Berman made a documentary on the life of musician Artie Shaw. Shaw's representative was cooperative and gave her permission to use certain songs if she received proper permission from the copyright holders. The cost of the film was funded by her own savings, a private investor, the Canada Council, the Ontario Arts Council, and deferred salaries and material costs. In March of 1987, the film won an Academy Award as the best feature documentary for 1986. In November of 1987, Shaw's lawyer contacted Berman's lawyer: "... This letter states that Artie Shaw has a 35% profit participation in the motion picture... ." Which of the following accurately sets out the legal position of the parties?
A) Shaw has a right to this share because the movie is about him.
B) The court will imply an agreement to this effect between the parties.
C) Shaw has no claim since there was no such agreement.
D) A public celebrity has the right to prevent this kind of exploitation if Berman refuses this demand.
E) The court will award Shaw a reasonable profit because it is fair.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Shaw has no claim to a share of the profits because there was no agreement made between the parties that would entitle him to such a share. The cooperation of Shaw's representative and the permission to use certain songs do not automatically grant Shaw a right to profits from the documentary.

Berman Made a Documentary on the Life of Musician Artie