(900 million dollars, which converts to 900 million coconuts in southern Florida currency) Of course, it isn't the direct challenge to the "real story" claims of movies and media that I would like but it is still finally a "put up or shut up" moment for these sort of claims. Essentially, WB made a series of movies "based on a true story" of a pair of demonologists' case files that someone else owned the rights to first. WB claimed that they are able to make these movies, despite the pre-existing rights granted to someone else, because they are "historical facts" and thus within fair use. Of course, ghosts aren't real and the supernatural accounts within the "Warren Files" are bullshit. In order to win the lawsuit, WB must prove ghosts exist. Gonna be interesting to follow. The above is the gist, as I understand it. I apologize if I got any details wrong. I am not a lawyer or a ghost. [youtube]pmiQ6SJYX-M&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]
Wouldn't the guys owning the rights to the story basically have to admit that ghosts are bullshit in order to make this claim?
Edit: guess I should have watched the video first. Seems a strange move for an author that wrote a book on the subject. Also seems like the Warrens are the ones that should be getting sued moreso than WB.
I'm right there with you. It sounds like a bunch of bull and false advertising, all the way around. The "based on a true story" stuff has been a pet peeve of mine. Hollywood usually skirts it with paranormal stories by saying it is based on someone's account or testimony, which they really gave. This case is interesting because WB can't use that argument to support their "true story/historical events" tag without admitting they are enfringing on that author's pre-existing agreement. Meanwhile, the author won't be able to use that tag either without undermining the basis of his claims against WB since he is freely admitting it is all fake. I'm guessing WB is going to be looking back at that author's books and see if he claims any "true story" "real ghost story" or "historical" aspects in promoting them. They're both going to come out looking like the goobers they are. Have you ever had someone claim ghosts are real, and point to these kinds of accounts as their evidence? I have. "They couldn't say it was a true story if it wasn't!"
Would it matter if story owner said it was true, real, or historical? That claim is more of a consumer protection claim, than a "free to use" claim, right? And it isn't like WB's defense is based on consumer protection. Now if the writer is saying its false, and you bought it based on it being "true," I would imagine you'd have a claim against them. So there is probably already a class action suit out there, and if not, there will be.
My understanding is that they need to demonstrate the story is true, in the same way that if a story about dragons were true they would need to at least demonstrate dragons themselves were real. They don't necessarily need to prove events occurred exactly as written or portrayed, but that there is some factual basis on which these portrayals are made. Example: that Somali pirate movie. Was Captain Phillips as heroic and self-sacrificing as portrayed? Apparently not. But there are Somali pirates and they did capture the Maersk Alabama. That's good enough to say "based on a true story." If there were no such things as pirates, then by no stretch of the imagination could that film be "based on a true story" or that it is historical in nature.
Look, buddy. I know a lot about the law and various other lawyerings. I'm well educated. Well versed. I know that situations like this-ghost wise- they're very complex.
Just seems like the Warrens are the ones that entered an agreement with the author. They knowingly broke that agreement. Who know if Warner Bros. even knew about it? The money the Warrens got from the deal is the money that this guy should be asking to have.
I'm not a lawyer. I think that the 900 million figure could be viewed as "the damages," rather than whatever the Warrens got from WB. They were his rights to exercise, not WB's. WB can sue the Warrens.
Seems like this a divorce trial and the jilted wife is trying to get all the stuff not from her husband, but his mistress.
1. I'm so chicken shit of anything paranormal that even watching that news clip made me uncomfortable. 2. This is a slam-dunk case for Warner Brothers. All they have to do to "prove" the paranormal is to submit this clip as evidence, as it shows all kinds of paranormal shit. How else to explain dead witches hanging, spinning crosses, etc.? It's right there on video.
My girlfriend's college friends and their husbands/boyfriends all get together at a different place every year and hang out for a long weekend. Last year they went to Charleston and it was the first time I came along. We went on a "ghost tour" of the old prison that was built sometime in the 19th century that is in the city. We heard tales about how the ghosts make their presence known, usually through sound or temperature, to people during these tours sometimes. After the very last story in the last room, with all the lights out and in a moment or two of silence, a portal to hell opened somewhere in the vicinity of my jejunum and called forth the roar of a primordial beast that had not been tamed since tacos at lunch. It did indeed sound inhuman, and perfect strangers in the muggy, dark room let out gasps and screams of terror. Lights of cell phones and flashlights bathed the room quickly, as if all controlled by one switch. "Did you hear that?", the lady across from us muttered to her husband. "Sorry," I said. "That was me." This incident has forever marked my perception with my significant other's friends. They joke that I harbor a demonic presence in my gut, after hearing my ferocious tummy rumble. What's more interesting, though, was the strange transformation on the faces of the other people on that tour, as they went from looks of terror to anger as I gave and then took away their desired ghost encounter.