English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

The standard analysis of Parker v. Twentieth Century Fox follows the court in focusing on whether the substitute employment offered Shirley MacLaine was "different and inferior" from that which she had initially contracted for. That, this paper argues, was the wrong question. The court managed to produce the right outcome, but through convoluted reasoning that failed to recognize the essential feature of the contract. The contract had a "pay-or-play" provision by which the studio, in effect, purchased an option on her time; they would pay her to be ready to make a particular film, but they made no promise to actually use her in making the film. Cancellation did not entail breach, and, therefore, it was unnecessary to ask whether she had failed to mitigate. The paper traces the case through the courts, showing how the attention paid the pay-or-play feature declined. It then analyzes the economics of the pay-or-play clause. The clause gives the studio an option, giving it the flexibility to adapt or to abandon a project. The pay-or-play clause is a nuanced balancing of the studio's need for flexibility against the artist's reliance.

Bloomer Girl Revisited or How to Frame an Unmade Picture