Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: GSN celeb vetos  (Read 25182 times)

Don Howard

  • Member
  • Posts: 5729
GSN celeb vetos
« Reply #30 on: July 24, 2009, 12:52:18 PM »
[quote name=\'pyrfan\' post=\'220877\' date=\'Jul 23 2009, 12:28 AM\']She seems to want to distance herself from her "Facts Of Life" days.[/quote]
She wants to distance herself from the program which provided her big break? Ungrateful brat!

clemon79

  • Member
  • Posts: 27679
  • Director of Suck Consolidation
GSN celeb vetos
« Reply #31 on: July 24, 2009, 02:09:58 PM »
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'220988\' date=\'Jul 24 2009, 06:34 AM\']GSN believes they are legally required to obtain permission from celebrities to use their appearances, at least in many (most?) circumstances.[/quote]
Okay, see, I didn't know about that issue. So I sit corrected.

I still stand by "he's not home" being insufficient to lift an embargo on an appearance, though. :)
Chris Lemon, King Fool, Director of Suck Consolidation
http://fredsmythe.com
Email: clemon79@outlook.com  |  Skype: FredSmythe

Dbacksfan12

  • Member
  • Posts: 6200
  • Just leave the set; that’d be terrific.
GSN celeb vetos
« Reply #32 on: July 24, 2009, 05:15:18 PM »
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'220988\' date=\'Jul 24 2009, 08:34 AM\']GSN believes they are legally required to obtain permission from celebrities to use their appearances, at least in many (most?) circumstances.[/quote]Believes?  Isn't that why they have lawyers?  
Quote
much as they've been with the cigarette-sponsored classics
I seem to recall reading they yanked them after receiving a solo viewer complaint.  They should have stood their ground instead of being wimps about it and catering to that consumer's demand.

First AND only time GSN listened to a viewer.
--Mark
Phil 4:13

mmb5

  • Member
  • Posts: 2176
GSN celeb vetos
« Reply #33 on: July 24, 2009, 09:00:06 PM »
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'221015\' date=\'Jul 24 2009, 05:15 PM\'][quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'220988\' date=\'Jul 24 2009, 08:34 AM\']GSN believes they are legally required to obtain permission from celebrities to use their appearances, at least in many (most?) circumstances.[/quote]Believes?  Isn't that why they have lawyers?
[/quote]
I'm quite sure a lawyer came up with the dictum -- many companies have staff lawyers.  It's not going to harm the business if an occasional rerun of a 35 year old program is skipped -- it's a lot safer than being sued for it.

I occasionally have to deal with the oddest requests for removal from our databases, including one today where an artist asked to be removed, even though this means her data will no longer be available to any major retail to help her promote sales.  Sometimes life, especially when the law is involved, makes no sense.


--Mike
Portions of this post not affecting the outcome have been edited or recreated.

Jimmy Owen

  • Member
  • Posts: 7644
GSN celeb vetos
« Reply #34 on: July 24, 2009, 11:23:57 PM »
Aren't you glad Dick Dawson said yes?
Let's Make a Deal was the first show to air on Buzzr. 6/1/15 8PM.

Scrabbleship

  • Member
  • Posts: 427
GSN celeb vetos
« Reply #35 on: July 24, 2009, 11:48:49 PM »
[quote name=\'mmb5\' post=\'221042\' date=\'Jul 24 2009, 09:00 PM\'][quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'221015\' date=\'Jul 24 2009, 05:15 PM\'][quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'220988\' date=\'Jul 24 2009, 08:34 AM\']GSN believes they are legally required to obtain permission from celebrities to use their appearances, at least in many (most?) circumstances.[/quote]Believes?  Isn't that why they have lawyers?
[/quote]
I'm quite sure a lawyer came up with the dictum -- many companies have staff lawyers.  It's not going to harm the business if an occasional rerun of a 35 year old program is skipped -- it's a lot safer than being sued for it.

I occasionally have to deal with the oddest requests for removal from our databases, including one today where an artist asked to be removed, even though this means her data will no longer be available to any major retail to help her promote sales.  Sometimes life, especially when the law is involved, makes no sense.


--Mike
[/quote]

I take it this artist has a want to be perpetually starving rather than have any sort of success. I'd pray for her soul if there was concrerte proof that she had one alongside herbrain.

I'd really like to see the exact law that allows for this unreasonable veto power and the circumstances that led to its enactment. It's a shame that such a law exists (and naturally the US is probably the only western nation who has one) because why should people in entertainment be allowed to whitewash their debatable bad moves. Most of us have to live with our bad decisions and get no veto power over them, why should entertainers be any different.

pyrfan

  • Member
  • Posts: 380
GSN celeb vetos
« Reply #36 on: July 25, 2009, 01:15:42 AM »
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'220587\' date=\'Jul 20 2009, 04:59 PM\']I'm told reliably that at least when it comes to Tattletales, episodes featuring Bob Newhart, Dan Rowan, Jay Leno and Michael J. Fox (along with their significant others) were never cleared for broadcast on GSN.[/quote]
Update: I checked my records, and one of Michael's partners on the show was "Gimme a Break" star Kari Michaelsen.


Brendan

clemon79

  • Member
  • Posts: 27679
  • Director of Suck Consolidation
GSN celeb vetos
« Reply #37 on: July 25, 2009, 03:58:06 AM »
[quote name=\'Scrabbleship\' post=\'221058\' date=\'Jul 24 2009, 08:48 PM\']because why should people in entertainment be allowed to whitewash their debatable bad moves. Most of us have to live with our bad decisions and get no veto power over them, why should entertainers be any different.[/quote]

You are an incredible piece of work.
Chris Lemon, King Fool, Director of Suck Consolidation
http://fredsmythe.com
Email: clemon79@outlook.com  |  Skype: FredSmythe

Dbacksfan12

  • Member
  • Posts: 6200
  • Just leave the set; that’d be terrific.
GSN celeb vetos
« Reply #38 on: July 25, 2009, 05:52:15 AM »
[quote name=\'Scrabbleship\' post=\'221058\' date=\'Jul 24 2009, 10:48 PM\']I'd pray for her soul if there was concrerte proof that she had one alongside herbrain.[/quote]Wow.

People like Cory Houser get banned, yet, crap like this gets posted.
--Mark
Phil 4:13

mmb5

  • Member
  • Posts: 2176
GSN celeb vetos
« Reply #39 on: July 25, 2009, 10:12:31 AM »
[quote name=\'Scrabbleship\' post=\'221058\' date=\'Jul 24 2009, 11:48 PM\']I take it this artist has a want to be perpetually starving rather than have any sort of success. I'd pray for her soul if there was concrerte proof that she had one alongside herbrain.[/quote]
It was a Christian artist, I'm quite sure she believes she has a soul.  It was her choice to sacrifice sales and publicity for her right to control the path of her career and the channels she chooses to further her career.  I don't agree with the choice, but she has it.

I've also been dealing with a record label this week that has pulled their material, since they prefer to sell from their site for the marginal increase in the per unit profit rather than have their sales driven by the volume major retailers and web sites would bring them.  I don't agree with it either, but it is their right.

[quote name=\'Scrabbleship\' post=\'221058\' date=\'Jul 24 2009, 11:48 PM\']I'd really like to see the exact law that allows for this unreasonable veto power and the circumstances that led to its enactment. It's a shame that such a law exists (and naturally the US is probably the only western nation who has one) because why should people in entertainment be allowed to whitewash their debatable bad moves. Most of us have to live with our bad decisions and get no veto power over them, why should entertainers be any different.[/quote]
Warning: Not a Lawyer, but I do have more-than-the-average-Joe insight into this.

The Constitution gives you the right to privacy unless you are a public figure, and by public I mean a politician.  It's why you can see greeting cards with Bush or Obama on them.  However, celebrities, as strange as it sounds, is still a private endeavor.  I can just not take your picture, slap it on a billboard, and advertise for Scrabbleship's Extra Stink Control Adult Diapers.  I have to get your permission for that, because you control your likeness.  And the U.S. is not alone in this, rules vary from country to country, but pretty much any country who is a signatory to the international copyright conventions in place now will have some form of this rule.

When a contract was made for celebrity X to appear on show Y, certain rights were forfeited in consideration for the appearance.  At the time contracts were made, it was unlikely that any language was included that allowed appearances on another network 35 years down the pike.  Extra consideration has to given to allow these appearances at a rate negotiated by the actor's union.  Part of that negotiation as believed by GSN is that they have to have an agreement to that rate, which we have learned through anecdotes is minuscule.

The star or their agent for whatever reason has decided this is not agreeable to them.  For us, it may not be ideal, but for the star or their agent, but those were the decisions that were made.  These are the same decisions that may keep a DVD from the market due to song royalties, and some of them may be for vindictiveness rather than pure financial gain, like Shannen Doherty refusing to grant clip rights for her flashbacks to be in the original 90210.

Again, as much as this sucks to you the viewer, it's also to make sure that people are properly compensated for past endeavors.  When a realization that money could be made from reruns, the perpetual signing over of rights ended, and it became a lot of effort just to make sure everybody was fairly compensated.  And where I've had to spend time to figure out royalty rates to the sixth decimal place at work, I realize sometimes it seems a bit absurd.  But in a business where your likeness is everything, you should have that right to control how it's being used.

My 2 cents for this reading, my .5 cent for the second reading, my .1 cent for the third reading, and my .025 cents for each subsequent reading


--Mike
Portions of this post not affecting the outcome have been edited or recreated.

clemon79

  • Member
  • Posts: 27679
  • Director of Suck Consolidation
GSN celeb vetos
« Reply #40 on: July 25, 2009, 01:21:38 PM »
[quote name=\'mmb5\' post=\'221077\' date=\'Jul 25 2009, 07:12 AM\']Scrabbleship's Extra Stink Control Adult Diapers.[/quote]
"You'll never know just how full of shiat they are!"
Chris Lemon, King Fool, Director of Suck Consolidation
http://fredsmythe.com
Email: clemon79@outlook.com  |  Skype: FredSmythe

HYHYBT

  • Member
  • Posts: 416
GSN celeb vetos
« Reply #41 on: July 26, 2009, 02:48:42 PM »
Why assume that, if one week of one show is skipped but their other appearances are run, that it's because of clearance? It could be any number of other things: a Christmas week at the wrong time of the year (mentioned earlier and passed right over), a tape someone spilled coffee on...
"If you ask me to repeat this I'm gonna punch you right in the nose" -- Geoff Edwards, Play the Percentages

davemackey

  • Member
  • Posts: 2397
GSN celeb vetos
« Reply #42 on: July 27, 2009, 01:02:35 PM »
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'221056\' date=\'Jul 24 2009, 11:23 PM\']Aren't you glad Dick Dawson said yes?[/quote]
That's hundreds of episodes right there.

ChuckNet

  • Member
  • Posts: 2193
GSN celeb vetos
« Reply #43 on: July 30, 2009, 12:28:49 AM »
Quote
I'm told reliably that at least when it comes to Tattletales, episodes featuring Bob Newhart, Dan Rowan, Jay Leno and Michael J. Fox (along with their significant others) were never cleared for broadcast on GSN.

Newhart's other GS appearances got the OK, though...a nighttime Password ep w/him did air, as did one ep from a 1988 Super Password all-star week w/Bob and Ginny competing against Dick and Dolly Martin.

Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")

LocalH

  • Member
  • Posts: 56
GSN celeb vetos
« Reply #44 on: July 31, 2009, 08:54:16 PM »
On the general topic of vetos, it's always pissed me off that Barker has been able to veto fur eps - some of those eps are part of history. Put a disclaimer, I don't give a shit, but to act like they don't exist is tantamount to revisionist history.
Scott Jones

Long-time Game Show Fan

Former Newscast Director