|
Post by Hawkeye on Aug 22, 2009 12:24:04 GMT -5
So my sources tell me that some of our predictions are true.
Allegedly, Jackie Fox had filed an injunction to stop the use of The Runaways in the film- or to stop the film all together.
Now, I don't think the film will not be released- Joan and Cherie have a right to tell the story of their lives- but perhaps not as The Runaways. See, Jackie Fox owns part of the name, all the girls do.
So someone who tries to take 100% of the proceeds of the name, or issues and sells merchandise bearing the name, or form a new act from the name and profit from it- and not pay up, is going to have a problem.
The kicker to this is- my source tells me that JJ herself knows all about this- and is claiming 100% ownership.
Is it true? Yikes- I guess we will all see.
|
|
injett
Junior Member
Posts: 82
|
Post by injett on Aug 22, 2009 15:25:21 GMT -5
Interesting, we will see I guess. I just assumed that this wasn't a money making venture, that this was mainly Jetts desire, along with Cherie to get the story of the Runaways out for the legacy. I think it is only fair that all four remaining band members make the same amount of money from this movie, which in my mind isn't a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Hawkeye on Aug 23, 2009 0:23:13 GMT -5
Directly from Jackie's MySpace- So I see that Jackie Fox is being sued- not the other way around. Wow, talk about suck much. Hopefully the source that I got the info from (Originally) gets the story straight. Well, that's why I said Allegedly! Good luck to Ms. Fox, as I have stated here before- she owns a part of that name, she helped make it famous, she is part of the Mercury Five, and has a deserved place in Rock History. Let's hope it does not get any uglier. Hey Jackie-Don't let the fibro get you down-best of luck to you! EDITED- HERE IS THE TMZ LINK! www.tmz.com/2009/08/23/joan-jett-jackie-fox-jacqueline-fuchs-lawsuit-the-runaways/
|
|
|
Post by wasted on Aug 23, 2009 5:44:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dagtoking1 on Aug 23, 2009 23:02:46 GMT -5
So sad.
|
|
|
Post by badreputationguy on Aug 24, 2009 19:40:46 GMT -5
Blackheart Records owns the trademark to the name "The Runaways". Which means none of the other members have any rights when it comes to the name. The only right they would have would be to their personal story. I am sure the reason for not including Jackie in the movie would be that the Runaways had several bass players and so they combined all of them into one character. For those of you interested here is link to searching active trademarks. tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4005:oauq6a.2.2
|
|
|
Post by Hawkeye on Aug 24, 2009 21:52:10 GMT -5
Got news for ya bud- that ain't the way Trademark Law works.
Better check with an attorney.
Fowley tried the same thing (And Lost)-and now a band member is doing it.
Again, really gonna suggest you do some searches on Trademark, right of usage, associations, and former band members oh and a lack of a partnership agreement defining terms.
Put that in your reputation and smoke it.
|
|
|
Post by dagtoking1 on Aug 25, 2009 12:59:25 GMT -5
For what it's worth, I remember David Snowden posting way back when that all the "girls" were receiving checks from the sale of Runaways merchandise. I remember him specifically posting that they all cashed their checks.
Even though the character is called Robin, everybody knows that Jackie was the bass player that played Japan with the band. You can't blame Jackie for wanting approval of the script. I am almost sorry that I read it because I didn't like the way the characters of Robin and Lita are presented. It's like a self indulgent fairy tale IMO.
|
|
|
Post by bri0032 on Aug 25, 2009 20:52:47 GMT -5
d***, I should really check this site more often. This sucks. Can't we all just get along?
And I agree with dagtoking, it's like a self-indulgent fairy tale. I mean, it's great and all, but there's not a whole lot of truth to it. You get the gist of the band, but there are a lot of memorable things left out. Robin is barely in that version of the script. She has, like, three lines. I think the whole band should've gotten more attention and not just Cherie and Joan.
|
|
|
Post by Hobo's Choice on Aug 25, 2009 22:15:16 GMT -5
But for all we know, those scripts probably aren't anything but phony...
|
|
|
Post by dagtoking1 on Aug 26, 2009 7:58:33 GMT -5
You could be right although both scripts while different have too many similarities and I doubt anybody would engage in a hoax that time consuming. Didn't somebody post that these scripts were not the actual scripts that are being used? I guess we can only hope that some of the positive is presented.
|
|
|
Post by Hawkeye on Aug 26, 2009 12:47:37 GMT -5
I think the scripts are real. I know that there were two scripts- the second being more "Joan Centric" and focusing on the Rise of Joan. I just hope it ends up being great. We'll see.
|
|
|
Post by kelson on Aug 26, 2009 23:43:37 GMT -5
I really hope they get this worked out . . . and I also hope that they do the right thing.
I am a rabid fan of Joan Jett. I am a big fan of the Runaways.
However, any Runaways film that doesn't include Jackie Fox in it . . well, it's just not gonna fly with me. That would be like leaving "Sgt. Peppers" out of a Beatles discography.
|
|
|
Post by dagtoking1 on Aug 27, 2009 7:20:20 GMT -5
I so agree. I am disappointed with the whole concept of Robin. To have the Jackie character named Robin is just ludicrous IMO, and I say the Jackie character because in the script it has the Runaways going to Japan. How are you going to call that bass player Robin? Just insane IMO. And I'll take it a step further. Since the script goes as far as the rise of JJ and CC working in a linen store while the song ILRR is being played on the radio I think a Vicki character should have been in it too if not for anything else but for the accuracy of it all. I can only say how I feel when I look at the insert in my WFTN CD and see that picture of the four (4) members and look at Vicki's picture; I think she embodied as much spirit of the band as anyone else.
Danna, if you know about copyright law and how it relates to the dispute between Joan and Jackie I would really appreciate you sharing your knowledge. I don't know anything about that but since Jackie is supposedly an entertainment lawyer I don't think she would ask for something she isn't legally entitled to. There is some posts on the JJ board right now stating that BH owns the rights to The Runaways exclusively. Didn't the script describe Robin as making out with some guy under a table with her shirt open? I would be concerned too.
|
|
|
Post by Hawkeye on Aug 27, 2009 11:36:21 GMT -5
Hey Dag,
Tell ya what, give me some time to get through my work day, and I'll give everyone the high points. This is really revolving around Trademark, and in the film thing, Jackie's right to an accurate portrayal. That's why this is a doco drama. Parts Real- parts fantasy. Sticky tho- one person remembers something different from another.
Robin looks like she's smuggling midgets out of the circus tent tho. Scary.
That whole thing about BH owning the name is BS. Kenny can trademark it- but it will just be changed- again. Cherie, Lita and Sandy own a part of that name. The bass players that toured and were NOT hired guns (given a salary and told you get squat from the get-go) have part of the name. I have seen where when one member leaves-another comes in and they SPLIT that portion. But- there is the school of thought that IMPACT is what gets you a bigger percentage-or a percentage at all. Really, Joan, Lita and Sandy should have the biggest shares. Cherie made a big impact, and when she left-the decline started, her share, well, I think it should be a good percentage. Honestly, Jackie and Vickie should split that last percentage. Trademark is about who makes a mark famous, who is using it and who it is associated with. There was no partnership agreement that I know of, nothing that laid out who owns what. Fowley tried to TM the name- the band sued him and had him stripped of it. It was then RE issued in CARE of BH-with all the band members names on it. I can't remember if Vicki was on it- or just Jackie. Then it was changed. The band really needed a third party to just keep the Runaways stuff up and out of an individual member's hands, it's too bad that never happened. That Trademark can be challenged at anytime, all any of the former band members have to do is call the PTO and ask about challenging it. For a second time. I wonder if that's a record? I'll look into it- all this stuff is public record guys. Here's the deal, I don't care if you like someone more then another, or if someone is a douche, when they were teens, they played in a band togeher and got famous. They recorded, even if one person was not on the albums, they were presented as such, they toured. They did shows later and kept the Runaways name alive. That is what it's all about. Look at the stuff with the Doors-one band member can keep a founding member from using the name. Look at GNR-that name is owned by Axl, Slash, and Duff- the main songwriters and founders. But the thing is they worked it out, they had a partnership agreement, my attorney was their attorney, and he used them as an example of making sure you get your ducks in a row! You know the band does not even own any masters of anything??? Fowley has some-Mercury has some, Toby Mamis has some. They never got to take control of anything even when (if it was) paid off and the band re-couped. Joan Jett should not have soul control and say over THE RUNAWAYS. Neither should Lita. Neither should Fowely. I hope this works out. The things that hurt is a band that tells each other in interviews how much they love each other-then the lawsuits come out.
|
|