With these changes, the film now leans more toward showing Jackson at the peak of his career, rather than ending on one of the most controversial chapters of his life.

  • klu9@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 days ago

    Lawyers for the Michael Jackson Estate found a clause in a past settlement that prevents the accuser from being portrayed in a dramatized film.

    I don’t understand. Are they saying the filmmakers were party to that settlement? Because if not, how can they possibly be bound by a settlement between two other parties?

    • JillyB@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      Probably the Jackson estate sold the film rights to the filmmakers and later realized that they legally would have been liable for that.

    • lath@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      The estate is bound and any movie has to go through the estate (exceptions not included), therefore it is liable if any movie does so with its consent.

      • klu9@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        Ah, it’s an “authorized” biopic, then? Thus they have to abide by the estate’s terms.