Give feedback on these two postes

post 1

As someone who grew up getting used like a doormat, I can somewhat side with Marder. This was her life story and she should get properly paid for use of it. That being said, as sad as it is, Marder is in the wrong. Paramount was acting within the guidelines of their contract, and unfortunately they did nothing wrong legally. I think ethically they should have paid her more because without her, there wouldn't be the movie, and they wouldn't have a profit. I feel like maybe there could have been a case of her not having the full capacity of understanding what she was signing, but I don't know if that would have held up in court. I never saw the movie so I have no context of who Marder is as a person.

post 2

I usually do not side with companies over individuals. However, Marder should not have signed a contract if she did not think it was fair. Sure the movie may not have been a big hit but in the case that it would she should have covered herself. That is the point of a contract and it is unethical to go back and sue a company for following a contract. It is a bummer that she signed that contract and did not receive fair compensation but that is her mistake. Yes, the company could have gone back and paid more in order to look less greedy. But, if a company did that with every contract they would be less profitable with their for profit business.