Woman sues over 1960s 'Batman' series

**Jaye** · 08-18-2006, 01:25 PM

Fri Aug 18, 7:18 AM ET
LOS ANGELES - A New Mexico woman is suing 20th Century Fox Film Corporation alleging she was defrauded out of $4.4 million she was entitled to receive for the popular 1960s "Batman" television series.

Deborah Dozier Potter, whose father William Dozier was one of the producers of the show, filed the lawsuit Wednesday in Superior Court that alleges fraud, concealment and breach of contract.

She is an heir to her father's estate and holds a portion of the assets of Greenway Productions Inc. which produced the series four decades ago that Fox distributed, according to the lawsuit.

Both companies, Greenway and Fox, signed a contract in the 1960s, the lawsuit said. Another contract was also signed between Fox and ABC, the station which televised the show. In March 2005, Potter came across the agreement between Fox and ABC and discovered she was entitled to 26 percent of the net profits from that agreement as well.

"I wish it could have been avoided," Potter said from her home in Santa Fe. "Nobody likes litigation."

Fox does not comment on pending litigation, said Chris Alexander, vice president of 20th Century Fox Television.

from yahoo

**Sparda** · 08-18-2006, 01:47 PM

Wow that's quite interesting. Why did it take her such a long time to make the claim (and isn't her father suppose to do it long ago).

**filthysize** · 08-18-2006, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by Sparda

Wow that's quite interesting. Why did it take her such a long time to make the claim (and isn't her father suppose to do it long ago).

Well, it probably took her a year to check the facts, assemble lawyers, file the suit, etc.

**Jaye** · 08-18-2006, 01:52 PM

Its an awful lot of money, too.

**The Shadow** · 08-18-2006, 03:27 PM

DAMN the man! Save the Empire... wait... wrong thread...

I'm surprised it's only 4.4 million, not that that's not a lot... I just thought it would have been more. I wonder if syndication is involved in the contract... though did they even bother with stuff like that years ago?

**Agentum** · 08-18-2006, 03:40 PM

It seems like it has gone to long time since this took place.

But i guess it's possible sue for everything in america, that would never work here.

**protege** · 08-18-2006, 03:51 PM

I wonder how much further this is going to delay getting the series out on dvd?

**The Shadow** · 08-18-2006, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by protege

I wonder how much further this is going to delay getting the series out on dvd?

... you WANT the series out on DVD???????

**Frankie Dennis** · 08-18-2006, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by The Shadow

... you WANT the series out on DVD???????

Hell yeah! That was one of the funniest shows ever.

**Agentum** · 08-18-2006, 04:22 PM

I don't like it, it was made silly for you to laught at not with.

**Lorendiac** · 08-18-2006, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by The Shadow

DAMN the man! Save the Empire... wait... wrong thread...

I'm surprised it's only 4.4 million, not that that's not a lot... I just thought it would have been more. I wonder if syndication is involved in the contract... though did they even bother with stuff like that years ago?

Back in the 60s? I know they worried about it where "Star Trek" was concerned when they were writing contracts, so I would imagine the same thing applied to "Batman." I believe William Shatner said in his book "Star Trek Memories" that when the original "Star Trek" series was ending after three seasons, he and all the other regular cast members were offered a choice by the network: They could each sit back and wait to gradually collect whatever their own small syndication royalties would be according to their previous contracts whenever there were reruns of old episodes in the future . . . or they could each sign a waiver agreeing to give up all rights to royalties on reruns in exchange for a couple of thousand bucks of cold cash per actor, right now. I think each actor was free to make his or her own decision regardless of what any other cast member chose.

They all decided to take the couple of thousand bucks and sign the waivers, because hey, the reruns would probably last one season and then the show would vanish into limbo, never to be heard from again.

Over twenty years later, the old episodes were still being rerun on a regular basis, and Shatner, Nimoy, etc., all could have kicked themselves for giving up such a nice steady long-term source of income that would have paid so much more than that couple of thousand bucks as the years rolled past! :)

**Patient Boy** · 08-18-2006, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by The Shadow

... you WANT the series out on DVD???????

Why not? It's a major part of Batman's history as a character (and I don't mean continuity). If you were to ask me whether DC should make Batman like this again I'd probably say no, but I'd never excise it.

Maybe some of the derision here comes from the fact that the standard media portrayal of Batman has been grim and gritty.

**jam37wcc** · 08-18-2006, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Lorendiac

They all decided to take the couple of thousand bucks and sign the waivers, because hey, the reruns would probably last one season and then the show would vanish into limbo, never to be heard from again.

Over twenty years later, the old episodes were still being rerun on a regular basis, and Shatner, Nimoy, etc., all could have kicked themselves for giving up such a nice steady long-term source of income that would have paid so much more than that couple of thousand bucks as the years rolled past! :)

I wonder if they all decided to keep their royalties if the show would still be going. They might have just stopped showing it to keep from having to pay them money.

**Lorendiac** · 08-18-2006, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by jam37wcc

I wonder if they all decided to keep their royalties if the show would still be going. They might have just stopped showing it to keep from having to pay them money.

I don't think it meant very much money on any single episode. A few dollars at a time per actor. And after all, it wasn't like the network would be showing those reruns at a loss. They get paid by collecting advertising revenue, with varying rates based upon how many people, on average, are expected to be watching a certain show at a certain time of day. As long as large numbers of people were demonstrably willing to keep watching those reruns, year after year, I think the TV people were going to keep "selling" that "packaged audience" to the advertisers on a regular basis, in order to make nice profits of their own for their trouble, on shows that they didn't have to keep spending more money to produce, since they already had the silly things on videotape and there were no new production costs to worry about! :)