Jesse Eisenberg sues Lionsgate over their use of his image on the Camp Hell DVD
The actor is seeking $3 million in damages, accusing the studio of capitalizing on his name to sell DVD copies of this critically panned supernatural thriller, which finds a group of children becoming possessed at a local community camp. The DVD cover offers a prominent image of Jesse Eisenberg, with only his name above the title, selling the film as a starring vehicle for the Oscar nominated actor.
Jesse Eisenberg only has a cameo in Camp Hell, clocking less than five minutes of screen time. And he was only paid $3000, which is considerably less than what he usually receives for his acting services. Because of this, Jesse Eisenberg has cited alleged misappropriation of right of publicity and unfair business practices.
The actor states that he has sued Lionsgate to "warn his fans and the public that, contrary to [the film's advertising], he is not the star of and does not appear in a prominent role in Camp Hell."
The Camp Hell DVD debuted this past August. If you're interested, you can purchase it direct from us:
Camp Hell was released August 13th, 2010 and stars Dana Delany, Andrew McCarthy, Caroline London, Will Denton, Bruce Davison, Juliana Monin, Jesse Eisenberg, Connor Paolo. The film is directed by George VanBuskirk.
Comments (69)
To leave a comment, please sign in or use
Facebook or Twitter
TheFury
@JennyL Yes, we don't have any common ground. Our views are different. My view is right and extremely intelligent, which is what you have verified for me many times. And your view is...well. I won't be harsh, but idiotic.
6 months agoby @TheFuryFlag
JennyL
@TheFury Haha, you are amusing. I guess I am wasting my time on you. Look, if you think there is nothing wrong, then by all means, support LionsGate all you want. I'll still stand by my statement regarding to this issue and I guess you'll stand by yours. Like I said several post ago, we really don't have any common ground for discussion. Our view is way too different.
6 months agoby @JennyLFlag
TheFury
@JennyL Um, your over 20 comments of defending this guy, told me that you bought this movie, which you did.
6 months agoby @TheFuryFlag
JennyL
@TheFury Haha, when did I say that I bought this movie? BTW, you don't want to support LionsGate executive's salary?
6 months agoby @JennyLFlag
TheFury
@JennyL Man your amusing. Buy another bad movie? Really? Wow, snappy comeback. You obviously bough this movie because you thought he was the star. You poor, poor fool.
6 months agoby @TheFuryFlag
JennyL
@TheFury Of course Einstein... of course...lol I think its time for you to go buy another bad movie.
6 months agoby @JennyLFlag
TheFury
@JennyL Lol, now your really proving your stupidity. What does a free facebook have to do with anything? I guess your smart too because you give money to distribution companies as well. Yes, I am too intelligent for you. Which is why you constantly sound like an idiot.
6 months agoby @TheFuryFlag
JennyL
@TheFury At least facebook is free. But you on the other hand, the smart one, will be the one who gives money to distribution company. BTW, Jesse's action is justified... but I guess you are just too intelligent to see that.
6 months agoby @JennyLFlag
TheFury
@JennyL Like I said, if you are ok with dumbass celebrities like Jesse, then it's ok. You have every right to apologize for Jesse's actions. Lol, I'm sure Jesse loves and he'll add you on Facebook.
6 months agoby @TheFuryFlag
JennyL
@TheFury Hey like I said, if you are ok with mis-leading advertisement and think its ok then you have every right to give those distribution company your money. If you don't think you are doped, then good for you. hahaha I'm sure those distribution company agree with you.
6 months agoby @JennyLFlag
TheFury
@JennyL Oh I guess this is your sad way of quitting on intelligence. How the hell could I be the doped one. You would have to be in the position of defending Jesse in order to be in the doped issue. Your a moron, that is fine.
6 months agoby @TheFuryFlag
JennyL
@TheFury Haha, I don't think you'll ever get it. Hey, as long as you are ok to be doped at, that is fine.
6 months agoby @JennyLFlag
TheFury
@JennyL You just don't get it do you? So please leave it alone. A duh the cover is misleading. Hell, man, trailers are misleading. In that case, I should be able to sue many films that I invested my 10 bucks into all these films that I thought was gonna be good but wasn't.
6 months agoby @TheFuryFlag
JennyL
@TheFury Whatever, if you can't see how mis-leading the cover is then me and you really have no ground for any discussion.
6 months agoby @JennyLFlag
JennyL
@slysnide I don't think Jesse care about the money because if you can tell me that he can't win because of his contract then I'm probably sure that his lawyer probably already told him that. I think he already accomplish what he initially tended to do which is warning his fan. I do agree that he brought attention to this more than its necessary but right now, I think he already accomplish his intended main goal that is stated in the lawsuit.
6 months agoby @JennyLFlag
ChiRep_1
Well this discussion escalated quickly.
6 months agoby @ChiRep-1Flag
slysnide
@JennyL: If the latter is the case, then it won't, but the distributor has Jesse's contract to fall back on. If it's the former, then it directly affects them as I stated. Either way, the distributor can pick whichever minor role or thing in a film to center its marketing campaign on. Also, it still draws attention to it, giving Jesse more negative press. While LionsGate can easily afford the 3 mil, it's still ridiculous given Jesse hasn't sustained any "damages," unless of course he's a pansy like a million other people in this country who sue for BS reasons. Damages, Emotional Stress, HA! Greedy f*cks the lot of 'em.
It's like when Adrien Brody had a criminal case against these dipsh*ts who lied in his contract and said he'd get paid X amount of dollars, only to find out before the film was released that they were gambling on the film's success via Brody starring in it to make the money to both break even, profit the studio, AND pay Brody his basic scale IE: they hadn't any money to pay him if the film bombed. When he found out, rather than filing a criminal suit against these jerks who deliberately conned him into wasting his time on a piss poor gamble, he filed a civil suit for the money + interest, despite that the suit prevented the film from being released. He should've filed a criminal case which he'd easily win, let the film be released, and then the studio would've fired the dipsh*ts and been forced to pay up Brody regardless of whether the film made money cause he was mislead by their employees in his contract. Typically if a film bombs, actors don't get paid, but if they're conned in their contract, then they're gonna be entitled to it. Same with people entering contracts for jobs and loans. You get conned, then if you're smart enough you might get paid. If not, then it's your loss. With Brody he could both have gotten his money + interest for the con, and won a small time criminal case against these guys, as the studio certainly wouldn't pay to represent them, and they wouldn't have the money to win in court or they would've never conned him to begin with, which in and of itself makes a civil suit pointless as he'd never get paid. So with a criminal suit being clearly beneficial, then why file a civil suit where you'll only lose money? Plus he's a millionaire already, so wouldn't you rather see these jerks jailed and get guaranteed pay instead? Guess not. **cough**greed**cough**
6 months agoby @slysnideFlag
TheFury
@JennyL The lead role doesn't always get on the front cover dvd my friend. How is this a con for fans. The consumer is smart enough to read the back of the dvd cover and read and find out that from the synopsis the movie will be sh*t. Jesse obviously didn't read sh*t to find out that this movie is sh*t. You don't see Denzel Washington in those American Pie straight to dvd, because he's smart enough to know what he's getting himself into. So, I'm sure you believe that Jesse is the pure victim in this. And does no wrong. And was given tranqs to be fooled into being in this movie.
6 months agoby @TheFuryFlag
JennyL
@TheFury Look, I don't think we'll ever gonna agree on this. To me, there is a difference between a cameo and a lead performance. I don't care he sign up for this movie because as long as he didn't sign up for the lead role then this cover is meant to con money out of fans. The fact that this is consider a common practice to lure viewer in is not something I'm ok with and I'm fully support Jesse for doing this even if he doesn't win. I'm sure you are ok with it and think distribution company has every right to use the image to fraud the fans but I don't.
6 months agoby @JennyLFlag
TheFury
@JennyL Dude, when did I say that you said he was doped into this. The distribution company didn't do this. He did it to himself. Straight to dvd, bad film, low budgeted looking for money from any direction. Jesse should have known this. And 'damages' really? How is this damaging? Before this article, I would have never known about this. Jesse's making this issue more well known. So he's a jerk and a moron.
6 months agoby @TheFuryFlag
JennyL
@TheFury When did I say that he was doped into this? I understand why the distribution company did this to him but it is not right that this kind of practice had been going on for so long. I know it is legal but ethically it is wrong. I know he is not going to win but I support him for bringing awareness. George Clooney didn't sue doesn't mean Jesse shouldn't.
6 months agoby @JennyLFlag
Xybernetic
Ive seen this type of stuff done before to attract audiences but to the people not in favor of Jesse's decision come on guys this is just plain cynical I mean they couldve used other actors in the film to at least be in the background or something or how about just use his name only but no, they had to use a giant headshot that takes over the whole cover with his name which makes it look like is some kind of autobiography or book written by Jesse.
6 months agoby @xyberneticFlag
TheFury
@jenny Jesse's not a retard. Stop defending him. He chose a stupid movie to be apart of. Lesson learned. It's a marketing move. If this was an Oscar buzzing movie, he wouldn't be saying anything about this. Hell, Return to Horror High dvd cover has George Clooney's name all over it, and he's hardly in it. He dies like in the first five seconds. He was a rising star at that point. And the movie wasn't good. You don't see him suing. Jesse=jerk
6 months agoby @TheFuryFlag
JennyL
@slysnide BTW, thank you for writing all of this. I might not know film industry but I love learning about it.
6 months agoby @JennyLFlag
JennyL
@slysnide Ok, from what I gathered, you have LionsGate responsible for both production and distribution. From IMDB, the production company is Holedigger Films and the distribution companies are LionsGate and Grindstone Entertainment Group. I thought it is the production company's job to hire director and producers not distribution company. If that is so, how will a lawsuit against a distribution company affect someone who was hired by a production company which is another entity.
6 months agoby @JennyLFlag
slysnide
@JennyL: Writers, Directors, Editors, etc. They all seek to get hired by a studio which will hand them projects the writers come up with. The studio decides how much money they wanna spend on a film, and then send the script around to the directors they think will want it. Keep in mind that all film companies (especially Lionsgate) cater to multiple genres, so scripts never go out to all their directors, editors, cinematographers, etc. When a director picks a project, they select a team. The studio already has its ideas on whom else they want front-running the crew, but the director (mostly producer) gets to make that choice. While yes, producers have final say, they can't force the director to take a project with crew they don't like, but pressure to meet quotas may persuade them to do so anyway. So despite that a film which the studio offered their director may be bad, directors have quotas to meet, as do the various other crew leaders like editors & cinematographers. If they work on enough crappy movies which don't break even, then the studio loses more money. Despite that the story may be crap, they select a director they think can turn it around. Likewise, if a writer submits too many horrible ideas which aren't chosen, or are bombs commercially, then they're fired. Same with the directors, editors, cinematographers, etc. Granted they have their unions which is where you get the letters like ASC etc beside their name, but that only protects their ability to score another contract, but not keep their current job if they have enough bombs on record, or are blamed for the failure of a particular project, like when Tom Cruise was fired from Paramount cause they blamed his May 2006 antics on the failure of "MI3." On television, ratings=cashflow. The higher the ratings, the bigger the cash-flow, so celebrity guest stars who have nothing to do with the show, who just show up and may not even care for the project and are only doing it cause the show has enough fans can become the advertised attraction of said episode. Thus the viewer is enticed with misleading advertising, but it's their loss. Actors are never really blamed for bad cameos on bad shows. However, if you're under contract from the studio and not a freelance worker, then you've gotta meet your quota, or you're more likely to be fired, for in that business there's a million people waiting to take your place. So these guys used the same misleading advertising to boost profits for a limited release film which wasn't expected to make money anyway. So by filing an unlawful suit against them (as pointed out, the one who pays for seeing it are the ones being conned) for signing a contract, he only draws attention to himself, and regardless of how much money Lionsgate has in the bank, it costs them money, and if the cause of it can be traced to an employee's actions, then they can charge them, or fire them. Judging from this piece of crap and their poor misleading ad, then I seriously doubt they have that kind of money. So yeah, Jesse dropped the ball on this one. Or rather, if he couldn't realize this, then he's not too bright.
6 months agoby @slysnideFlag
ejk1
@JennyL yeah, I may have been a little tough on you in my initial response, and for that I'll apologize. However, next time don't decide to take some unnecessary shots at people on MW? There are two ways to disagree: with respect, which leads to great debates, or disrespect, which leads to stupid fighting. You started a little disrespectful, but turned it around quickly. The insults aside, this was a good conversation. I hope to have more in the future. Welcome to MW.
6 months agoby @ejk1Flag
JennyL
@ejk1 Ok, I get it. I heard Robin William did once in his contract (I think it is Aladdin) and I thought something similar happened to him. I understand why the distribution company did this but it is deceiving . I'm not sure how many celebrity ever brought this to light but I still stand by my opinion that I support Jesse in this lawsuit even though he is going to lose. Thank you for your time. My first comment is in haste.
6 months agoby @JennyLFlag
ejk1
@JennyL Can an actor control how a studio presents his likeness? Probably not, unless the actor is a legend. If Eisenberg, for example, tried this, someone will tell him "that's fine, we'll just go get Michael Cera." Now say Daniel Day Lewis tries the same thing, then the studio maybe willing to come to an agreement.
6 months agoby @ejk1Flag
JennyL
@ejk1 Out of curiosity, can an actor put a clause in the contract that prevent a distribution company from doing this? I thought at the end, it would be the contract that determines the end result. BTW, I have to no illusion that he will win this case but I like his effort to put this kind of thing in light. Whatever you said on here, I'm sure Jesse's legal team probably already told him. If he knows he is going to lose, then the statement "The actor states that he has sued Lionsgate to "warn his fans and the public that, contrary to [the film's advertising], he is not the star of and does not appear in a prominent role in Camp Hell."" is the ultimate goal.
6 months agoby @JennyLFlag