Door To The Dead, Alison Smith and the JREF

[CasaRojo]

Just wondering if the JREF has an official position on TruTv's Door To The Dead where JREF intern Alison Smith appeared on Feb. 13, 2009? She was billed as being a skeptic and there to "keep them honest" but was not presented as such. I am not condemning Alison but am curious at her silence since before the show aired.
Thanks

 

[Denver]

It seemed to me she didn't really jump on the woowagon. She wasn't presented as being very critical, but also wasn't presented as being very supportive. Mostly, she was presented as just being nice.

 

[LibraryLady]

We really don't know what positions she took. Remember, the people who produce it have the editorial scissors.

 

[CasaRojo]

"Ghost Hunter Tells All in Exclusive Interview PDF Print E-mail
Swift
Written by Alison Smith
Friday, 27 February 2009 12:00

Recently, I was granted an interview with “X,” a paranormal investigator from a television show. X could only speak if given total anonymity, as the contract X signed for the show states that giving an interview of this nature would result in litigation. "
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/457-ghost-hunter-tells-all-in-exclusive-in

 

[Gravy]

Just wondering if the JREF has an official position on TruTv's Door To The Dead where JREF intern Alison Smith appeared on Feb. 13, 2009?

Why in the world would the JREF need to take an "official position" on that?

 

[CasaRojo]

Why in the world would the JREF need to take an "official position" on that?

I happily withdraw the question. Seems I've been a bit overly impatient.

 

[MattusMaximus]

We really don't know what positions she took. Remember, the people who produce it have the editorial scissors.

I second what LL said. Personally, I plan to wait until I see Alison again before I ask her about the situation or even form an opinion. Otherwise, I would be arguing from ignorance.

 

[Doubt]

I second what LL said. Personally, I plan to wait until I see Alison again before I ask her about the situation or even form an opinion. Otherwise, I would be arguing from ignorance.

I have asked. She is not allowed to discuss it and she cannot even discuss why she cannot discuss it.

I would suspect there is an NDA designed to prevent people involved from saying what really goes on behind the scene. You would think a documentary would not need such a thing.

 

[iiwo]

I second what LL said. Personally, I plan to wait until I see Alison again before I ask her about the situation or even form an opinion. Otherwise, I would be arguing from ignorance.

Third.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I have asked. She is not allowed to discuss it and she cannot even discuss why she cannot discuss it.

I would suspect there is an NDA designed to prevent people involved from saying what really goes on behind the scene. You would think a documentary would not need such a thing.

Well, that's it then. Without further information, we are stuck with "we don't know."

And that will have to do.

 

[TsarBomba]

I would suspect there is an NDA designed to prevent people involved from saying what really goes on behind the scene. You would think a documentary would not need such a thing.

The lesson being: never (ever!) sign an open-ended non-disclosure agreement. A non-disclosure agreement for purposes of making a documentary or other media enterprise is appropriate if it lasts until the project is aired. For a totally non-related example, the contestants on Iron Chef America have to sign non-disclosure agreements with penalties (more precisely "liquidated damage clauses") of US$1,000,000 for pre-mature disclosure of the results of the program. This makes sense--the program might be worth less to the producers if the viewing public knows the identity of the winner before the end of the show. But that legitimate NDA ends once the particular episode airs. There is no justification for a producer to ask for a perpetual NDA, unless they want to hide some shady business. But once you sign on the dotted line, well then . . .

 

[Senex]

"Ghost Hunter Tells All in Exclusive Interview PDF Print E-mail
Swift
Written by Alison Smith
Friday, 27 February 2009 12:00

Recently, I was granted an interview with “X,” a paranormal investigator from a television show. X could only speak if given total anonymity, as the contract X signed for the show states that giving an interview of this nature would result in litigation. "
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/457-ghost-hunter-tells-all-in-exclusive-in

I predict we will someday read an interview with skeptic "Y" about an unnamed television show

 

[DecayingAngel]

So True...

....There is no justification for a producer to ask for a perpetual NDA, unless they want to hide some shady business. But once you sign on the dotted line, well then . . .

Yes, the fact that people are so constrained by an NDA from a so-called reality show does speak volumes, doesn't it?

IMO, Alison never saw the finished product until it aired, only to discover that any kind of skeptical utterances were omitted. If that were me, I would be fuming, especially if I knew I could not say one word about my true part in the show. So once again, skepticism is ditched for the sake of entertainment.

"TruTv--Not Reality, Actuality". Yeah, right.

 

[cj.23]

I often work in TV and NDA's are common and generally are in perpetuity. Few productions do not require an NDA: but most NDAs do not preclude subsequent comment. Not seen show, maybe Alison just expressed her opinions honestly?

Actually Most Haunted and Most Haunted Live never required an NDA. So not every show requires it.

cj x













/

 

[Big Les]

IMO, Alison never saw the finished product until it aired, only to discover that any kind of skeptical utterances were omitted. If that were me, I would be fuming, especially if I knew I could not say one word about my true part in the show.

I would have thought that there was every prospect of this happening given how the show was billed and marketed. I'd be amazed if she hadn't at least entertained the possibility.

Have tea with the devil and he might poop in your teapot.

 

[TsarBomba]

I often work in TV and NDA's are common and generally are in perpetuity. Few productions do not require an NDA: but most NDAs do not preclude subsequent comment.
/

Seems like a somewhat contradictory assertion. If the NDA was perpetual, wouldn't it preclude subsequent comment?

 

[cj.23]

Seems like a somewhat contradictory assertion. If the NDA was perpetual, wouldn't it preclude subsequent comment?

Right should have explained better. An NDA might cover the actual process of production, as in any information one gained through participation could NOT be used subsequently. I could not pass on cast phone numbers, addresses, bank details etc, to give one very obvious example. Secondly if Bob and Bill were snogging in the trailer, again their privacy might be protected. Ditto if there was a stand up row that I witnessed, or i decided person A was a major ****head. (Most people i have worked with are lovely actually!) I assume that lasts forever. Ditto commercial information, etc, etc

After the show comes out, I can say what I like about the content of the show however, and how i was represented on it. I don't believe the NDA exists which can curtail your free speech on this issue, because you have your legal rights to free speech and fair comment. "I was edited to **** and feel misrepresented" is never going to break any NDA I have seen. They may exist however, but I doubt they are enforceable??!

Oddly, none of the paranormal shows I did ever required any kind of NDA, or made any attempt at all to censor what I said publicly. The only thing I was asked not to do as a staffer was post under my real name on one shows forum, because some crew members got stalked or abused from time to time if they posted, and so that was carefully controlled. I was not important enough for this to be any kind of issue - I doubt any fan would recognise my name or image!

I did post on said forum anyway, just used a pseudonym. That was fine. I amused myself by criticising and insulting myself.

cj x

 

[DecayingAngel]

Great Info On NDA

cj.23-thanks so much for your insight into the workings of a production company and the NDA.

Since most of us will never have to sign one in our lifetimes, there is a lot of misinformation as people try to guess what these contracts truly entail. Many people (myself included) are under the impression that if one were on a show and later decided to "spill the beans" (i.e., evidence was faked etc.), a huge lawsuit would swiftly follow.

I've been reading on a number of forums that lament that "so and so" probably can't come forward because he/she must be under a wicked contract and have his/her respective *** sued off to the tune of millions. If true, that would certainly silence most people.

So if some people felt they received a raw deal or were portrayed viciously on a show--and I'm not talking about Alison but in general--then after they were cut loose it would not be against the contract to come forward with the real facts of the situation? If this is true, then the excuse about the "evil contract", so to speak, does not apply. Am I correct? If so, then the reason why some ex-members of a show would have other reasons why he or she does not want to come forward with real explanations as to what actually occurred to him or her.

This is certainly an interesting subject because the contract excuse is used by many fans of particular shows in order to explain why someone is not forthcoming with the truth (i.e., why they left the show, or were actually fired).

Hope this post makes sense. Haven't had my 2nd cup of coffee yet.

 

[CasaRojo]

Hangum High is not a high school...

They may exist however, but I doubt they are enforceable??!

That was my point somewhere around here. If you express a valid opinion or concern about an arguably subjective business venture, you're not disclosing general trade secrets of production.

These paranormal TV shows are simply lying to their audience and they do not want to be exposed. I have a feeling that they are running scared. The Door To The Dead forum, which was listed under TruTV Specials, has been inaccessible since yesterday and is not even listed in the index of forums. A "believer" there was looking at evidence, that was provided from forum member skeptics, and was exhibiting a degree of illumination. This is a first for me and that forum. And it was immediately shut down. The forum may still be there somewhere but I can't see it. The mod issued me a "time out". LOL! And I was being nice and truly trying to be helpful. I can't even PM the mod but I can post in other forums.

 

[KingMerv00]

Right should have explained better. An NDA might cover the actual process of production, as in any information one gained through participation could NOT be used subsequently. I could not pass on cast phone numbers, addresses, bank details etc, to give one very obvious example. Secondly if Bob and Bill were snogging in the trailer, again their privacy might be protected. Ditto if there was a stand up row that I witnessed, or i decided person A was a major ****head. (Most people i have worked with are lovely actually!) I assume that lasts forever. Ditto commercial information, etc, etc

After the show comes out, I can say what I like about the content of the show however, and how i was represented on it. I don't believe the NDA exists which can curtail your free speech on this issue, because you have your legal rights to free speech and fair comment. "I was edited to **** and feel misrepresented" is never going to break any NDA I have seen. They may exist however, but I doubt they are enforceable??!

Oddly, none of the paranormal shows I did ever required any kind of NDA, or made any attempt at all to censor what I said publicly. The only thing I was asked not to do as a staffer was post under my real name on one shows forum, because some crew members got stalked or abused from time to time if they posted, and so that was carefully controlled. I was not important enough for this to be any kind of issue - I doubt any fan would recognise my name or image!

I did post on said forum anyway, just used a pseudonym. That was fine. I amused myself by criticising and insulting myself.

cj x

That was my point somewhere around here. If you express a valid opinion or concern about an arguably subjective business venture, you're not disclosing general trade secrets of production.

These paranormal TV shows are simply lying to their audience and they do not want to be exposed. I have a feeling that they are running scared. The Door To The Dead forum, which was listed under TruTV Specials, has been inaccessible since yesterday and is not even listed in the index of forums. A "believer" there was looking at evidence, that was provided from forum member skeptics, and was exhibiting a degree of illumination. This is a first for me and that forum. And it was immediately shut down. The forum may still be there somewhere but I can't see it. The mod issued me a "time out". LOL! And I was being nice and truly trying to be helpful. I can't even PM the mod but I can post in other forums.

You are both ignoring important legal factors.

Even if the NDA is not enforceable, you are screwed. If you speak your mind and get sued, you have to get a lawyer, go to court, and get a bad reputation in the industry.

If you are lucky enough to win and get the NDA squashed, you are still screwed. Sure you can berate the show you were on, but you've spent a lot of money that you can't get back because of the American system. Also punative damages are not usually recoverable in contract actions.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[CasaRojo]

You are both ignoring important legal factors.

Even if the NDA is not enforceable, you are screwed. If you speak your mind and get sued, you have to get a lawyer, go to court, and get a bad reputation in the industry.

If you are lucky enough to win and get the NDA squashed, you are still screwed. Sure you can berate the show you were on, but you've spent a lot of money that you can't get back because of the American system. Also punative damages are not usually recoverable in contract actions.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

And I think that you're ignoring the most important factor, at least from my perspective and that's the personal integrity factor. Of course that has to be of significant value to the individual. For me, it's important for me to be able to say or think that after weighing all the options to the best of my ability, I did the right thing for the overall good. The right thing most probably being the honest thing.

FWIW current business models seems to bypass this ideal.

>>If you speak your mind and get sued, you have to get a lawyer, go to court, and get a bad reputation in the industry.<<

Speak the truth and get a bad reputation? Two words, &#@$ them!

 

[Darat]

...snip...

After the show comes out, I can say what I like about the content of the show however, and how i was represented on it. I don't believe the NDA exists which can curtail your free speech on this issue, because you have your legal rights to free speech and fair comment. "

...snip...

In the UK you don't have a right to "fair comment" and you certainly can agree to restrictions on what you can and cannot say. I have signed dozens of NDAs over the years (some for TV production companies) and have given up my right to make any comment (without permission) in perpetuity about 2 of those TV shows. Such blanket clauses are not unusual.

 

[cj.23]

In the UK you don't have a right to "fair comment" and you certainly can agree to restrictions on what you can and cannot say. I have signed dozens of NDAs over the years (some for TV production companies) and have given up my right to make any comment (without permission) in perpetuity about 2 of those TV shows. Such blanket clauses are not unusual.

Can you cite the exact wording of a couple of these clauses? I have reviewed my UK paperwork and US paperwork (under California, Minnesota and for some reason New Jersey several times law) and find no clauses that do not deal with commercial interest or the production process or confidential data in terms of the UK legislation regarding privacy and Data Protection. I have just consulted the lecturer in Broadcasting who resides across the corridor from me, and he is sceptical any such agreement would be binding in any way. I have dropped emails to people at National Geographic, Discovery (Europe) , History Channel, ITN (including a Dep Head of Programming) and their in-house production company, as well as three major independent UK production companies asking if i can look at samples of the NDA clauses usually employed. I am increasingly convinced these clauses are no where near what people seem to believe - indeed having made over twenty different TV appearances in last few years in most cases i have signed a simple disclaimer, with exactly the same wording, waving the right to the "exploitation of my image worldwide" which sounds funny, and relinquishing control over footage, but none have any subsequent binding restriction on my comments.

If fair comment was not legal I suspect I may have been sued by HanrahanMedia, ANTIX, Living TV, FTN and various licensed subsidiaries including but not limited to MetroStar and the Travel Channel US for comments made about some shows I participated in, where i did criticize the editing and way I was portrayed quite openly, and within hours of the broadcasts, on their own forums! Instead I was in fact consistently rehired. Again think about what Ciairan O Keefe did on Most Haunted to Derek Acorah - clearly that would have been an absolute disaster, as would his subsequent comments in UK newspapers, of this was not entirely legal.

I will check properly and report back, but I think you will find this is NOT usually a problem in the UK. It might be, but I find no evidence in my own experience.

cj x

 

[Darat]

Can you cite the exact wording of a couple of these clauses? ...snip...

Sorry they aren't to hand and I'm not going scrambling in the attic to try and find them.

...snip..., and he is sceptical any such agreement would be binding in any way.

...snip...

On what grounds?

..snip... I am increasingly convinced these clauses are no where near what people seem to believe - indeed having made over twenty different TV appearances in last few years in most cases i have signed a simple disclaimer, with exactly the same wording, waving the right to the "exploitation of my image worldwide" which sounds funny, and relinquishing control over footage, but none have any subsequent binding restriction on my comments.

...snip...

Sounds like you are getting confused between a NDA and a standard release or waiver. A NDA is a "non-disclosure aagreement" and is a pretty standard agreement between two parties to not disclose certain information or to place restrictions on how information the parties have shared can be used. Indeed for one of the NDAs I would be in breach if I mentioned the company it is with since the existence of the NDA is itself part of the information the NDA covers.

..snip...
If fair comment was not legal

...snip..

As far as I am aware there is no "right" to fair comment in the UK - can you cite the legislation it falls under? Plus I've no idea what this has to do with a specific NDA's restrictions or not.

..snip...

I suspect I may have been sued by HanrahanMedia, ANTIX, Living TV, FTN and various licensed subsidiaries including but not limited to MetroStar and the Travel Channel US for comments made about some shows I participated in, where i did criticize the editing and way I was portrayed quite openly, and within hours of the broadcasts, on their own forums!

...snip...

Again no idea what this would have to do with a legal right of "fair comment" or signing a waiver/release, criticism in the UK is not "protected" speech.

..snip...

Instead I was in fact consistently rehired. Again think about what Ciairan O Keefe did on Most Haunted to Derek Acorah - clearly that would have been an absolute disaster, as would his subsequent comments in UK newspapers, of this was not entirely legal.

...snip...

Did he have an NDA that covered what he disclosed? If so the production company would have had strong grounds for legal action, whether they would consider that in their best interests is of course an entirely different matter.

..snip...
I will check properly and report back, but I think you will find this is NOT usually a problem in the UK. It might be, but I find no evidence in my own experience.

cj x

It would depend entirely on the specific NDA.

 

[cj.23]

Yeah I know the difference between an NDA, a waiver and a release form - I deal with them generally most weeks. In my experience of broadcasting the three are often amalgamated in the contract - but I will see what respinses I get.

In British Law you have no right to free speech defined in law - you do however have the right to say what you like so long as that is not illegal. While non-disclosure agreements can bind you not to reveal certain commercially sensitive information, or anything illegal anyway, they do not generally have the force in law to prevent you commenting. I'll get TR to register and explain, it's his area and I generally find it better to get an expert to comment than me carrying on and making mistakes. The classic case where your right to impart information is limited is on a reference; another area is customer lists on leaving a company. At no point however does that prevent you making fair comment on the company - so long as you did not commit slander or libel. Fair comment is NOT enshrined in British law - in British law it is the area left when you are not committing the aforesaid illegalities.

I spoke out, so did Ciairan, and several others on other shows, and nothing bad happened. In fact almost any TV stars biography is filled with anecdotes of the sort you seem to believe would result in lawsuits. No ill effects followed. I have no idea what NDA's he signed - I signed none for any of the companies involved as I said, but MH never asked me to not say what I thought was true - in fact Karl & Yvette knew when they hired me i had saidf that I would immediately go to the papers with the first evidence of fraud I fpound, and they hired me on the spot, saying ok, cool. If they were fraudulent back then they were stupid, and i think they were honest at that point and what you saw was whatt you got. Asi spent a lot of time posting on BAd PSychics as many people here may recall (same username) they would have been naive to hire me if not.

The only NDA's I have signed have been relating to a couple of TV shows with commercial interest involved, nothing paranormal, and involved production secrets.

Anyway, the existence of an NDA would not stop someone speaking out if they were misrepresented. (Well in might in the US, where lawyers I understand are not provided, but require large payments). I'd claim Legal Aid, counter sue and the resulting bad publicity would be far far worse. No company would take that risk!

Moral: Never be afraid to say what you think, and never sign anything where people try to make you their puppet, or infringe on your freedom of speech.

cj x

 

[KingMerv00]

And I think that you're ignoring the most important factor, at least from my perspective and that's the personal integrity factor. Of course that has to be of significant value to the individual. For me, it's important for me to be able to say or think that after weighing all the options to the best of my ability, I did the right thing for the overall good. The right thing most probably being the honest thing.

WIW current business models seems to bypass this ideal. !

I respect that you worry about your integrity but money is a determining factor. Either you can afford it or you can't. Most of us don't have thousands of dollars sitting around.

>>If you speak your mind and get sued, you have to get a lawyer, go to court, and get a bad reputation in the industry.<<

Speak the truth and get a bad reputation? Two words, &#@$ them!

In court, all that matters is what you can prove. For example, Alison could CLAIM fraud but would have the burden of proof. Showing that ghosts do not exist is not enough. You'd have to prove specific acts of wrongdoing.

If the NDA were found to be enforcable, you'd been enjoined from speaking out which means a violation could land you in contempt of court and force you to pay heavy fines. Integrity doesn't pay for food.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

In British Law you have no right to free speech defined in law - you do however have the right to say what you like so long as that is not illegal. While non-disclosure agreements can bind you not to reveal certain commercially sensitive information, or anything illegal anyway,

...snip...

Er no that is certainly one thing a NDA can't do!

...snip...

they do not generally have the force in law to prevent you commenting.

...snip..

That just depends on what the NDA covers.

...snip...

I'll get TR to register and explain, it's his area and I generally find it better to get an expert to comment than me carrying on and making mistakes.

...snip...

No need to for my benefit - I've had to deal with NDAs covering a range of companies, organisations and individuals pretty much all my professional career so I know what they can and cannot do.

...snip...

At no point however does that prevent you making fair comment on the company

And again that just depends on what is covered in the NDA.

...snip...

I spoke out, so did Ciairan, and several others on other shows, and nothing bad happened.

....snip...

And?

...snip...

In fact almost any TV stars biography is filled with anecdotes of the sort you seem to believe would result in lawsuits.

...snip...

That's a strawman.....

...snip...

Anyway, the existence of an NDA would not stop someone speaking out if they were misrepresented. (Well in might in the US, where lawyers I understand are not provided, but require large payments). I'd claim Legal Aid, counter sue and the resulting bad publicity would be far far worse. No company would take that risk!

...snip...

It is very unlikely you would be eligible for legal aid for such a civil action.

...snip...
Moral: Never be afraid to say what you think, and never sign anything where people try to make you their puppet, or infringe on your freedom of speech.

cj x

Moral: If you freely agree to something keep to it!

 

[CasaRojo]

I respect that you worry about your integrity but money is a determining factor. Either you can afford it or you can't. Most of us don't have thousands of dollars sitting around.

The point is not to have to worry about one's integrity. I speak of personal integrity, being true to one's self, to honestly feel that you've done the right thing. I don't know what the right thing for others to do is and it's really none of my business unless it encroaches on another's rights. However, I can be hopeful of how someone handles a given situation.

In court, all that matters is what you can prove.

Ideally.

For example, Alison could CLAIM fraud but would have the burden of proof. Showing that ghosts do not exist is not enough. You'd have to prove specific acts of wrongdoing.

Different cases require different standards of proof depending on what is at stake. I'll bet a good researcher could come up with some degree of credible evidence of fraud with these people.

If the NDA were found to be enforcable, you'd been enjoined from speaking out which means a violation could land you in contempt of court and force you to pay heavy fines. Integrity doesn't pay for food.

"Man does not live by bread alone." Sorry, couldn't resist and of course it's true.

I'd really be surprised if Alison got sued for publicly saying that there was no evidence, in her opinion, of any paranormal activity regarding DTTD. But I've been surprised before.

 

[CasaRojo]

I'd really be surprised if Alison got sued for publicly saying that there was no evidence, in her opinion, of any paranormal activity regarding DTTD. But I've been surprised before.

Yes, I realize that I'm replying to myself.

I think one argument is that she was hired to be a skeptic, at least that was what she was told and how she was billed. To speak out would be simply doing her job, trying "to keep them honest".

 

[KingMerv00]

The point is not to have to worry about one's integrity. I speak of personal integrity, being true to one's self, to honestly feel that you've done the right thing. I don't know what the right thing for others to do is and it's really none of my business unless it encroaches on another's rights. However, I can be hopeful of how someone handles a given situation.

You have to be careful not to sacrifice pragmatism for idealism.

Alison is young. Any perceived damage to her integrity can be fixed with time. If I were her lawyer, I'd recommend her to move on.

Different cases require different standards of proof depending on what is at stake. I'll bet a good researcher could come up with some degree of credible evidence of fraud with these people.

I don't doubt one could find weird editing or camera placement but beyond that? Not sure.

It hinges on the legal definition of "fraud" in the state in question and whether or not you could show the elements of the tort/crime.

I'd really be surprised if Alison got sued for publicly saying that there was no evidence, in her opinion, of any paranormal activity regarding DTTD. But I've been surprised before.

Tru TV used to be Court TV. I'll bet they have 300 lawyers on speed dial.

 

[KingMerv00]

Yes, I realize that I'm replying to myself.

I think one argument is that she was hired to be a skeptic, at least that was what she was told and how she was billed. To speak out would be simply doing her job, trying "to keep them honest".

MAYBE but we'd have to look at the contract. We can't so we can never be sure.

 

[CasaRojo]

MAYBE but we'd have to look at the contract. We can't so we can never be sure.

Absolutely. I'd sure like to get my hands on one of those contracts.

 

[CasaRojo]

You have to be careful not to sacrifice pragmatism for idealism.

Our U.S. Constitution is based on an idea that many have sacrificed their lives for. Ideals and standards are important... to say the least.

Tru TV used to be Court TV. I'll bet they have 300 lawyers on speed dial.

From my limited experience with corporate lawyers, I would guess that they're pretty much on the south side of mediocre. No offense to corporate lawyers intended.

 

[CasaRojo]

Alison is young. Any perceived damage to her integrity can be fixed with time. If I were her lawyer, I'd recommend her to move on.

And that would probably be good advice from that POV.

On the other hand, it may have a positive effect on her career in skepticism if she were to speak out.

 

[KingMerv00]

Our U.S. Constitution is based on an idea that many have sacrificed their lives for. Ideals and standards are important... to say the least.

Pragmatism without idealism is cold. Idealism without pragmatism is dead.

 

[CasaRojo]

Pragmatism without idealism is cold. Idealism without pragmatism is dead.

One must choose their battles wisely.

 

[KingMerv00]

One must choose their battles wisely.

With the limited information available, I happen to think this battle would be unwise.

 

[CasaRojo]

With the limited information available, I happen to think this battle would be unwise.

There's not enough info to say one way or the other really however, there's always alternative options no matter what.

Maybe Alison made a mistake and can chalk it up to experience. If that's ultimately the case I hope she can make that clear publicly without fear of breaching her contract.

 

[cj.23]

With the limited information available, I happen to think this battle would be unwise.

If you really want to know an email to the production company would resolve it. http://www.departure-films.com/about/ Email link at top right. I'm not interested enough in what Alison did or did not sign to bother, but it would take two minutes if anyone was interested to ask the Producer!

cj x

 

[KingMerv00]

If you really want to know an email to the production company would resolve it. http://www.departure-films.com/about/ Email link at top right. I'm not interested enough in what Alison did or did not sign to bother, but it would take two minutes if anyone was interested to ask the Producer!

cj x

I'm not getting directly involved the legal affairs of others, even by email. Things could go horribly wrong and it is none of my business frankly.