{"id":650446,"date":"2025-01-23T01:30:32","date_gmt":"2025-01-22T22:30:32","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2025-01-23T01:30:32","modified_gmt":"2025-01-22T22:30:32","slug":"south-park-streaming-rights-standoff-warner-bros-discovery-wins-ruling-clearing-way-for-trial","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/south-park-streaming-rights-standoff-warner-bros-discovery-wins-ruling-clearing-way-for-trial\/","title":{"rendered":"#\u2018South Park\u2019 Streaming Rights Standoff: Warner Bros. Discovery Wins Ruling Clearing Way for Trial"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

\n\tParamount must face some claims in a lawsuit from Warner Bros. Discovery accusing it of setting in motion a breach of a $500 million licensing deal for the exclusive rights to South Park<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\n\tAfter a pricey bidding war for new episodes of the massively popular show, Justice Margaret A. Chan of State Supreme Court in Manhattan said that Paramount may have \u201cactively convinced\u201d the joint venture it operates with the show\u2019s creators to breach its contract with WBD, which wasn\u2019t offered the opportunity to stream episodes labeled as \u201cspecials\u201d that were considered outside the scope of the deal. Paramount may have \u201cunjustly benefitted,\u201d Chan said in a ruling issued on Tuesday<\/a>, by getting to carry the content and \u201creap any advertisers, subscribers, and other profits resulting from streaming those episodes, all without going through the same bidding process as everyone else.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tThe ruling opens the door to discovery on Paramount\u2019s understanding of its deal with WBD and whether the company took fraudulent measures to take advantage of ambiguity in the contract. Evidence that the company may have to turn over could include viewership data, as well as subscriber and profitability metrics, since WBD could elect to seek disgorgement of profits.<\/p>\n

\n\tThe legal battle, initiated by WBD in 2023, revolves around a lucrative licensing deal for the exclusive streaming rights to the series<\/a> library and 30 new episodes across seasons 24 to 26. WBD claimed that Paramount and South Park Digital Studios \u2014 controlled in part by creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker \u2014 conspired to effectively double-deal on content allegedly contemplated in the agreement by diverting series specials to Paramount+ to prop up its then-fledgling streaming platform.<\/p>\n

\n\tThe deal didn\u2019t specify how many episodes would be delivered to WBD as part of the agreement or how to decide that content was part of seasons 24-26. There were plans to draft a full contract to iron out the details, but SPDS allegedly convinced WBD not to. WBD has maintained that it was told that three new seasons of 10 episodes each would be made. Paramount, which didn\u2019t respond to requests for comment, and SPDS denied those allegations.<\/p>\n

\n\tIn the summary judgment ruling, the court stressed that WBD believed it was bidding for the exclusive right to stream all the South Park<\/em> content coming out between 2019 and 2025. It found the company was \u201cblind-sided\u201d when SPDS created episodes it claimed weren\u2019t within seasons 24 through 26. The only content that was announced at the time the agreement was struck, the court said, were for those seasons, each with 10 episodes.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cTaking advantage of the contract\u2019s ambiguity,\u201d SPDS decided not to make 30 episodes across the three newest seasons and instead made specials that it \u201cunilaterally and arbitrarily\u201d decided were not contemplated in the deal, wrote Chan, who noted that Paramount reaped the benefits of the decision.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cOf concern also is the back and forth by SPDS in fitting the COVID episodes into the final episode count for Season 24,\u201d the ruling added. This refers to SPDS initially telling WBD that the specials, which were made after production of season 24 was suspended due to the pandemic, were not part of the season but would be delivered as part of their deal regardless. Over a year later, SPDS back-tracked and decided that the episodes were part of the newest season, with the caveat that they\u2019d count as four of the 10 episodes. Two months later, it changed its mind again and decided that the specials would be the only episodes for the season.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cThere is an ambiguous contract that is silent on vital details,\u201d Chan wrote, such as how to decide what is considered as part of seasons 24 to 26 and whether WBD can pursue disgorgement of profits against Paramount, a third party to the deal. She added, \u201cParamount\/MTV didn\u2019t receive third-party fees in the abstract\u201d but instead profited from subscribers who wanted to watch the specials. That money, the judge said, would\u2019ve gone to WBD if it got to carry the episodes on Max.<\/p>\n

\n\tOther breaches of the contract include SPDS slashing the episode count for seasons 25 and 26 from 10 to six and the joint venture contracting with Paramount and MTV to produce four additional 50-minute-long specials exclusively for streaming on Paramount+. SPDS considered that content not part of its deal with WBD, which wasn\u2019t given the option to stream them. At the same time, it continued to assure WBD that forthcoming episodes would be delivered, according to the complaint.<\/p>\n

\n\tThe ruling advanced claims of unjust enrichment and tortious interference with contract. After discovery, WBD may have to choose which of the two claims it will pursue if the court decides they overlap with each other. It continues to pursue a breach of contract claim.<\/p>\n

\n\tEarlier in the legal battle, the court dismissed fair dealing and consumer protection claims. It followed Paramount dropping its countersuit against WBD over allegedly unpaid licensing fees.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

If you liked the article, do not forget to share it with your friends. Follow us on\u00a0Google News<\/a><\/span>\u00a0too, click on the star and choose us from your favorites.<\/span><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n

If you want to read more Like this articles, you can visit our Social Media category.<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Source<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Paramount must face some claims in a lawsuit from Warner Bros. Discovery accusing it of setting in motion a breach of a $500 million licensing deal for the exclusive rights to South Park. After a pricey bidding war for new episodes of the massively popular show, Justice Margaret A. Chan of State Supreme Court in…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"fifu_image_url":"","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-650446","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-social-mediaa"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/650446","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=650446"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/650446\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=650446"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=650446"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=650446"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}