安娜·德·阿瑪斯粉絲解決昨天預(yù)告片訴訟
Are misleading movie trailers here to stay?
誤導(dǎo)人的電影預(yù)告片會繼續(xù)存在嗎?
Ana de Armas fans Peter Rosza and Conor Woulfe have reportedly settled their lawsuit against Universal for advertising the Knives Out star’s cut appearance in the film Yesterday, according to Variety. Reps for Universal and the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to EW’s requests for comment.
據(jù)《Variety》報道，安娜·德·阿瑪斯的粉絲彼得·羅薩和康納·威爾菲已經(jīng)就環(huán)球公司在電影《昨天》中為安娜·德·阿瑪斯的剪片做廣告的訴訟達(dá)成和解。環(huán)球和原告的代表沒有立即回應(yīng)EW的置評請求。
Rosza and Woulfe first sued the studio in 2022 for including footage of de Armas in the trailers for the 2019 rom-com, out of which the No Time to Die actress was ultimately cut. The plaintiffs claimed that they only paid the $3.99 rental fee because they expected to see de Armas in the movie, and would not have spent their money on the film otherwise.
羅薩和伍爾夫于2022年首次起訴該工作室，因為該工作室在2019年的浪漫喜劇預(yù)告片中加入了德·阿瑪斯的鏡頭，這位《無暇死》女演員最終被裁掉了。原告聲稱，他們只支付了3.99美元的租金，因為他們希望在電影中看到德·阿瑪斯，否則他們不會把錢花在電影上。
A California judge initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that movie trailers should not be exempt from false advertising laws. Universal’s attorneys had argued that trailers are "artistic, expressive work" that should be considered protected free speech under the First Amendment, but U.S. District Judge Steven Wilson ruled, "Universal is correct that trailers involve some creativity and editorial discretion, but this creativity does not outweigh the commercial nature of a trailer. At its core, a trailer is an advertisement designed to sell a movie by providing consumers with a preview of the movie."
一名加州法官最初做出了有利于原告的裁決，認(rèn)為電影預(yù)告片不應(yīng)豁免虛假廣告法。環(huán)球公司的律師辯稱，預(yù)告片是“藝術(shù)的、富有表現(xiàn)力的作品”，應(yīng)該受到憲法第一修正案的保護，但美國地區(qū)法官史蒂文·威爾遜(Steven Wilson)裁定，“環(huán)球公司認(rèn)為預(yù)告片涉及一些創(chuàng)意和編輯自由，這是正確的，但這種創(chuàng)意并不超過預(yù)告片的商業(yè)性質(zhì)。”從本質(zhì)上講，預(yù)告片是通過向消費者提供預(yù)告片來銷售電影的廣告。”
Complications arose, however, when Universal fought to have the plaintiffs pay for a portion of the studio’s legal fees, which amounted to hundreds of thousands of dollars — and the company did have a claim to the fees since the judge had dismissed some of the plaintiffs’ other claims. According to Variety, class action lawyer Cody R. LeJeune had argued that everyone who bought a ticket or paid a rental fee to watch Yesterday potentially deserved a payout. Judge Wilson later ruled that “Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is patently inadequate” in August 2023.
然而，當(dāng)環(huán)球公司爭取讓原告支付工作室的一部分法律費用時，情況變得復(fù)雜起來，總計數(shù)十萬美元，而且由于法官駁回了原告的一些其他要求，公司確實有權(quán)要求支付這些費用。據(jù)《Variety》報道，集體訴訟律師科迪·r·勒瓊辯稱，每個購買電影票或支付租賃費觀看《昨天》的人都應(yīng)該得到賠償。威爾遜法官后來在2023年8月裁定，“原告的集體證明動議顯然不充分”。
誤導(dǎo)人的電影預(yù)告片會繼續(xù)存在嗎?
Ana de Armas fans Peter Rosza and Conor Woulfe have reportedly settled their lawsuit against Universal for advertising the Knives Out star’s cut appearance in the film Yesterday, according to Variety. Reps for Universal and the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to EW’s requests for comment.
據(jù)《Variety》報道，安娜·德·阿瑪斯的粉絲彼得·羅薩和康納·威爾菲已經(jīng)就環(huán)球公司在電影《昨天》中為安娜·德·阿瑪斯的剪片做廣告的訴訟達(dá)成和解。環(huán)球和原告的代表沒有立即回應(yīng)EW的置評請求。
Rosza and Woulfe first sued the studio in 2022 for including footage of de Armas in the trailers for the 2019 rom-com, out of which the No Time to Die actress was ultimately cut. The plaintiffs claimed that they only paid the $3.99 rental fee because they expected to see de Armas in the movie, and would not have spent their money on the film otherwise.
羅薩和伍爾夫于2022年首次起訴該工作室，因為該工作室在2019年的浪漫喜劇預(yù)告片中加入了德·阿瑪斯的鏡頭，這位《無暇死》女演員最終被裁掉了。原告聲稱，他們只支付了3.99美元的租金，因為他們希望在電影中看到德·阿瑪斯，否則他們不會把錢花在電影上。
A California judge initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that movie trailers should not be exempt from false advertising laws. Universal’s attorneys had argued that trailers are "artistic, expressive work" that should be considered protected free speech under the First Amendment, but U.S. District Judge Steven Wilson ruled, "Universal is correct that trailers involve some creativity and editorial discretion, but this creativity does not outweigh the commercial nature of a trailer. At its core, a trailer is an advertisement designed to sell a movie by providing consumers with a preview of the movie."
一名加州法官最初做出了有利于原告的裁決，認(rèn)為電影預(yù)告片不應(yīng)豁免虛假廣告法。環(huán)球公司的律師辯稱，預(yù)告片是“藝術(shù)的、富有表現(xiàn)力的作品”，應(yīng)該受到憲法第一修正案的保護，但美國地區(qū)法官史蒂文·威爾遜(Steven Wilson)裁定，“環(huán)球公司認(rèn)為預(yù)告片涉及一些創(chuàng)意和編輯自由，這是正確的，但這種創(chuàng)意并不超過預(yù)告片的商業(yè)性質(zhì)。”從本質(zhì)上講，預(yù)告片是通過向消費者提供預(yù)告片來銷售電影的廣告。”
Complications arose, however, when Universal fought to have the plaintiffs pay for a portion of the studio’s legal fees, which amounted to hundreds of thousands of dollars — and the company did have a claim to the fees since the judge had dismissed some of the plaintiffs’ other claims. According to Variety, class action lawyer Cody R. LeJeune had argued that everyone who bought a ticket or paid a rental fee to watch Yesterday potentially deserved a payout. Judge Wilson later ruled that “Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is patently inadequate” in August 2023.
然而，當(dāng)環(huán)球公司爭取讓原告支付工作室的一部分法律費用時，情況變得復(fù)雜起來，總計數(shù)十萬美元，而且由于法官駁回了原告的一些其他要求，公司確實有權(quán)要求支付這些費用。據(jù)《Variety》報道，集體訴訟律師科迪·r·勒瓊辯稱，每個購買電影票或支付租賃費觀看《昨天》的人都應(yīng)該得到賠償。威爾遜法官后來在2023年8月裁定，“原告的集體證明動議顯然不充分”。
