Talk:20th Century Fox vs. Warner Bros.

Are you here to delete this page?
Then hold up a moment. I'm aware the article is a bit bare-bones right now, but the spirit of Wikipedia is collaboration and I hope my fellow editors can assit me in fleshing out this important case. While a petty copyright lawsuit over a movie seems unreasonable to deserve its own article, this case is unprecedented in regards to the potential cancellation of a multimillion dollar blockbuster film which has already been extensively promoted in the mainstream media. A similar article was allowed to stay and grew into an informative look at a controversial copyright lawsuit. Much of the article has been copied from Watchmen (film) and Watchmen (film), but I was hoping both those sections could be trimmed, especially the "Litigation" section, as the information is redundant and the article should take predecent over the sections. Those are my thoughts. ShadowUltra (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm dubious - case law articles should be notable as case law and not merely by virtue of their respondents (ie notability is not inherited). Unless the legal issues are compelling, this is basically production history, which belongs in summarized form within the film's article, and with far less blow-by-blow, much of which is excessively detailed for what will ultimately be a monetary ruling. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is actually a summary of the much more detailed production history found at the links above. I merely added that summary to the "Origin" section so a reader could get a quick understanding of the many studios the movie passed through, which is key to the current lawsuit. It may also not be a "monetary ruling," and this would be unprecendented if a $150 million dollar film is cancelled over a contract loophole. I made this article as the main article's "Litigation" section was outdated and not detailed; as I began extensively overhauling it I realized it would dominate the page, so I moved it here. ShadowUltra (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that without the summary, it would not be so large as to warrant a split. It certainly would be substantial, but there's no reason to believe that the rest of the production sections won't also expand further as the behind-the-scenes material becomes more public during and following the release. As for the film being cancelled, it does seem to be a lot of legal posturing (ie threatening) - not uncommon in litigation, but still highly unlikely to proceed. It also would make no sense for Fox to shut the movie down when they can shake it down - which is what this is about. They aren't filing an injunction because they are offended at the idea of the film - they're offended that they're not getting a slice of what is clearly going to be lucrative pie. Is there anyone with a business or legal background on the record who seriously believes this film is going to be vaulted? (Hedging statements aside.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The owner of Film Esq. made a forum post (which I unfortunately can't link to) where he said permanent injunctions are a common method of solving copyright cases. ShadowUltra (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, in the case of infringement, such as the Rowling one. Were it Alan Moore vs WB, that would be a probable outcome, because it also involves what are known as moral rights, and those rights can be cited as a valid reason for seeking such an injunction. People holding (or claiming to hold) an option don't have such rights, however, so unless Moore steps in, this is very unlikely. (Remember that the Rowling case was WB and Rowling on the plaintiff side.) This is a case of option rights and profit-share, though. Fox believes that they've been denied of profits, which is why they are suing. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved?
http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=23991 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.241.16.2 (talk) 08:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Can we please merge back now? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not an official document or even a confirmation of a settlement, just a website reporting that another website reported that someone thinks they're close to a settlement. Regardless, if this gets settled out of court (in other words, before January 20) I'll support the merging of this article back into the main "Litigation" section of the Watchmen film article. ShadowUltra (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I really hope they settle it :) a fox boycot would hurt me more than fox.. (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.241.16.2 (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's confirmed now. This fails the notability test.  Please delete; the film article covers it sufficiently. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 22:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)