Currently the big day for the Warner Bros. adaptation Watchmen is not its March 6 release date, but January 20, the day Judge Gary A. Feess is set to decide whether or not he will issue an injunction against the film’s release at the request of 20th Century Fox. Feess ruled back on December 24 “Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the Watchmen motion picture.”
As it stands right now, on January 20 Feess will decide whether the release date for the film will be delayed or not. Warner Bros. is citing a precedent-setting decision involving eBay that says a plaintiff in a copyright-infringement case must, among other things, prove that it will be irreparably harmed without an injunction and that money damages will not be an adequate remedy. Warners is also claiming by delaying the release they, in fact, are the ones being harmed as they have strategically planned out the marketing for the release. As a result they are requesting the hearing be moved up to as early as Monday because “time is critical,” and they must soon commit to tens of millions of dollars in marketing for a film it isn’t sure it can release.
Fox claims the eBay case does not apply in this instance and Warners’ infringement of its rights entitles it to stop the release.
More is expected to be known on Friday following a morning status conferencein Feess’ Los Angeles courtroom to determine when the hearing will take place. Among the items discussed Warners is asking to bring live witnesses to the anticipated 2-3 day hearing while Fox wants everything submitted in writing.
On a final, more personal opinion of the matter, I know I have joked about this in the past with regards to the fanboy boycott, but I am confused on one factor:
Sure, this whole thing is a mess because Warner Bros. seemed to wait so long to address it and Fox waited so long to bring about a lawsuit, but I have either entirely missed, or it has never been published, what Fox is asking for.
Feess advised the two studios reach a settlement, something Warner Bros. said wasn’t going to happen. Why not? Is Fox asking for sole distribution rights?
I guess, if Feess decides Fox does have rights to the feature they really should get all rights to the film and everything Warner Bros. has done so far considering it is an infringement of their rights. I don’t want to take sides, but if Fox’s rights were infringed upon then they deserve everything that is due to them, including the entire film if the case may be. However, I find it extremely odd I haven’t heard any serious details on what Fox is asking for outside of an injunction.
Can anyone point me in the direction of a better breakdown of what Fox is asking for?
As for this story, I will post an update as soon as it is known.
