Say what you will about Woody Allen as a person. My understanding is that Amazon is holding the rights to a movie that has been created, and refusing to publish it.
Movies are not the product of a single person, but of thousands. It's tragedy to prevent this massive amount of effort from seeing the light of day.
Compensation construed broadly includes future work based on your portfolio. If one did stellar work that otherwise would have yielded future opportunities had the work not been shuttered then the answer is "Yes."
Actually copyright is given to producers to incentivize them to produce and disseminate creative works. If copyright law is not functioning as intended, we have a moral imperative to abolish it.
It's the thing nowadays. Some person allegedly does something wrong and movies and books get pulled off the shelves robbing us of the opportunity to see sometimes great pieces of writing or art.
Kevin Spacey is a tremendous actor and we all had a lousy close for fans of "House of Cards".
One bad example makes my statement incorrect? Even one of the online magazines or newspapers had an article stating the same as I just a few days ago. So I'm wrong?
Here is a bad example but Ted Danson did black face at a party about 20 years ago. I presume he will now lose his TV job and be banned from Hollywood while all episodes of "Cheers" get pulled. I am shocked this hasn't happened already.
Woody Allen is a comic genius, but I think my favorite movie of his still is his first one, "What's Up, Tiger Lilly." I rarely meet anyone who's seen it.
1977: Annie Hall
1979: Manhattan
1986: Hannah and Her Sisters
1989: Crimes and Misdemeanours
1992: Husbands and Wives
1993: Manhattan Murder Mystery
2005: Match Point
2008: Vicky Cristina Barcelona
2009: Whatever Works
2011: Midnight in Paris
2013: Blue Jasmin
Movies are not the product of a single person, but of thousands. It's tragedy to prevent this massive amount of effort from seeing the light of day.