Godfather Game Lawsuit

Mario Puzo may be sleeping with Luca Brasi and the fishes since 1999, but his estate is not letting anyone horn in on his territory, as this report indicates that Anthony Puzo has filed a lawsuit against Paramount Pictures over revenue from the recent Godfather video game. The author's son claims the estate is due at least $1 million from the game, based on an agreement between his father and the movie studio in 1992 that was "to give Puzo a significant share of the revenue of any audio-visual products sold or rented with elements of the 'Godfather' movies." Paramount has not yet commented on the lawsuit, though in an interesting related note, EA has made it clear a sequel to the game is in the works.
View : : :
15.
 
Re: No subject
Jun 19, 2008, 13:24
15.
Re: No subject Jun 19, 2008, 13:24
Jun 19, 2008, 13:24
 
Why should Anthony Puzo make $1 million just because of his last name? Grown adults shouldn't leech off the success of their parents. They should make their own success.

Anthony isn't trying to get the money because it's his last name. He's doing it because he has a legal contract with Paramount saying he should receive a certain amount of money from any proceeds made off The Godfather IP. It doesn't matter what the content of the game was. It doesn't matter if the game is a freaken' pacman clone. If the decision is made to use The Godfather name to increase sales, then the contract for usage of IP is in force, and should be. This isn't about Anthony Puzo's greed. It's about Paramount's.


This comment was edited on Jun 19, 13:26.
Elye...
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
3.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
28.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
30.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
31.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
32.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
33.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
     Re: No subject
34.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
     Re: No subject
35.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
      Re: No subject
36.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
       Re: No subject
37.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
        Re: No subject
38.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
         Re: No subject
39.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
          Re: No subject
40.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
           Re: No subject
41.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
            Re: No subject
42.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
             Re: No subject
43.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
              Re: No subject
44.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
               Re: No subject
46.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
                Re: No subject
47.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
                 Re: No subject
48.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
                  Re: No subject
49.
Jun 20, 2008Jun 20 2008
                   Re: No subject
51.
Jun 20, 2008Jun 20 2008
                    Re: No subject
52.
Jun 20, 2008Jun 20 2008
                     Re: No subject
53.
Jun 20, 2008Jun 20 2008
                      Re: No subject
54.
Jun 21, 2008Jun 21 2008
               Re: No subject
2.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
4.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
5.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
6.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
7.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
9.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
10.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
     Re: No subject
12.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
      Re: No subject
29.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
8.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
18.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
19.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
     Re: No subject
20.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
      Re: No subject
11.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
13.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
16.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
14.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
 15.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
   Re: No subject
17.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
21.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
22.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
24.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
27.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
23.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
25.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
26.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
45.
Jun 19, 2008Jun 19 2008
50.
Jun 20, 2008Jun 20 2008
55.
Jun 24, 2008Jun 24 2008