May

16

Spunk Video Sues Lucas Distribution

May 16, 2008 |

News surfaced yesterday about a copyright infringement lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in New York by Spunk Video against Lucas Distribution and Lucas Entertainment over the same condomless film released by both companies, five months apart and under different titles. In late 2007, Spunk bought and released a condomless film they titled NASTY PISS BOYS. In April, Lucas Distribution solicited for an import film titled RAW TWINKS IN CZECH that appears to have used the same promotional photography as NASTY PISS BOYS; Spunk claims they recognized the films were the same and allege Lucas Entertainment commissioned the film, later rejected it upon completion and then changed their minds. Spunk Video’s Mike Brady told XBIZ about Lucas Ent. CEO Michael Lucas, “He ordered up a movie, then changed his mind and decided that he didn’t want to release a bareback movie… Then he changed his mind again…only he didn’t want to do it under his name and he wanted to do it on our dime. Frankly, if he had released it before we bought it then we would have no claim to it, but the fact of the matter is, this is our footage.” Click here for more details…

Spunk Video sent several cease-and-desist letters and received no response. Mr. Brady further alleges that claims by Lucas Ent. of the existence of a “non-exlusive contract” to release the film never surfaced.

Per XBIZ, “Brady claimed also that Lucas had told him that 1000 copies of the DVD had been produced and that after they were sold, he would not reproduce more of the title ‘That’s $25,000 [at wholesale]. That’s money that belongs to us. It’s our movie. ‘He was completely unreasonable about the situation. He said that he’d only pressed 1,000 DVDs and [he’d] sell them, and then that’s all.’ ”

Spunk did not include in their formal complaint allegations that RAW TWINKS IN CZECH was knowingly released with a false notification of custodian of records, as they claim ownership of the film and therefore take on responsibility for its paperwork.

Lucas Entertainment has released the following statement in response: “Lucas Entertainment never had and does not have any intentions to produce bareback videos. Our company is also not concerned about Spunk Video’s motives to issue such a baseless press release.”

Included was a statement from Mr. Lucas: “I’m not even remotely interested in reading Spunk Video’s press release and Spunk Video is welcome to take any letter they have to any court they choose.”

I contacted Lucas Entertainment’s press rep for background and clarification, and was referred to their initial statement.

XBIZ.com: “Spunk Sues Lucas for Infringement”


Comments

23 Comments so far

  1. Will on May 16, 2008 3:00 pm

    What is this about Lucas not being interested in their press release? Isn’t there a LAWSUIT? Are they just ignoring it or hoping it goes away?

    I tend to want to defend Lucas from his detractors, but I really doubt Brady is making all of this up if he has filed suit. (Is there even confirmation of that?) The whole thing is sad, sad, sad if true.

  2. Gerry on May 16, 2008 3:17 pm

    Lawsuits against Michael Lucas are becoming seasonal, it feels like. Enough already.

  3. Will on May 17, 2008 4:12 am

    Just want to say that I belatedly followed the link in the XBIZ story to see that a lawsuit has indeed been filed. I am somewhat puzzled that the Lucas statements didn’t even acknowledge that.

  4. DeWayne on May 17, 2008 6:28 am

    Would I piss on Michael while he is lying prostate (pun intended) in the throes of yet another lawsuit?

    Yes because Michael likes Piss and Spunk or is that spooge (Just on the face not the butt & make sure there is a rubber there so its not BAREBACK)

    Seriously I believe Michaels Stellar human relations program is paying big dividends these days. 2nd expensive lawsuit for Michael in 12 months,,if this keeps up Michael will have to get a real job befitting a man with a law degree…

    Flat on his back, legs in the air & cock in mouth!

    Just ask Barry Taylor its what lawyers DO for their clients nowadays!

  5. Will on May 17, 2008 10:10 am

    DeWayne - Good to hear from you! Let’s not forget the first lawsuit was summarily dismissed. Just because somebody sues you doesn’t mean you’ve done anything wrong!

  6. Terry on May 17, 2008 10:32 am

    Whatever, people have a beef with Michael Lucas, and he may have screwed up with Spunk Video, or not, I’ll never know. But I’m sick of every thread about him turning into a bitchfest. Over it.

  7. DeWayne on May 17, 2008 4:58 pm

    Will, yes the Fellini lawsuit was dismissed after Lucas had wiped out his profit on La Dolce Vita on legal bills,,by his own admission. You can be right and still have to pay those legal bills.

    And in Michaels defense he was right La Dolce Vita was a parody protected speech!

    See I can stick up for ML when he is right! ;-)

  8. Will on May 17, 2008 5:45 pm

    DeWayne - You’re turning soft.

  9. V.J. on May 17, 2008 10:42 pm

    Dewayne and Will,
    That was good!
    LOL! :)

  10. Will on May 17, 2008 11:30 pm

    Actually V.J., I want a do-over. I SHOULD have said:

    Who are you and what have you done with DeWayne?

  11. Jamie on May 18, 2008 2:47 pm

    When was the Fellini lawsuit dismissed or settled? Lucas’ pr machine would have certainly ensured wide celebration. The restraining order that the owners of La Dolce Vita attempted to obtain was denied, but according to the court, that lawsuit remains active.

    And now, Spunk Video has alleged that Lucas stole thier movie. Hmm, is there a pattern?

    From what I’ve been told by highly placed individuals is that Lucas commissioned the bareback film from the Czech Republic director who has worked for Lucas for some time. Then, although comlpetely unrelated, the three boys on Rufus Foulkes’ set seroconverted, and the industry went into convulsions (again) which scared Lucas from releasing his movie.

    According to their press release, Lucas apparently refused to pay the director and told him to go sell it to somebody else, which is where Spunk Video enters the picture.

    One thing Lucas said in another back-and-forth over the Fellini suit has stayed with me: in complaining about the Fellini lawsuit, he said something about you all know “a non-bareback movie with a foriegn title” isn’t going to sell enough to cover the legal costs he’s incurred. I wish I could find the blog entry where he said that, but like the movie “Raw Twinks in Czech” it has disappeared from Lucas’ site.

  12. Will on May 18, 2008 3:03 pm

    This poster appears to be absolutely correct. A quick Google search produced a judge’s ruling refusing to bar the sale of Lucas’ La Dolce Vita DVD, nothing more. He did express doubts about the merits of the case from the bench. But that is the last development I’ve been able to find.

    That news item from the Wall Street Journal is over a year old. If the lawsuit is still active, why nothing since? However, I would have to say my earlier statement and DeWayne’s reply for now stand corrected.

  13. Will on May 18, 2008 3:22 pm

    Perhaps his ONGOING legal costs had something to do with this latest debacle?

  14. Will on May 18, 2008 3:44 pm

    Jamie - You say “Raw Twinks in Czech” has disappeared from Lucas’ website. Could you please tell us, did you ever actually see it there? Because at this point I can find no confirmation anywhere that this is actually being released by Lucas, much less that he commissioned it.

  15. DeWayne on May 18, 2008 8:02 pm

    Will, Jaime is correct about the lawsuit not being dismissed that was pointed out to me after I made my comment. He is correct the judge stated from the bench he did not think the suit had strong merit but he refused to dismiss the suit. Thus costing Lucas additional legal fee’s.

    Remember the game in Civil law is played to exhaust your opponent financially before he gets his day in court. I was serious according to U.S. Supreme court rulings, parody is protected speech. The judge should have dismissed the suit but probably declined because its a porno film.

    The producer of the “Dicks of Hazzard” was sued by Time-Warner and the suit WAS dismissed.

    Lucas should have changed the title slightly on La Dolce Vita (maybe La dolce vita sporchi bambino)
    Italian translation for “The sweet life soiled child”.

    I thought about spoiled but soiled sounds better in Italian! ;)

    I digress the point is I think the judge felt “Michael Lucas La Dolce Vita” was too similar a title to Fellini’s and THAT is why he refused to dismiss.

    Oh and Michael probably smirked and sneered at the judge & opposing lawyers in the courtroom thus destroying any potential judicial sympathies!

  16. Albert on May 18, 2008 9:34 pm

    Yep.

  17. Will on May 18, 2008 9:56 pm

    Guess what, DeWayne? The title of that DVD is “Michael Lucas’ La Dolce Vita.” So apparently his law degree didn’t completely go to waste!

  18. Will on May 18, 2008 9:59 pm

    I typed that before reading the rest of your post. So if he was careful to at least put his name in there, why isn’t that enough?

  19. DeWayne on May 18, 2008 10:46 pm

    Will I think you have to change the title I was told Dukes of Hazzard would have got EON films in big trouble BUT Dicks of Hazzard no one would mistake that for the TV series.

    I guess the judge felt Michael Lucas was an irrelevant name change ;)

  20. Will on May 18, 2008 11:00 pm

    Between this and D & R I’m exhausted! Good night!

  21. Jamie on May 18, 2008 11:05 pm

    Will, I did not see “Raw Twinks in Czech” on Lucas’ site, but searched for it when I heard of the lawsuit. The only place I have been able to see the movie DVD is on another blog (http://heroesnhunks.com/wordpress/2008/05/16/michael-lucas-could-be-sued-again/) and TLAvideo. The only mark that I can find on the Raw Twinks in Czech cover that connects the film to Lucas is the UPC code with the prefix 79867 and serial number 00046 (the serial number for Auditions 23 is 00048, Juvie Boys 2 is 00049, and so on).

  22. Will on May 18, 2008 11:10 pm

    OMG, good detective work! I think that’s pretty definitive, no?

  23. DeWayne on May 19, 2008 12:13 am

    WOW yeah I guess thats settles it!

    Of course when Michael saw Piss in the title he just grabbed it didn’t notice the bareback LOL

Name

Email

Website

Speak your mind