Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 25 JULY 2013

And Now For Something Completely Different

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Contributor
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

With over 750 lawyers, intellectual property agents and other professionals, BLG services...

View firm profile
Explore more from Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

Well, not really. While the style of cause catches the eye (Forstater v Python (Monty) Pictures Ltd, [2013] EWHC 1873) the judgment itself doesn't tell us anything particularly interesting about the law. It does, however, shed a few sidelights on the people who brought us the Flying Circus and its progeny.

CanadaMedia, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment

Well, not really. While the style of cause catches the eye (Forstater v Python (Monty) Pictures Ltd, [2013] EWHC 1873) the judgment itself doesn't tell us anything particularly interesting about the law. It does, however, shed a few sidelights on the people who brought us the Flying Circus and its progeny. It is the progeny that were at issue in the case: Mark Forstater, the producer of the film version of Monty Python and the Holy Grail (there had been an earlier book), claimed a larger share of the income stream generated by the success of the film, including the profits of Spamalot (the hugely successful musical based on the Grail) and a smaller share of the associated expenses.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from