Well, I certainly had a good laugh today at Universal's expense. How in the world can the studio expect truthfulness from a just greenlighted Kurt Cobain biopic when Courtney Love will exec produce with attorney Howard Weitzman? You know, and I know, but they don't seem to care, that this movie is gonna get crucified by critics, audiences and Nirvana fans just by involving Courtney, who owns her dead hubbie's life rights. The very idea that Weitzman has weaseled his way onto this project to "protect" his client Courtney's interests is a guffaw. It's really rare for a lawyer to snag such a credit. Then again, he's a good pal of Ron Meyer and was his exec vp after Meyer took over at MCA/Universal Studios in 1995. But my opinion of Weitzman is that wherever he goes, a foul odor follows (worse than teen spirit or studio flopsweat). That is certainly how Nirvana devotees view Love as well. The film is ostensibly based on the biography Heavier Than Heaven, and conspiracy theorists have had a field day speculating about the conditions under which Courtney gave author Charles Cross extensive interviews as well as exclusive access to Kurt's unpublished diaries. What I hate seeing here is yet another minefield of a biopic likely to blow up in everyone's faces (attached is screenwriter David Benioff of the Oscar-touted The Kite Runner). Tonight, a studio source told me: "I understand that it's a messy and complicated background, but don't prejudge it."

News reports say Microsoft, Walt Disney Co., CBS and other technology and media companies agreed on principle to prevent the unauthorized use of copyrighted videos by Internet users. The companies said in a statement today they agreed to use technology that eliminates files posted on Web sites without permission. The group also agreed to identify and remove links to sites that are mostly using content without permission, develop ways to promptly address claims that content was blocked in error, and promote legitimate online services. This is all part of the effort by media companies seeking to increase revenue from online advertising to step up efforts to prevent Web sites they don't own from using unauthorized content. GE's NBC Universal unit, News Corp's Fox and MySpace units, Viacom Inc., Veoh Networks Inc and Dailymotion SA support the initiative. But not Google, which is being sued by Viacom for copyright infringement on its YouTube video-sharing site. To avoid additional lawsuits, Google introduced this week a technology that flags clips posted by YouTube users who don't have copyrights on the content.

Bob Shaye was kicked in the nuts this week by Sam Raimi who said he'll only direct The Hobbit if Peter Jackson produces. "If [Jackson] didn't want to direct it, and he was producing it," Raimi told MTV Tuesday about his two conditions, "then I would love to be considered for the project." That certainly gives Jackson's side an even better bargaining position with New Line as settlement talks continue. Meanwhile, Peter Jackson's lawsuit against the studio drags on.

1. The Dog Ate New Line's Balance Sheets...
2. Bob Shaye's Mea Culpa Too Little Too Late
3. It's Official! Carlisle To New Line
4. Is This Russell's New Line Replacement?
5. Another Reason Why Bob Shaye Is A Prick
6. Bob Shaye Looks Like Even Bigger Idiot...
7. Studios To Fight Over Unusual Peter Jackson Pic Deal (But Not New Line) 
8. Bombs Away: Shaye's 'Mimzy' Tracking 0
9. Peter Jackson Answers Lord Of The Rants

What a scumbag studio New Line Cinema is turning out to be. Because of this nugget buried in that legal victory which Lord Of The Rings director Peter Jackson just won during the discovery phase of his 2005 lawsuit to enforce the audit provision of his contract: Back in October 2006, New Line's counsel produced only "one third of a box" of audit documents for Jackson's discovery process and claimed that's all there was. This, even though Jackson's side had requested communications and documents from profit participant audits on any New Line property: film, television, sound tracks or video games. But, in a deposition, New Line auditor Ken Horowitz described five to 10 cabinets filled with audit records. (I haven't seen discovery this egregious since the Disney vs Slesinger Winnie The Pooh royalty case.) The federal magistrate on September 18th blasted New Line's "persistent disregard" of not just the U.S. District Court's discovery orders, but Jackson's right to documents "that the court has already determined are relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. Without the true facts, there can be no just result." The magistrate sanctioned New Line $125,000 and ordered the studio to produce all third-party audits, as well as any internal audits of licensees from The Fellowship Of The Ring, the first in the Rings trilogy which grossed nearly $3 billion at the worldwide box office. A week earlier, the court refused to grant 8 out of 11 summary judgments that New Line had brought in the case. The great irony here is that, while New Line and Jackson litigate, the two sides continue to work on a diplomatic track to solve their differences. "The ice is thawing, meaning the first focus is on having consistent civil dialogue," an insider tells me. "They're not near a settlement yet, but there is dialogue." Yet I have to ask: how can anyone negotiate with prick Bob Shaye? A source concurs: "A PR picture is beginning to be painted, not by Peter's side, but by the courts."

1. Bob Shaye's Mea Culpa Too Little Too Late
2. It's Official! Carlisle To New Line
3. Is This Russell's New Line Replacement?
4. Another Reason Why Bob Shaye Is A Prick
5. Bob Shaye Looks Like Even Bigger Idiot...
6. Studios To Fight Over Unusual Peter Jackson Pic Deal (But Not New Line) 
7. Bombs Away: Shaye's 'Mimzy' Tracking 0
8. Peter Jackson Answers Lord Of The Rants

Happened today. He plans to appeal. He had been trying to withdraw his guilty plea from before. (See my previous, Big-Time Movie Director Cops Guilty Plea) MORE

So now it's official: the Friars Club of New York did score that legal victory over the Friars of Beverly Hills I reported way back on September 7th. (See my previous, Bicoastal Friars Club War Ends: NY Wins?) The court order was officially signed last week instructing the Friars of Beverly Hills to stop using the Friars’s name. Of course, it took the flacks at Rubenstein 17 days to get back to me on this. Here's the PR:

THE FRIARS CLUB WINS WITH SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE FRIARS OF BEVERLY HILLS: Attorneys from Pryor Cashman Prove the Friars of Beverly Hills Violated Trademark Law in Using the Friars’ Name

Los Angeles, CA -- Attorneys for The Friars Club at Pryor Cashman have officially obtained a summary judgment against the Friars of Beverly Hills in a Lanham Act and Anti-Dilution lawsuit, which they filed in the U.S. District Court of the Central District of California. The Friars Club, renowned for its legendary Friars “Roasts” and whose members have included entertainment luminaries such as George Burns, Jerry Lewis, Bob Hope, Frank Sinatra and Elizabeth Taylor, claimed that the defendants infringed and diluted The Friars Club’s trademark by operating “Friars of Beverly Hills” and by falsely claiming that it was the successor to the Friars Club of California, a now-defunct former licensee of The Friars Club.

In its decision, the Court found that the name “Friars” was not transferable from the Friars Club of California to the defendants.  Furthermore, it found that the evidence clearly demonstrated actual confusion on the part of the consuming public and blurring between the two organizations, and that The Friars Club had acquired “secondary meaning.”  The Court concluded that the defendants “may not evade trademark law by adopting” the Friars Club name and then “adding a geographic reference to try and distinguish its name.”  Relying on the fact that the defendants admitted that the name “Friars” is a “luxury brand,” that “everybody knows the Friars in the Country,” and that the “Friars” name is “a legacy” and “historic”, the court also concluded that the Defendants “intended to capitalize on the ‘Friars’ name by emulating it in every aspect.” 

“In short,” the Court ruled, “Defendants are using a mark (used by The Friars Club for over a hundred years) to identify a social club that is for all intents and purposes modeled after Plaintiff’s historic club.”  Such “free riding on the investment of The Friars Club must now come to an end.”

“It’s good that we are now able to put this all behind us and get back to business as usual at the Friars,” said Freddie Roman, the Dean of the Friars Club. “We had a good run on the West Coast for many years but now we move on. The Friars name is legally secure and we can continue to carry out the traditions our entertainment founders set forth over a hundred years ago.”

It's rare indeed for talent agencies to sue their clients. Unless the situation is really egregious, that is. Now Wesley Snipes finds himself on the hook for $1.7 million to United Talent Agency, which may never collect on the debt. The tenpercentery filed suit July 2006 in Los Angeles Superior Court accusing the Blade trilogy star of breaching a verbal agreement dating back to November 2002 to join the agency and pay 10% commissions. UTA claims its agents were principally responsible for getting him parts in the movies Chaos, Middle Man, The Shooter as well as negotiating his $13 mil for Blade III. Snipes left the agency in February 2006. After UTA filed its complaint, it was unable to serve the star personally with notice of the lawsuit. Snipes never responded even though a summons was then published in two newspapers. UTA was seeking a default judgment, which Superior Court Judge David Workman just signed and entered against the actor. But Snipes also is facing trial October 22nd in Florida on tax fraud charges and faces up to 16 years in prison. As an insider told me, "UTA worked really hard for the guy. But if he spends 16 years in jail, it might be hard to collect from him."

I don't have official confirmation yet but I hear there was a federal judge's decision in that ongoing Friars Club of New York vs Beverly Hills trademark infringement lawsuit. An unofficial source tells me: "Friars Club of New York won, so that means Friars Club of Beverly Hills can not use the Friars name in any way, shape, or form". The bicoastal rift (or is it roast?) has been between the 1904 non-profit New York Friars Club, located on 55th Street as a society for entertainers, and the Friars Club of Beverly Hills, begun as an annex in 1947 and then came under new ownership to be transformed into a for-profit venture. The two venues havn't shared ties in eons but they di share names. According to news reports, the feud began shortly after the then financially strapped Beverly Hills Friars Club was purchased in 2004 by a young pharmaceutical heir. That's when the New York Friars Club sued for trademark infringement in Federal District Court in Los Angeles over the use of the name "Friars". But then a Los Angeles judge ruled that the New York group's trademark violation against the name "Friars" was invalid. While the NY club has struggled as its members get greyer and lured younger members like Jerry Seinfeld and Howard Stern, the Beverly Hills site is still resting on its long ago laurels of late members like Milton Berle and Frank Sinatra. Ironically, the private club is now more vital than its ever been thanks to such marketing tools as an XBox game room and a cigar room and poker nights and other hip activities. It also planned a $10 mil renovation. But the NY Friars Club has history on its side.  

A federal judge today has effectively blocked that subpoena for NYC journalist John Connolly's Verizon phone records which Anthony Pellicano's defense was demanding. The request went back all the way to 2002 when FBI agents raided the Hollywood P.I.'s offices. See my previous: Pellicano Demands Reporter's Phone Calls

In Friday's article about Steven Seagal and the Pellicano scandal, Los Angeles Times staff writer Chuck Philips regurgitated claims about the conduct of the U.S. Attorney's office from one of Seagal's attorney's, Jan L. Handzlik. Then Philips wrote: "Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office, declined to comment." I have learned this is not true. When I asked Mrozek for comment on the Seagal piece, the public information officer forwarded me the statement (see below) he issued to Philips, who even confirmed its receipt to the PIO four minutes later.

I don't understand why the Pulitzer Prize-winner failed to use it. Then again, it's been painfully clear that Philips' agendas (1) upon agendas (2) upon agendas (3) upon agendas (4) while covering the Pellicano case has been to carry water for accused Hollywood P.I. Anthony Pellicano's defense attorneys. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the LA Times should reassign the Pellicano story. I also don't understand why the Los Angeles Times is refusing to make a correction to Philips' Friday article or print Mrozek's statement. Here it is:

From: Mrozek, Thom (USACAC)
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 4:41 PM
To: Philips, Chuck
Cc: Thom Mrozek
Subject: Response re: Jan quote

OK, this is official.....should be attributed to me.

"We never comment on discussions we have with attorneys representing defendants, targets of investigations or witnesses. I should add that the government has never charged or accused Mr. Seagal of being involved in the incident that led to the search of Pellicano's office.

"Investigators decide on the most appropriate time to conduct an interview, and that might not always coincide with when the person would like to be interviewed."

Now, off the record: you may want to go back to Jan and ask him to define "information" and to revisit the immunity issue.

Thom Mrozek
Public Affairs Officer
United States Attorney's Office - Los Angeles
www.usdoj.gov/usao/cac

Ed Limato statement to me: "I'm a free man. I'm already out of there. It's just wonderful. I'm so happy. It means that I can entertain what I want to do with the rest of my life with another agency. ICM can commission any deals already made, but no future deals. The amount of support that I have gotten from everybody -- the emails, the phone calls -- I can't begin to tell you how gratified I've been by the outpouring of support and a lot of love. People felt I wasn't being treated right after all the service I've given to ICM. On the other hand, I've loved this company and spent many happy, happy years there. I'm going to miss a lot of people. But now I can finally look forward to a new life doing what I do best, which is being an agent for my talent. Richard Gere, Steve Martin, Mel Gibson, Denzel Washington, Adrien Lyne have all agreed to come with me so far." 

Richard B. Levy, General Counsel, ICM statement: "The arbitrator’s decision to allow Ed to end his contractual obligations was based solely on a technical interpretation of Section 2855 of the California Labor Code, commonly referred to as the seven year rule. Ed is now able to accept new employment opportunities. We wish Ed continued success in the next phase of his career.” 

I'm told that the judge's decision in the ICM/Ed Limato arbitration could come as soon as tomorrow and as late as Tuesday. The proceedings themselves last Wednesday and Thursday spanned only two days, not the expected three. I hear Limato's pals think it went "really well" for him and "Ed is in good shape". But ICM's friends are also confident.

Sources tell me that the decision will probably come down to the strictness of the interpretation of Section 2855 of the California Labor Code known as "The Seven Year Statute". Intended to outlaw those standard seven-year employment contracts actors were forced to sign by the old studio moguls, it limits the amount of time anyone can be held to a contract for "personal services" to a maximum of seven years. Limato, of course, has worked for ICM for decades under contracts always extended or renegotiated. But is that the same as working under a 7-year contract? If yes, Ed leaves free and clear. If no, ICM has claims on him and his commissions on his clients' current and future projects. Meanwhile, the judge has managed to do something few are able to do when it comes to agents: put the fear of god in them. All the parties are so paranoid that they worry Her Honor will be checking their phone records. So leaks are coming from those uninvolved.

I can confirm that what you have heard from one gossip column is correct: CAA's Chris Andrews, an ICM defector, was indeed called as a surprise witness during the arbitration hearing by Limato's lawyer Tom Hansen. Sources tell me that Hansen asked Berg whether, to keep Chris on board, he told Andrews last year that ICM would be forcing out Limato and then Andrews could inherit all Ed's clients. When Berg denied it, Hanson made like an episode of Law & Order and suddenly brought in Andrews to rebutt. But did he? Limato's friends say yes. ICM's pals say, "It really didn't back up anybody. It was a waste."

I gotta say, it's hard to imagine anyone at ICM seriously thinking even a year ago that Steve Martin, Denzel Washington or Mel Gibson would stay with the agency if Limato left even under friendly circumstances much less nasty ones. For instance, at a recent Hollywood function, Steve Martin was complaining about ICM's treatment of Limato and confirming that he'd follow the agent wherever he went. Meanwhile, I hear Limato's asking price is a guaranteed $5 million, plus perks. Sources tell me that CAA and Endeavor won't pursue him, UTA is unlikely, but William Morris might.  

Sometimes the Pellicano scandal gets so convoluted that I can't make sense of every twist and turn. That's how I feel after this latest story on The Smoking Gun-- "The Man Who Bagged The Pelican" about a confidential federal witness in Los Angeles I've never heard of, Daniel Patterson (photo left). He's got no Hollywood connections and hasn't been to a movie in more than a decade, yet he was instrumental in exposing the Tinseltown P.I.'s secrets. He's "the snitch" who provided information that led the FBI to raid Pellicano's West Hollywood office, seize grenades and an explosive, and cart off computers containing thousands of hours of conversations now at the center of Pellicano's racketeering and wiretapping case. Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown. 

The New York Daily News reports today that the phone company Verizon has been asked to turn over the private phone records of NYC journalist John Connolly as the Hollywood P.I. prepares his defense for the 2008 trial. Connolly, who's been reporting on the Pellicano scandal for years, is furious at the request which supposedly goes back all the way to 2002 when FBI agents raided Pellicano's offices. Meanwhile, I've heard that The New York Times reporting duo on Pellicano, David Halbfinger and Allison Hope Weiner, are officially off the story for the meantime and have returned to their normal beats.