I’ve read that the Academy makes everyone who receives an Oscar sign a form stating that should they ever want to sell it, the Academy gets first crack at the sale so that nobody outside them and those who received it would be able to own one. Are other award givers equally anal about their prizes? Can you sell an Emmy, a Tony, a Grammy (I know, who would want to buy one anyway?? :D), some kind of army or Congressional medal, or an Olympic medal?
If true, is it legal to prevent what is essentially yours to have such a condition? How can they dictate what you do with your award? And what if some deceased starlet’s grandkid find her Oscar in an old shoebox in the attic. Are they allowed to sell it on ebay or does the Academy’s reach even extend beyond the grave?
There is a cut-off date- in the 1930’s I believe- before which the “we get to buy it for a dollar” clause doesn’t apply. I’ll look, be right back.
But yes, it’s true. I don’t know if other awards have similar clauses.
ETA- it appears that the clause has been in place since 1950. Oscars won prior to that date may be sold, but the Academy has sued several people for trying it. Orson Welles’ daughter was sued (or sued for the right, can’t remember which) when she wanted to sell two of her father’s Oscars- one to raise money for animal rights, IIRC.
In the US, these types of clauses are fairly common and you’ll find them for a number of things, not just awards. For example, many small companies are structured so if you want to sell your stock in the company, you have to give the company first crack at it. Such clauses are usually called "right of first refusal, " “right of first sale,” or “right of first offer” depending on how they are structured.
Whether or not such an agreement is legal depends on the type of property involved and the jurisdiction. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of anything that would preclude such an arrangement for a private award such as the Oscars.
I guess it is legal, maybe some lawyer can explain that to us. The only thing I can think of is that legally they are just loaning you the oscar , not giving it to you. Either that or you just sign a contract when you win agreeing to sell it to them first. If you don’t sign , you don’t get the oscar.
Yes, this is probably what is happening. My guess is the Academy will only give you the Oscar if you agree that you will give them first shot at buying it back. A good lawyer will also structure this agreement so that it applies to anyone who inherits the Oscar, and my guess is there are clauses governing the issue of gifting the Oscar as well.
Forget about a getting a billion dollars or any other sum for an Oscar. The agreement that recipients must sign to get the trophy says they have to give the academy the right to buy it back for a buck.
An interesting analogy that popped into my head is buying a house on a mortgage. It’s a different structure, but still - you own it, but you can’t sell it without satisfying an obligation - in that case, you can sell to anyone you want, as long as you can pay back the bank for the mortgage.
I wonder why the NFL doesn’t do the same type of thing with Super Bowl rings? Could it have to do with some legal implication that the rings are earned rather than rewarded? Is it something that is addressed in the Collective Bargaining Agreement?
I understand that the Congressional Medal of Honor is legally prohibited from being sold or even reproduced under any circumstances, even in movies or other art, so it’s certainly not without precedent.
It’s like any contract. We give you something of value, and in exchange you agree to give us first right of refusal for $1. Remember, it’s not yours until they give it to you, and they don’t have to give it to you. If you accept their terms when you take it, then normal contract law applies. If you don’t accept their terms, they don’t give it to you.
I doubt this is true. There’s no way the government can stop a movie from showing a Medal of Honor that’s being “played” by a prop. And no one can stop you from depicting such a medal in other forms, such as in a painting or photograph.
If it were true, it would be a completely different issue. The Oscar thing is an ordinary contractual issue.
The heirs of Oscar winners are bound by the agreement (boldface added): “I agree to comply with your rules and regulations respecting its use and not to sell or otherwise dispose of it, nor permit it to be sold or disposed of by operation of law, without first offering to sell it to you for the sum of $1.00. You shall have thirty days after any such offer is made to you within which to accept it. This agreement shall be binding not only on me, but also on my heirs, legatees, executors, administrators, estate, successors and assigns. My legatees and heirs shall have the right to acquire said replica, if it becomes part of my estate, subject to this agreement.”
I still remain shocked that non-signing, non-consenting parties remain subject to a clause they were not consulted on at the time of signing. Standard contracts, at least, don’t work like that.
I’m guessing that the winner doesn’t have the right to leave the Oscar to an heir, unless the heir agrees to the “license.” It’s part of the estate; heirs don’t receive the proceeds from the estate until debts are settled, and this is a type of debt.