaten to kill someone online over here and they choose to involve the police, you're likely doing prison time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Splatterhouse said:

Can you not get prosecuted and convicted for threats to kill in the USA?

I know you guys love your freedom of speech over there - but if you threaten to kill someone online over here and they choose to involve the police, you're likely doing prison time. 

A threat is a threat. It's all up to the victim if they choose to prosecute. Which a lot of the time, these things are anonymous or just not worth pursuing because of all the work that would be involved.

But if something is of real concern to him, I'm sure he wouldn't hesitate to get the law involved.

I guess what I'm saying is, when you receive hundreds and thousands of death threats, you probably get pretty discerning at sniffing out the credible ones.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AldermachXI said:

A threat is a threat. It's all up to the victim if they choose to prosecute. Which a lot of the time, these things are anonymous or just not worth pursuing because of all the work that would be involved.

But if something is of real concern to him, I'm sure he wouldn't hesitate to get the law involved.

I guess what I'm saying is, when you receive hundreds and thousands of death threats, you probably get pretty discerning at sniffing out the credible ones.

Yeah you're right man. Well put. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Splatterhouse said:

Can you not get prosecuted and convicted for threats to kill in the USA?

I know you guys love your freedom of speech over there - but if you threaten to kill someone online over here and they choose to involve the police, you're likely doing prison time. 

Sounds like England needs the teachings of Jonathan Lawrence and the Cobra Kai dojo. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bropollocreed79 said:

Sounds like England needs the teachings of Jonathan Lawrence and the Cobra Kai dojo

 

I don't get it? 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×