egafd.com

Hi Hiwatt,

Ridiculous post or not, it has finally brought you out into the open i.e. despite other of your posts which appear to state the contrary, you have never won a case on this and you appear to hope that by the "bully boy tactics" referred to elsewhere in posts, that you would never have to push your luck and bring it to court. You have consistently refused to state where you have enforced this contract.

As to the impact on pr. you really dont get it, do you? You've spent too much time blowing the dust off your legal books, it would seem. Whether or not you have a case in law and the evidence so far would show you haven't because you have consistently failed to prove that you are prepared to a. take this to court b. win the case despite you banging on about flagrant breaches etc etc. what do you think the impact on models who have been thinking of working for you will be.

Threat after threat, damages from the model, reimbursement of medical operations etc. etc. Do you think these models would be more or less likely to work with you as a result of this post?

Do you think that the contempt that the majority of posters (producers, everyday punters) have shown for you and Bluebird - would make you more or less likely to be successful?

Do you think the contempt that you have shown every poster on this forum who has dared to challenge your view, would enhance the reputation of Bluebird or not?

Carry on digging, Hiwatt. Its nice to see you getting so riled. Baiting of legal backroom kids is one of my favourite leisure activities.

Good stuff and once again Hiwatt, thanks for coming clean on Bluebird's seeming inability to enforce this contract so far.
All the best, now
David

[Edited by moderator]

Maybe you can address each of the points, with a simple TRUE or FALSE ?

1, The name being a mark could be an issue. TRUE, BUT NOT BECAUSE IT'S A MARK, BUT BECAUSE THE I.P. RIGHTS IN IT HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED, SO IT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE PRODUCER, AND USING THE NAME WITHOUT PERMISSION IS 'PASSING OFF' OR SIMPLE I.P. INFRINGEMENT

2, The image, persona etc could be a mark and be an issue. SAME AS 1 ABOVE

(1+2 like the rock to wwe)

3, If the model makes the producer aware, that is making him liable. YES

4, Producer doesnt know anything about contract, and the model doesnt make him aware, then he isnt liable. YES, SUBJECT TO HOW THE MODEL IS PRESENTED BY HIM

5, It is not the producers responsibility to run to contract holders and ask, its the models responsibility to make people aware. FALSE

6, Likely out comes, costly delays or running you out of money as BB pockets are deeper, they have a word for this but I forgot it something by proxy ? AND RUINING MODEL'S CAREER, BECAUSE SHE WILL BE IN BREACH OF HER CONTRACT AND HAVE TO REPAY ALL ADVANCES AGAINST ROYALTIES [FLAT/CAR ETC]

Are any of them False ? SEE ABOVE

I have to say, many people see you as being a bit of a plank, I think your very good at what you do, I mean this thread has made a VAST percentage of the UK producers aware of your contract girls, at the least those who have replied and thus achieving your objective.
YOU GOT IT !

Absolutely Hiwatt, as I pointed out before, lengthy delays and very costly.

Maybe you can tell me the legal term that is on the tip of my tongue but I can't seem to remember it as I'm not a qualified dictation machine to remember everything i'm told nor solicitor.

The legal term for Party A winning because Party B can't afford to continue, so party B drops the case ?

As i recall its something by proxy ?

Because the material she shot for us was when she was under contract.
It's not very Nothern brave and ballsy of you to shoot her when we've already said she was exempted from the non-shoot clause, is it ? That's a two fingered salute from a man with no hands !happy!

i THINK YOU MEAN 'BY DEAFULT'

Thank You

I wasnt aware it was a producers responsibility to 'hunt' down every girl he shoots, agencys/management/contract holders/etc before shooting them. I shall certainly check that single point out, as I rely on the girl ticking the box that says she is free to work for me (which was added for the foreign workers) with no legal restrictions. So I may have learned something

I also apologise for my bad wording over Q1+2, I do recall them talking about IP, I was working at the time and only on a break, and the example of the Rock was used.

Actually, 2005.
But the amending Act did not change the law on restrictive covenants in contracts. It simply put into statute what the common law already said.
Shall we cary on ?

It's not that onerous.
If the foreign girl comes through and agent - you ask the agent.
If she's a UK girl, then all you need to do is ask any agent and they'll tell you.

Just exclusion clauses huh?

I'd have another look at that if I were you. Your contracts might not be as watertight as you think!