>Personally I think that WB are doing themselves no favours in blocking the
>material being shown at cons which are run for charity or where any profits
>go to charity. It helps broaden the audience and it's poor PR when it's
>announced that "X has been pulled because the big bad men at WB/whoever
>have said no" for me this passes onto guilds/unions/whatever if they're the
>ones being sticky.
>Hell the politicians will bend over backwards to bend the
>rules if it's "For charity or in a good cause" and I'm cynical enough
>to know that there's a goodly percentage doing it becuase it makes them
>look good.

Except, of course, that a number of conventions use the charity flag to cover a
multitude of sins, often illegitimately...which also compromises the cons that
ARE sincerely raising money for charity. And that a con is giving money to a
charity doesn't really mitigate the legalities involved; if I steal your car,
sell it, and give the money to charity, the government isn't going to go
"awwww" and let it go because the money ended up in a worthwhile cause.

A secondary concern is that if ANY kind of money is involved, for a group
screening, it can be legally constituted as a theatrical exhibition if any of
the actors or others involved choose to press the point. In fact, that
happened to WB, after an episode of Lois and Clark was screened at a con. One
of the actors apparently took the position that this was a theatrical
exhibition, and if you show a TV program in a theatrical venue, it triggers
*substantial* payments per the various unions involved...and in this particular
case, it cost WB in the vicinity of six figures.

jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com