Big Picture
Kim & Kourt Take Bev Hills Plus, Daniel Radcliffe works his magic and Bruce Jenner blasts to the past. Get the latest pics!
MORE PHOTOS +Most Commented
- TV's Top Couples Tournament: Vote in the Final Round! (2036)
- TV's Top Couples Tournament: This Round Is Closed, Please Stand By (698)
- Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart Photos Galore! New Pics From Their Post-Twilight Flicks! (603)
- Afternoon Mail! Are Gleeks Having More Sex Than Vamps? (586)
- TV's Top Couple Tournament: And the Winner Is... (504)
- Beyoncé and Jay-Z Share First Photos of Baby Blue Ivy! (398)
- Whitney Houston Dead at 48 (396)
- Life After Breaking Dawn?! Maybe, Says Studio Head! (226)
- Morning Mail! Céline Dion Talks Whitney Houston's Tragic Death (222)
- Blind Vice! Nevis Divine's Sad Past (214)
Top 10 Stories
- Royal Feud Shocker! Sean Penn Slams Prince William's "Unthinkable" Deployment
- Real Housewives' Michaele Salahi & Journey's Neal Schon: Tareq Salahi Is the One Tormenting Us!
- Angelina Jolie Tears Up—Watch Her Get Emotional
- Josh Duhamel Not Coming Back for Transformers 4: Is Anyone?!
- Spoiler Chat Daily: A New Girl Baby on the Way?! Plus, Scoop on Vampire Diaries, Glee and More
- Jersey Shore Sneak Peek: Pauly D Pulls a Fast (and Dirty) One on Deena
- American Idol: Did Tent Girl Get Better? Who Passed Out Onstage? And Who's Headed to Vegas?!
- Survivor: One World Insider: Chivalry Is Dead, Y'All
- Seal Takes Off His Wedding Ring
- Kim Kardashian, Movie Star? It's "Very Much Possible," Says Tyler Perry
Fashion Police
Leighton's Valentine's Look Plus, Ashlee Simpson and Cate Blanchett. Rate the highs and lows!
MORE PHOTOS +
Our Partners
Angels Don't Fly for Wagner
Perhaps Robert Wagner should talk to No. 2 about recouping his money. Or better yet, take it up with Charlie.
A California appellate court has nixed a petition filed by the former Austin Powers villain claiming he's entitled to half the profits from the two Charlie's Angels movies because he held a stake in the development of the property before it became one of the '70s' most popular TV shows.
The Second District Court of Appeal on Monday upheld a lower court's 2005 ruling that stated Sony-owned Columbia Pictures was not obliged to pay Wagner and his heirs a percentage of the box-office receipts from 2000's Charlie's Angels and 2003's Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle.
In his lawsuit, Wagner contended that he and late wife Natalie Wood had a deal with Angels producers Aaron Spelling and Leonard Goldberg. The couple agreed to star in a 1974 TV movie called Love Song, later retitled The Affair, in exchange for part interest in five TV pitches the producers were shopping to ABC for the 1974-75 season.
One of those was Charlie's Angels, about a mysterious millionaire who, with the aid of a liaison named Bosley, runs a private investigation agency staffed by three sexy ex-police officers. The series, which starred Farrah Fawcett, Kate Jackson and Jaclyn Smith, was a massive success, running until 1981.
In the 1980s, Spelling sold his company to Columbia, which subsequently developed the hit film franchise starring Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore and Lucy Liu. The first installment took in more than $125 million domestically, while the sequel exceeded $100 million.
Wagner claimed his deal with Spelling entitled the actor to "subsidiary rights," which he argued could include income generated from the sale of film rights.
Columbia countered that it purchased the motion-picture rights from the heirs of Angels writers Ivan Goff and Ben Roberts, who obtained the rights based on a provision stipulated by the Writers Guild of America called the "separated rights" rule (meaning they were sold separately from the Spelling and Goldberg's deal).
In a heart to heart with the onetime Hart to Hart star, the three-judge appeals court panel unanimously rejected his attorneys' argument and sided with the studio.
"The Wagners were entitled to share in the profits from the exploitation of the movie rights to Charlie's Angels if those rights were exploited by Columbia as ancillary or subsidiary rights...but not if those rights were acquired by Columbia independently from its right to exhibit photoplays," the judges wrote.
There was no immediate comment from Columbia. Wagner's lawyer, Sam Pryor, told the Hollywood Reporter he thought it was a "mistaken decision."
"We think their opinion really came down to one narrow interpretation of the contract that might have been a reasonable interpretation, but that they erred in dismissing ours as unreasonable as a matter of law—given the evidence we had as to the intention of the parties and the lack of any evidence submitted by the other side as to what the contract meant," Pryor said.
Pryor has not said whether he will appeal to the state supreme court.
0 Comments
Now loading...