The well-known Hong Kong star Louis Koo debuted for many years and starred in many classic movies, which are loved by many fans. Now he is not only filming, but also actively manages his “Tianxiayi Film Company”. “Hot Family” and other popular Hong Kong films. However, Tianxiayi Film Company was recently accused by up-and-coming director Ren Xia of arrears of wages, and even monopolized the “Golden Horse Venture Capital One Million First Prize” prize money.
Ren Xia entrusted the Hong Kong Screenwriters Rights Alliance to issue a statement on Facebook, “The production company Tianxiayi is involved in serious unfairness in handling screenwriting fees, screenwriting contracts, and the bonus distribution of the “Golden Horse Venture Capital One Million First Prize”. Ren Xia, as the main screenwriter of “Grandma Paper”, was not only excluded from the screenwriting contract, but also was owed the screenwriting fee for more than three years, and finally had to be recovered by the alliance. “
The statement mentioned, “Tianxia Yi unilaterally interrupted the project of “Grandma Paper” and canceled Ren Xia’s director contract without warning, and without Ren Xia’s consent, distributed and overdrafted the jointly owned ” One Million First Prize” prize. The alliance has repeatedly negotiated with the high-level Tianxiayi responsible for this project on the above-mentioned incident, but failed to obtain a reasonable explanation and follow-up arrangements. We now solemnly request to have a direct dialogue with Mr. Louis Koo to resolve the “Paper Skin” Mother-in-law” project development rights and whereabouts of bonuses and other matters.”
The Hong Kong Screenwriters Rights Alliance pointed out that “Ren Xia began to participate in the script creation of “Grandma Paper” in October 2018. From the outline of the story to the second draft of the script, he has been the main writer of the script. However, Tianxiayi has been kept in the dark. Without Ren Xia’s consent, Tianxiayi secretly signed a scriptwriting budget with Shu Qi (another screenwriter and producer of “Paper Granny”) covering the entire play. But there is no screenwriting contract including Ren Xia.”
The alliance said, “Ren Xia participated in the writing of the script of “Grandma Paper” for more than three years, during which time he did not receive any screenwriting fees. When he pursued the screenwriting fee, the top executives in the world used the excuse that “the screenwriting fee has been fully paid to Shu Qi” After refusing to accept it, the attitude of the top management of Tianxiayi improved only when the alliance joined in the pursuit. During the pursuit, the alliance and Ren Xia also asked many times to check the scriptwriting contract of “Grandma Paper”, but Tianxiayi always kept the company’s secrets. So far, Ren Xia, who is the main screenwriter of “Grandma Paper”, has not seen a single word of the screenwriting contract with his own eyes, and can only learn about the approximate amount of the screenwriting contract from the top of the world.”
The alliance emphasized, “In November 2021, Ren Xia was informed that Tianxiayi had terminated the “Paper Granny” project and his director contract. At that time, Tianxiayi’s response was that he had spent all the bonus and never asked Ren Xia’s consent as the director. “
In this regard, Tianxiayi Film Company commissioned a lawyer to issue a statement earlier today (24th). The full text is as follows:
1. From May to October last year, the client of our bank has been seeking a consensus with you to resolve the disputes caused by the suspension of the “Paper Skin Granny” project. During this period, although the clients of our bank felt that your words were unreasonable, they have been patient. On October 31, 2022, the client of our bank still provides a draft settlement agreement for the peaceful settlement of differences and proposes that if you still have other amendments and suggestions, we can discuss and summarize the content of this agreement in person. However, we have not received any reply from you. Therefore, the clients of our bank feel astonished and regretful that you chose to publish the article and the false accusations in it during the public holiday on the second day of the Lunar New Year.
2. You are well aware that the facts are quite different from the contents of the article. In this connection, the emails dated July 31, September 7 and October 5, 2022 from our client to you are enclosed. You have clearly disregarded the facts.
3. As for the screenwriter contract, the screenwriter appointed by our client is Mr. Shu Qi. Mr. Ren Xia was recommended by Mr. Shu Qi to the client of the bank, and signed a film director contract with the client of the bank on December 1, 2018 for the project. On the same day, Mr. Dian Shuqi, the principal of the bank, signed a film editing contract, and then signed a film supervision contract. The client of the bank naturally expects Mr. Shu Qi and Mr. Ren Xia to perform their respective duties. The client of the Bank paid remunerations for the relevant phases to Mr. Shu Qi and Mr. Ren Xia respectively according to the three contracts. It is understood that Mr. Ren Xia participated in the creation of the first draft of the project’s script, for which Mr. Shu Qi paid Mr. Ren Xia a remuneration of HK$67,500. This is a cooperation agreement between them. Your allegation that Mr. Ren Xia was “excluded from the screenwriting contract, and the screenwriting fee was owed for more than three years” has nothing to do with our client at all. What grounds do you have for requesting the client of the bank to provide the contract signed between the client of the bank and Mr. Shu Qi, not involving Mr. Ren Xia as the contracting party?
4. Your “Golden Horse Venture Capital’s million-dollar first prize distribution involves serious injustice, (exclusively monopolizing the million-dollar first prize, and the whereabouts of the bonus is ambiguous), and the response from day to day is that you have spent all the prize money for the whole The false accusation that Golden Horse Venture Capital cannot set a very bad precedent is a malicious slander to our client. You are fully aware that the “Millions of First Prize” agreement at the Hebei Golden Horse Venture Capital Conference does not have the joint control of the production company and the director as you said. And consultation as the principle of argument! The email sent to you by our client on July 31, 2022 states:
“The project of the Golden Horse Venture Capital Conference was signed up by a client of our bank as a production company. The submitted materials include the second draft of the script of “Paper-skinned Granny”, the director, producer and production company. Received the prize notification Afterwards, the client of the bank signed a filming agreement with the Taiwan Foundation for the Film Development of the Republic of China. The agreement listed the bonus of the client of the bank as NT$1 million; after deducting taxes, it was actually NT$80 According to the above-mentioned filming agreement, the client of the bank has to bear certain obligations, including independently revealing the wording and logo required by the foundation in the opening title and reserving the premiere rights of the film in Taiwan film festivals to the foundation. The bonus is The foundation provided to the client of the bank, and the client of the bank also planned to use the funds for the production of the film. The client of the bank later decided to stop the development of the film and received Ren Xia’s request to distribute the bonus. Although the bank The client believed that the bonus was given to the company, because there was no precedent for Ren Xia to ask for bonus distribution. For the sake of prudence, the client of the bank contacted the foundation, informed the foundation that the development of the film was suspended, and inquired whether the foundation had any guidelines for the distribution of bonuses. ?If not, can it be distributed in equal parts to the director, screenwriter, producer, and production company. The trustee of the bank received the following reply from the foundation:
Regarding the prize B, the Golden Horse Venture Capital Conference did not have any distribution guidelines in the regulations and award-winning filming agreements and other documents. Golden Horse Venture Capital will not take back the allocated cash prizes, nor will it interfere with the use of prize money by award-winning units, but it is happy to see that those who have contributed to the development of this project can receive due encouragement. The above description.grateful
According to the foundation, the handling of bonuses is entirely decided by the award-winning unit, that is, the client of the Bank. The client’s lawyer of the bank believed that since the bonus was given to the client of the bank, even if it was to be distributed, the expenses of the client in the film should be deducted first, and the balance should be distributed before distribution. However, after consideration, the client of the Bank decided not to deduct the bonus and distribute the bonus. The client of the bank believes that since the registration conditions include the four basic elements of the production company, producer, director and script, it is most fair to divide the bonus equally between the four units; Unit, our client as producer (Heidi is an employee of our client), director Ren Xia and screenwriter Shu Qi. You stated that “in fact, in the contract for the million-dollar first prize, the signatories are the authorities and Ren Xia. Shu Qi is not one of the winners of the million-dollar first prize, and we do not see any reason why he can share Part of the prize money. We are puzzled by this clause and strongly oppose it.” This is wrong. Although the filming agreement is signed by the representative of our client, producer Heid, director Ren Xia and Shu Qi (in the capacity of producer), the parties to the contract are only our client and the foundation, excluding Ren Xia, Hleidi or Shu Qi. The bonus is provided by the foundation to the client of the Bank, not other people.
5. The client of the bank has always hoped to resolve the differences quickly, and has never “delayed and evaded”. On the contrary, you keep making unreasonable demands. First of all, you request half of the bonus, and exclude Mr. Shu Qi. In addition, you requested HK$1,000 to repurchase the script of “Grandma in Paper Skin”; although Mr. Ren Xia himself has received HK$67,500 as a remuneration for the first draft of the script! Furthermore, even though from the very beginning, the client of our bank has stated that he will retain the project and name of “Grandma Paper”, if the project is redeveloped in the future, the client of our bank will fulfill the agreement with the foundation. Mr. insisted on carrying out his project under the name of “2018 Golden Horse Venture Capital One Million First Prize Work”. The client of the bank was puzzled. According to your statement, although you are required to purchase the script from the client of the bank, Mr. Ren Xia will completely rewrite the script of “Grandma Paper” and continue to create political affairs about the old man who scavenged under a new title. That is not an award-winning project of the foundation at all. .
6. Although the client of our bank thinks that you are unreasonable, he has been patient. The client of the bank even stated at the beginning of October 2022 that if Mr. Ren Xia insists on carrying out his project under the name of “2018 Golden Horse Venture Capital One Million First Prize Work”, the client of the bank can consider paying the cost price (only including the paid main creative works) expenses, other expenses such as the bank’s client’s resource allocation, Golden Horse Venture Capital’s application and derivative travel expenses are not included) to transfer the “Paper Skin Granny” project, but the condition is that Mr. Ren Xia must replace and bear the bank’s client All the obligations of the “Golden Horse Venture Capital One Million Prize Work” agreement and signed a contract novation agreement with the client of the bank and Golden Horse Venture Capital. The client of the bank thinks the conditions are very reasonable, but still said in an email to your son that they can still meet and negotiate. You did not reply, but chose to publish the article nearly three months later, during the Lunar New Year holiday.
7. The principal of the bank reiterated that it is still willing to negotiate on the basis of the draft agreement provided on October 31, 2022, but of course does not intend to involve Mr. Louis Koo in the negotiation.
8. On the other hand, regarding your malicious false statements and defamatory remarks against the client of our bank in this article, unless you immediately delete the article and make a public apology, the client of our bank will initiate a civil lawsuit against you to seek justice. To set the record straight.
