• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

These "Happy Days" are Mine, not Yours

I understand CBS and Paramount are now joined at the hip these days, but I find it interesting that ABC - which aired the program - has avoided any wrongdoing.

Hey, I wonder if the program is named in the lawsuit as "Happy Days Again"?
 
DToTheJ said:
I understand CBS and Paramount are now joined at the hip these days...
Click to expand...

Not anymore -- Viacom still has Paramount Pictures's movies, but CBS has its television programming, which they got when Viacom and CBS split. Paramount was named in the lawsuit as the wrongdoing began when Paramount and CBS were still part of the same family, maybe even before Viacom bought Paramount.
 
It was Donny Most (or as he would like to be called now Don Most) who spear headed this lawsuit after seeing a slot machine with the Happy Days logo and characters and he went with the other actors on it. I'm sure possibly he needs the money moreso than the others (Marion Ross, Tom Bosley's widow, Anson Williams, Erin Moran) and I'm not quite sure if they're even getting anything for reruns of Happy Days anymore or not since it hasn't been seen as often now than it has in the past. Note that Ted McGinley and Scott Baio aren't in this lawsuit or anyone associated with Pat Morita and Al Morinaro and Lynda Goodfriend weren't in the lawsuit either.

I'm suspect to say that Ron Howard's and Henry Winkler's not going in on the lawsuit was the right thing since both probably don't need the money anyways and joining the lawsuit might have given the idea that both were money hungry.

All I can say is good luck to them.
 
Braves2005 said:
I'm suspect to say that Ron Howard's and Henry Winkler's not going in on the lawsuit was the right thing since both probably don't need the money anyways and joining the lawsuit might have given the idea that both were money hungry.
Click to expand...

In Henry's case, no doubt he is still humble when it comes to reaping the riches and popularity of the show -- after all, he didn't get top billing on the show until after Ron Howard left, due to his resistance from the producers wanting to give him top billing early on in the show.
 
I realize that nothing is ever simple in the legal arena, but it seems simple to me. If the plaintiffs in this lawsuit had a clause in their contract specifying that they would get a share of any profits for merchandising and the use of their image - then they may be owed money. But if that was not specified in their contracts, they are owed nothing.

Since Howard and Winkler were the stars of the show, it stands to reason that they might have some had kind of clause in their contracts for this. and maybe Bosley and Ross. But the other actors with smaller parts - doubtful.
 
I think they are probably due some money, but to flip the coin around......

How many times have they used their Happy Days celebrity status to make
money for them? How many guest spots on tv shows and movies? How many
books sold and autographed? How many mall appearances which they got paid
for? Those things add up also.
 
^ so if they are owed money legitmatly that invaladates it?
 
I would have to say if I saw my image on pin ball or slot machine I'd be pretty P. O. I think there are laws the regulate this on the books. Remember, John Wayne, James Dean, Elvis, etc. estates still get royalties from their images on anything.
 
In an article at CNN's website it said that Henry Winkler didn't participate in the lawsuit because he was under a different contract and was being paid, but that he supported the other cast members in their lawsuit. Ron Howard had no comment, but he was probably under a different contract as well.
 
Without judging the merits of this lawsuit - it's worth noting that TV production companies have been notorious in the past for screwing actors out of the various profit-sharing clauses in their contracts.

In the late 80s (if I remember correctly), James Garner filed a suit against the producers of The Rockford Files. He had negotiated a specific percentage of the net profits, but somehow, after a successful 6 year network run, followed by more than a decade of successful syndication, he had never received a penny. Garner charged that the producers used creative accounting techniques to keep the show from showing a profit on paper. He basically "won" the suit - receiving a significant amount of money, in any case
 
gregg75 said:
No, but maybe they owe a little back to CBS for what they squeezed
outta it (the show).
Click to expand...

on what legality? the issue is what they are contractually obligated.if their contract did not prohibit appearences using the fact that they were on the show as a draw nor said any money from that goes back to cbs there is no reason they would owe cbs.

i don`t even see any moral reason that the actors were wrong to make appearences like that.

networks , studios and production companies pay actors not the other way around.
 
Yes, but what I am saying is they owe much of their livelihood to a character they
played, but did not create........and they profited from it. Stop splitting hairs. I'm sure
they made thousands of dollars after they left the show. Boo hoo for them.
 
^ if the company made a provision in the contract that they were elgible for royalties they are owed them.if they were not given they deserve to get them. this is what not splitting hairs.this is getting what is legally theirs.

paramont made things so they owed them. they need to live up to the deal.
 
I'm surprised that it's only $10 million they're asking for...you would think that in a show that was (and still is, in many circles) very popular worldwide, and an institution in American television history, the actors would ask for a lot more than that. After it's all said and done, they'll be lucky to walk away with half of that lawsuit amount, considering attorneys' and the court's fees.

In my few recent travels to Las Vegas, I've seen the Happy Days-themed slot machines, and besides Richie and the Fonz, I don't remember any other of the HD characters being prominently displayed.
 
gregg75 said:
Yes, but what I am saying is they owe much of their livelihood to a character they
played, but did not create........and they profited from it. Stop splitting hairs. I'm sure
they made thousands of dollars after they left the show. Boo hoo for them.
Click to expand...

In other words, since they made some money on their own, CBS corporation should be free to renege on the contract that was signed with these performers?

Just out of curiosity, would you be as supportive of individuals who reneged on a contract to a corporation? Say, for example, a group of performers on a popular show who are still under contract but who engage in a work stoppage in order to extract more money from the corporation that owns the show? Or is it somehow okay for companies to screw individuals, but not the other way around?
 
Braves2005 said:
Note that Ted McGinley and Scott Baio aren't in this lawsuit...
Click to expand...

With Ted McGinley named in the lawsuit, it would probably be thrown out of court, based on his involvement alone! ::)
 
Not being an attorney I won't argue the legal merits of this lawsuit. Yet I have to wonder if Ms. Ross, along with "Ralph", "Potsie" "Joanie", and the estate of the late Tom Bosley have been excluded from receiving any residuals resulting from the constant reruns of "Happy Days" on television over the past few decades? If they were excluded from receiving monies resulting from the reruns then their agents weren't looking out for the best interests of their clients. I say that because if one notices neither Ron Howard nor Henry Winkler have added their names to the lawsuits, or even filed separate ones.

Just from the news reports I've read, the plaintiffs are claiming to have lost $10 million dollars in residuals from having their faces appear on everything from lunch boxes to gambling machines.

With perhaps the exceptions of Erin Moran and Don Most, Marion Ross, Anson Williams and especially the late Tom Bosley enjoyed successful careers after the "Happy Days" series concluded. So are those folks that desperate for money that they are willing to spend money in order to go after CBS/Paramount?

In conclusion I think the plaintiffs would have had a stronger case if Howard and Winkler had included their names in this lawsuit.
 
Not being an attorney I won't argue the legal merits of this lawsuit. Yet I have to wonder if Ms. Ross, along with "Ralph", "Potsie" "Joanie", and the estate of the late Tom Bosley have been excluded from receiving any residuals resulting from the constant reruns of "Happy Days" on television over the past few decades? If they were excluded from receiving monies resulting from the reruns then their agents weren't looking out for the best interests of their clients. I say that because if one notices neither Ron Howard nor Henry Winkler have added their names to the lawsuits, or even filed separate ones.

Just from the news reports I've read, the plaintiffs are claiming to have lost $10 million dollars in residuals from having their faces appear on everything from lunch boxes to gambling machines.

With perhaps the exceptions of Erin Moran and Don Most, Marion Ross, Anson Williams and especially the late Tom Bosley enjoyed successful careers after the "Happy Days" series concluded. So are those folks that desperate for money that they are willing to spend money in order to go after CBS/Paramount?

In conclusion I think the plaintiffs would have had a stronger case if Howard and Winkler had included their names in this lawsuit.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom