Beatrice sues RKO for Kane

[jaime marzol]

horns blowing, horses stampeding in my head as i read this email a friend sent.

Check this out about WELLES'S daughter suing RKO over KANE and AMBERSONS ----


QUICK TAKES
'Kane' ownership disputed
By Lynn Smith
Orson Welles' daughter filed a federal lawsuit in San Francisco on Friday seeking ownership rights to the movie classic "Citizen Kane." Ownership of "The Magnificent Ambersons" is also in dispute in the suit that names Turner
Entertainment Co. and RKO Pictures Inc. as defendants.

"When Orson Welles left RKO [about 1944], he signed an exit deal terminating his contracts," said Steven Ames Brown, attorney for the Welles estate and Beatrice Welles. Brown said the lawsuit was sparked by the discovery of
termination agreements, at an unknown time, by an archivist in one of the dozen Orson Welles archives around the world.

"The contracts could not be clearer that Mr. Welles had a continuing interest in 'Citizen Kane' after he left the studio," Brown said. "The question is, what was the legal effect on the ownership of the movie?"

Royalties are also an issue, Brown said. "Welles had a 20% profit participation agreement with the company. Either he owns the movie, or they owe us 20% of the profits," he said.

A spokesperson for Turner said the movie is now owned by Warner Bros., whose representatives were not available to comment. Thom Mount, a senior executive with RKO, said, "We can't comment on a legal action we haven't seen."

.......................

oh my oh my. i'm cheering beatrice. like alan douglas losing the hendrix estate to the hendrix family, and now all kinds of great stuff is out. lets hope it happens the same way.

i hope she kicks ted turner's ass somewhere in there.

[Jeff Wilson]

Is there a source for this? I can't find any corroboration for this story anywhere.

[Cole]

It was in the Saturday edition of the LA Times. Here's the url:

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-et-quick1.2feb01.story

[Obssessed_with_Orson]

thanks cole.

jaime, your finding better articles than i can now.

i wanna see, and read, about mr. turner gettin kicked to. want to see it more than read it though.

get him good girlie!

bye now!

[Jeff Wilson]

As the article states, Turner doesn't own the movie any longer; Warner Bros does. As to it providing some kind of spur for more Welles material to be released, why would you get that impression? Aside from Ambersons, Warner doesn't own anything else Welles directed. And why, given Beatrice Welles' tampering with of Othello, would we trust her to release anything in the manner it was originally released? This doesn't appear to be anything more than a cash grab, and if she wins, fair play to her. If she doesn't, who cares? I'll be curious to hear more as it develops, but I don't expect anything to come of it. Her shark is apparently a major player in royalties litigation though, so who knows.

[colwood]

As was said earlier, since WB owns the films, I don't see how Turner can get his ass kicked.

And considering what I know about her (last years squashing of the release of TOSOTW) I want to see how this plays out but don't think it is really anything other than a cash grab.

[jaime marzol]

well, i figured that turner MIGHT get some whipping , because he sold a film that by law didn't belong to him. so if warners loses the film, they have the right to sue ted.

beatrice has a new weasel, not the other shark.

MY PREDICTION:
beatrice will take more of an interest in the films, precisely because it's a money thing. kane had a face lift recently but before that languished around in a terrible state for years.

in the hands the films are in now, we will see nothing new on kane or ambersons, or journey into fear, or it's all true, for years to come. with kane and ambersons changing hands, maybe it won't be long beore journey, and it's all true are aquired.

with the pictures changing ownership, the new owners will want their version of the product out, and we hope it's better than the old owners did.

there will be more stuff available. same films, but with new dressing to distinguish it from the old owner.

it's business.

[Tony]

I had always heard that OW sold his interest in Kane to finance the resucitation of It's All True; in fact, on the Bogdanovich tapes,Welles says if he hadn't of done that, he would have been "independently wealthy"; so what's Beatrice on about now?

Incidentally, I was looking at the music cd for Beatrice's Othello tonight, and she is credited with helping with the "mixing" of the sound for the film.
Hmm... what on earth could that mean?

I just hope she re-records both Kane and Ambersons in stereo, and does the "mixing" again.

[ToddBaesen]

-

Beatrice clearly doesn't have a leg to stand on in this lawsuit. How could she, when Welles himself could never lay claim to either KANE or AMBERSONS?

In fact, if one looks at the advice from Welles from his manager about the cutting of AMBERSONS, the facts are quite clear:

JACK MOSS TO ORSON WELLES:
April 16, 1942

DEAR ORSON:

CAREFULLY THOROUGHLY CHECKED… LEGALITY DEFINITELY GIVES STUDIO FINAL RIGHT ON BASIS FILM THEIR PROPERTY.
…MY OPINION THERE WILL BE NO RECALL NO SUSPENSION. WAITING YOUR CALL TO RELATE AMBERSON DETAILS…

JACK MOSS


So how can Beatrice possibly claim to have any interest in the films?

Because Universal paid her off in order to release TOUCH OF EVIL on DVD - even though she clearly had no rights to that film, either.

So now, she wants to get money from other studios who own her father's films. What's crazy is, the studio will probably pay her, just to avoid the costs of the lawsuit, just as Universal did.

-

[dmolson]

Frankly, besides the David vs. Goliath angle, this probably doesn't bode well for more Welles material - probably less. How many are unhappy with the Citizen Kane dvd package that came out a few years ago? Sure, we'd like more, a better doc to go with it, but it came out and wasn't 'barebones'. What's daughter done to instill any confidence that she wants to put out a superior product? Othello? Other Side of the Wind? When she'd gotten involved, there's been more tampering and red lights than anything. If more Welles' legacy is dependent upon her and her track record, we better hope there's another suit involved, and a smarter and more kinder daughter, too.

[jaime marzol]

i don't know, professor molson. some one doesn't take ownership of something that huge to stick it in the closet. the normal business thing to do is to put out a product that makes the previous owner look bad. i know i don't have the popular view, but as long as the stuff comes out, and it's good, i don't care who puts it out. kane could use a reframing, zommed back. could use a better supplement than the piss poor one it just got. what are the chances of another improved kane is going to come out in the next 7 years, unless a new owner takes it over? only time will tell.

here is more:

Welles Kin Raises 'Kane' Suit


HOLLYWOOD (Variety) - Beatrice Welles, the daughter of Orson Welles, has filed a lawsuit claiming she is the owner of the rights to film classic "Citizen Kane."

The suit, filed Friday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, names Turner Entertainment Co. and RKO Pictures as defendants. (Turner bought the film rights from RKO). It alleges that Welles entered into a 1939 contract to write produce and star in "Citizen Kane" and "The Magnificent Ambersons." According to the complaint, a 1944 agreement between Welles and RKO terminated the earlier agreement and restored the copyrights in the films to Welles.

The suit seeks a ruling on which contract is applicable. It contends that if the 1944 agreement is in force, Welles' heirs own the rights to "Kane" and "Ambersons." Even if the 1939 agreement is in force, claims the suit, the family is contractually entitled to 20% of the profits from the films, and the defendants have failed to pay royalties

[LA]

This is great news, in my opinion, but not for the reason Jaime M. thinks it is, I'm afraid to say.

I think it's great news because Warner are potentially going to hammer Beatrice in the courts, and in the aftermath of that (after all these years of threats, a real court appearance for Beatrice), with depleted funds, there's no way she'll any longer be in any position to hinder Oja Kodar's release of The Other Side Of The Wind .

Of course, the bleaker and more realistic picture is that Warner will simply chuck her a few grand to avoid any hassle, and she'll be in a better position to pay lawyers to harass Graver and Kodar. Oh well.

[Jeff Wilson]

It appears that a payoff will be in order, at least according to the RKO exec quoted in this AP story today (and can you find the error in the rest of the article?):

"Jonathan Marshall, an RKO spokesman, said the company had not yet seen Welles' suit and could not comment on it. But he said that RKO, which maintains it still owns the sequel and underlying copyrights to the two movies, would be looking to resolve the case amicably. "We've had a good working relationship with Beatrice Welles, and we would hope we would have one going forward," he said."


SF Chronicle story



Edited By Jeff Wilson on Feb. 03 2003 at 20:46

[Tony]

Since Welles never got any money for 43 years after RKO terminated his contract, he would have had to have had the worst legal advice in history, and I believe he had Arnold Weissberger, who had a top reputation.

Also, If Bea was to weasel some money from RKO, might she have to share with Christopher and Rebecca? Do the other two have any claim?

[Jeff Wilson]

For those who haven't already seen it, the article linked below (mentioned on the Mobius Home Video Forum) from The Guardian (UK) mentions that the only royalties in question are from the last four years, i.e. the DVD money. And Welles' first two daughters have no claim over anything in the estate, so far as I've read. They received $10,000 each in Welles' will and that was that.

What I'm curious about is the whole discovery of this contract; did she have someone combing Welles' old contracts, looking for ways to make more cash, or did someone actually bring this to her attention?

Guardian article