To take the example further, one could argue that, if, (most likely), Bradshaw was compensated "prior to use" of his 'persona' in a mere comedy, because he has "juice" as a "big player", if you will, then why wouldn't a media juggernaut like Netflix take even take a modicum of effort to pre-arrange a reasonable agreement with our favorite elderly female groundbreaking GM?
I rest my case, Your Honor.
Case closed.
Thread ... –– ... Deactivated.
Thread ...––... Reactivated.
Breaking: It is rumored that The Emmys® is contemplating rescinding at least some of the show's awards.
A spokesman for the storied awards organization, when reached for comment, stated:
"Yeah, we're not sure about taking them all away, but in retrospect eleven is waaaay too many for such an obviously flawed work, I mean really ... eleven???"
Other awards groups, in a frantic scramble to distance themselves from the toxic controversy, are looking into similar actions.
Prominent fashion historians have pledged to look into the accuracy of the period costumes that won one of the awards.
"I mean, if they couldn't even get the chess history part right ... you know?" said a representative of the Metropolitan Museum of Art's Costume Institute History Department.
Look on the bright side. As with the lawsuit, taking away Emmys will also probably go nowhere. If they get an Emmy revoked because they got a period costume wrong that really has nothing to do with a frivolous lawsuit. 11 Emmys is pretty impressive though.
The Emmys® just called, IPG, they're pretty insistent that the ® always appear when their organization is referenced in print. Just thought you should know, they are extremely protective of their intellectual property, and are known to be highly litigious!
The Emmys® just called, IPG, they're pretty insistent that the ® always appear when their organization is referenced in print. Just thought you should know, they are extremely protective of their intellectual property, and are known to be highly litigious!
Haha. Maybe Nonas lawyer is looking for another opportunity. He's going to be really busy though. Chess.com might be in his sights too.
The series also won a big writing award. Entertainment insiders were reported to say that the writers were "surprisingly subdued" at the after party, left early "furtively", and were overheard saying they "couldn't stand the whispers and innuendo anymore".
Which was good, because then everyone could talk about their predicament openly.
The runners-up for the awards in question are clamoring for a "recount" behind the scenes, according to This Reporter's insider entertainment sources!!!
Sorry, royalknight101, was trying to edit my comment, deleted in the process.
But your argument falls short here, IMHO ... if there is all this "success", in terms of monetary rewards most significantly, why shouldn't GM Nona be allowed to benefit from that, especially because she was explicitly named in the series?
All she's asking for is a paltry 5 million, for the unauthorized use of her name and likeness, coupled with a misrepresentation of her well known historically significant (in the chess world) career.
And the whole thing will ... poof ... just like that, go away.
well think about it this way @Barney-Boondoggle
has magnus, fabiano, or wesley and ding ever tired to sue anyone using their names?
even judit polgar stated that its just a game and she is just glad to be apart of the chess world, to encourage other players to just have fun and keep playing. nona does have the right to be furious and sure she can clam all the money she wants but is it really necessary? she was only mentioned once throughout the whole series while people like judit were happy.
Maybe she wouldn't have been so happy if they said [Polgar] had "never faced" a man.
Even the phrase, in and of itself, could be construed as sexist in the hands of a skilled legal advocate.
I'm sure that a reading of "The Queen's Gambit" scripts would uncover many lines spoken by different characters disparaging the abilities of female chess players and/or proposing that Beth Harmon and other women don't belong in top-level competitions. That's the way the chess world was in the period depicted (and unfortunately in some circles today). That one character in one scene went so far as to poo-poo the accomplishments of the best woman player of the era fits the dramatic purpose and is perfectly legal, particularly in the case of a public figure whose true merits are widely known and appreciated.
An extreme example: Al Capone has been called a mob boss, a murderer, a career criminal and the founder of organized crime in America in countless movies and TV shows. Yet the only crime he was ever convicted of was tax fraud, something that our former president was once fined for. Should the Capone family be able to sue all those filmmakers for sullying the family name? They have as much chance for a payday as Nona does--zero.
I'm sure that a reading of "The Queen's Gambit" scripts would uncover many lines spoken by different characters disparaging the abilities of female chess players and/or proposing that Beth Harmon and other women don't belong in top-level competitions. That's the way the chess world was in the period depicted (and unfortunately in some circles today). That one character in one scene went so far as to poo-poo the accomplishments of the best woman player of the era fits the dramatic purpose and is perfectly legal, particularly in the case of a public figure whose true merits are widely known and appreciated.
An extreme example: Al Capone has been called a mob boss, a murderer, a career criminal and the founder of organized crime in America in countless movies and TV shows. Yet the only crime he was ever convicted of was tax fraud, something that our former president was once fined for. Should the Capone family be able to sue all those filmmakers for sullying the family name? They have as much chance for a payday as Nona does--zero.
Hello Matlock.
so what do you say barney, do you agree that its really important?
This Reporter simply reports chess news in real-time, without the distorted lens of opinion.
Thread [temporality] Deactivated ... –– ...
No Further Posts Will Be Permitted Until OP Returns to Thread.
I'm sure that a reading of "The Queen's Gambit" scripts would uncover many lines spoken by different characters disparaging the abilities of female chess players and/or proposing that Beth Harmon and other women don't belong in top-level competitions. That's the way the chess world was in the period depicted (and unfortunately in some circles today). That one character in one scene went so far as to poo-poo the accomplishments of the best woman player of the era fits the dramatic purpose and is perfectly legal, particularly in the case of a public figure whose true merits are widely known and appreciated.
An extreme example: Al Capone has been called a mob boss, a murderer, a career criminal and the founder of organized crime in America in countless movies and TV shows. Yet the only crime he was ever convicted of was tax fraud, something that our former president was once fined for. Should the Capone family be able to sue all those filmmakers for sullying the family name? They have as much chance for a payday as Nona does--zero.
That's the point I was making earlier. That it's possible the line was changed from the book to the movie to reflect the opinions of the time. It is a period piece. So to be more accurate, it's possible they wanted to disparage a female player. Even though that's possible, I don't think that's the real reason.
Hopefully she gets some sort of compensation out of it (not that I expect it to happen, and certainly not to the tune of USD5mn).
That particular line was changed from the book, unless memory fails me. It's fairly easy to see why she's irked by it (fictional accounts have a very strong tendency to become ”accepted facts” in people's minds), especially since she scored quite a few decent results. She was the first female World Champion to actually be able to compete with men on a fairly even footing, basically always entering any tournament with the expectation of finishing well above the bottom of the table. In 1972, she was rated E2450, which placed her at equal 148th place in the world (E2500 put in the top 75 in the world at the time).
Hopefully she gets some sort of compensation out of it (not that I expect it to happen, and certainly not to the tune of USD5mn).
That particular line was changed from the book, unless memory fails me. It's fairly easy to see why she's irked by it (fictional accounts have a very strong tendency to become ”accepted facts” in people's minds), especially since she scored quite a few decent results. She was the first female World Champion to actually be able to compete with men on a fairly even footing, basically always entering any tournament with the expectation of finishing well above the bottom of the table. In 1972, she was rated E2450, which placed her at equal 148th place in the world (E2500 put in the top 75 in the world at the time).
Fictional accounts only have a strong tendency to become "accepted facts" in small children and adults with mental disabilities. That's why we, as adults, say to children "it's not real, it's only a movie". It's different for everyone but by the time a child is 6, or 8, or sometimes 10 they begin to understand that fictional accounts in movies are not real. Things like Santa and the Easter Bunny, alien invasions, (and the Queens Gambit) are fictional accounts.
It's also why there is that disclaimer at the beginning of every fictional movie. You've seen it. The one that says something like this is a fictional account, any resemblance to any person, living or dead, is purely co-incidental.
The reason the lawsuit has gone nowhere is because it has absolutely no merit whatsoever. Unfortunately it was just a desperate moneygrab attempt by Nonas attorneys. It's disappointing that she went along with it. She should be better than that.
Money,Money,Money=Sue,Sue,Sue. A boy named Sue will want Money
If people could successfully sue filmmakers for minor inaccuracies in admittedly fictional portrayals, the heir of real villains like Stalin or Al Capone would be billionaires by now.
One might surmise that jurors would find an elderly woman GM chess trailblazer from a formerly oppressed satellite of the USSR, who is now pretty much the darling of the chess universe, a little more sympathetic than the potential plaintiffs you mentioned.
Very unlikely. What the jurors might find actually is a greedy lawyer taking advantage of an old woman. Nona likely has or had no interest in any of this. But what started out as idle conversation over coffee turned into a lawsuit. At age 80 some people can be manipulated much more easily than when they were younger. All the lawyer had to do is convince Nona the case has merit. Probably not too difficult to do to an 80 year old.
Mpaetz is right. There are countless examples of movie makers having lines in movies about real people that are FAR more eye raising than this. The line in Queens Gambit actually has some truth to it, so there is basically no chance of the lawsuit going anywhere.
In the movie Anchorman, the character Champ becomes a commentator for the NFL. But he gets fired after being accused of sexual harassment by Terry Bradshaw (a real person). The real life person (just like the thousands of other examples) don't get to sue the movie makers because they said something about a real life person that isn't true. It's just the way it is. If you want to be angry at someone, be angry at the lawyer who convinced Nona this was a good idea.
IPG, your example of "Anchorman" is flawed in at least two ways IMHO:
1) It is a comedy ... parody and satire are generally given much more leeway in this type of thing than other genres of media (except on chess.com).
2) We don't know if Bradshaw had some kind of compensation agreement for the use of his name and likeness in the film. There is nothing This Reporter could find about that one way or the other, so far.
Also re the "greedy lawyer", he could be working on contingency, in which case he'd get nothing if they lost.