Berman made a documentary on the life of musician Artie Shaw. Shaw was cooperative and gave her permission to use certain songs if she received proper permissions 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) A public celebrity has the right to prevent this kind of exploitation if Berman refuses this demand.
B) The court will award Shaw a reasonable profit because it is fair.
C) The court will imply an agreement to this effect between the parties.
D) Shaw has no claim since there was no such agreement.
E) Shaw has a right to this share because the movie is about him.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Shaw's lawyer's demand for a 35% profit participation implies that there was no prior agreement or contract between the parties regarding profit sharing. Without an agreement in place, Shaw has no legal claim to a share of the profits.

Berman Made a Documentary on the Life of Musician Artie