15,000 euros in legal costs
By Mathijs Smit·24 minutes ago·Edit: 1 minute ago
© ANP / Leo Vogelzang VOFRTL
Despite the five seasons in which ‘Palace for a Prikkie’ was on television, the creator of the successful interior design program remains empty-handed. The woman barely earned anything from her idea, and now also has to pay around 15,000 euros in legal costs from two lost lawsuits and her own legal costs.
This is evident from a ruling by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal that became public this autumn. Two years ago, the woman received only a meager compensation of 4,000 euros after an initial lawsuit. Now it appears that she has also lost her appeal.
Duo Frank and Rogier
Palace for a Prikkie was a popular television program in which the gay stylist duo Frank Jansen and Rogier Smit refurbished the houses of poor people with items from the thrift store.
The program was created in 2017 by an employee of the Amsterdam television producer Vincent TV, and broadcast on SBS6 between 2018 and 2020. The woman and her employer agreed at the time to share the net income from the format rights.
‘Nil income’
But after two years, the woman discovered that there was nothing left for her. “Below is the overview of the format revenues. Unfortunately, these are also nil in 2019,” the production company wrote to her at the beginning of 2020.
Talpa, the parent company of SBS6, appeared to have paid the producer for making the episodes, but no compensation for the format rights. In fact, the powerful channel had stipulated that it would receive half of the format rights if the program was sold internationally.
No foreign deals
But no format revenues had been received from abroad either. Despite interest from Belgium and Germany and a few Belgian test episodes, the television program did not break through there.
When the woman found out, she broke the agreement with the television producer. She also took the company to court to enforce compensation. In the summer of 2022, the Amsterdam court ruled that the woman was only entitled to 4,000 euros.
Appeal
From one pronunciation the Amsterdam Court of Appeal now shows that the woman has appealed against that ruling. She accused the producer, among other things, of giving away income in the deal with Talpa and SBS6 and of misinforming her about this. She would therefore be entitled to compensation.
But the court also largely rejected her claims. The woman may still be entitled to income from online publications related to the program, but that is it.
Process costs
Ultimately, the lawsuits cost the creator of the television format more than they earned her. She has to pay almost 15,000 euros in legal costs from the television producer, not to mention her own legal costs. In addition, she must repay the 4,000 euros initially allocated to her.
Director Vincent ter Voert of Vincent TV refrains from commenting on the case. Lawyer Bertil van Kaam of the format creator was not yet available for an explanation of the ruling.
15,000 Euros in Legal Costs: A Tale of Woes and Wits
By Mathijs Smit · · Edit: 1 minute ago
Ah, the harsh world of television, where dreams are made and then promptly smashed like a cheap vase in an antique store! If you ever thought reality TV was tough, spare a thought for the hapless creator of the quirky interior design show, Palace for a Prikkie. The poor woman, despite a five-season run, seems to have crafted nothing but a financial nightmare. It turns out that her brilliance in refurbishing lives with thrift store treasures has left her with a whopping 15,000 euros in legal costs—mine’s the change, please!
The Perils of Palace for a Prikkie
Originally airing on SBS6 from 2018 to 2020, this show featured the fabulous gay stylist duo, Frank Jansen and Rogier Smit, working wonders with wallets as skinny as the upholstery on a budget sofa. But, after the lights turned off and the cameras stopped rolling, our dear creator found herself not sitting on a throne of cash, but rather scratching her head in disbelief. Can you hear that? It’s the sound of her dreams crumbling, folks!
A Contract as Clear as Mud
In 2017, back when things seemed bright, the woman inked a deal with Amsterdam-based Vincent TV, both excited for a thriving partnership. But alas, after two years came a heart-stopping revelation: nil income. That’s right, folks—zero, nada, not a single shiny euro. The producer sent her a lovely overview that would turn any accountant’s face as pale as a ghost: revenues equated to nothing! As if they wrote it on a bathroom wall—“Nothing here, move along!”
Stuck in the Quicksand of Legal Battles
Feeling as trapped as a contestant on one of those elimination shows, she decided to break free from the shackles of her deal. Sadly, her journey through the courts can only be likened to running through quicksand—slow and painful, with inevitable sinking! Her initial lawsuit returned a paltry compensation of 4,000 euros. Like being offered a solitary penny for a lifetime of creativity!
Appeals and More Appeals
After getting whooped in court, our plucky protagonist didn’t take defeat lightly. She appealed, claiming misdirection from the producer regarding their deal with the big cheese, Talpa. However, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal, much like a stern teacher, slapped her down yet again, ruling mostly in favor of the producer. She may still have a glimmer of hope for some online publication revenues, but that hardly seems enough to cover the cost of her legal crusade.
A Costly Lesson Learned
In the end, what have we learned from this engaging yet disheartening saga? That pursuing justice can sometimes cost more than the money you’re trying to retrieve. With nearly 15,000 euros in legal bills, not to mention her original 4,000-euro pittance clawed back, it’s safe to say that this game of legal roulette didn’t end well.
The Quiet Ones Have the Loudest Feelings
One must wonder: will she ever manage to spin this narrative into something positive? Director Vincent ter Voert of Vincent TV isn’t saying a word—silence really is golden sometimes, isn’t it? Meanwhile, the legal eagles are likely busy sharpening their feathers, waiting for their next target. So here’s to Palace for a Prikkie; may it serve as a cautionary tale that sometimes the glittering prizes are just an illusion—much like those budget-housing renovations!
By Mathijs Smit·24 minutes ago·Edit: 1 minute ago
© ANP / Leo Vogelzang VOFRTL
Despite the show’s five successful seasons, the creator of the beloved interior design program ‘Palace for a Prikkie’ finds herself facing significant financial losses. Not only has she seen minimal earnings from her original concept, but she must now contend with approximately 15,000 euros in legal expenses stemming from two unfavorable lawsuits along with her own legal fees.
This grim reality has come to light following a ruling from the Amsterdam Court of Appeal made public this autumn. Two years prior, the woman was awarded a paltry sum of 4,000 euros from an initial lawsuit. To her dismay, the court has now ruled against her in her appeal.
Duo Frank and Rogier
The show featured the dynamic gay stylist duo, Frank Jansen and Rogier Smit, as they transformed the homes of underprivileged individuals using second-hand items from thrift stores. Its popularity and heartwarming stories endeared it to viewers, earning it a notable place in Dutch television history.
Originally conceived in 2017 by an employee at Amsterdam-based television producer Vincent TV, ‘Palace for a Prikkie’ aired on SBS6 from 2018 to 2020. The woman, alongside her employer, had agreed to a contractual arrangement promising a split of the net income derived from the format’s rights.
‘Nil income’
However, after two years, the prospect of earning any revenue faded when she was informed of a stark reality. “Below is the overview of the format revenues. Unfortunately, these are also nil in 2019,” a correspondence from the production company stated at the beginning of 2020, leaving her disheartened.
While Talpa, the parent company of SBS6, compensated the producer for producing the episodes, no payments were made for the format rights. Moreover, the influential channel had insisted that they would claim half of the format rights if the show was sold internationally.
No foreign deals
Despite initial interest from networks in Belgium and Germany, and even a few test episodes in Belgium, the show failed to capture an international audience. Without sales abroad, the anticipated income from format rights never materialized, further complicating her financial predicament.
Once realizing the situation, she decided to terminate her agreement with the television producer and sought legal redress to recover her rightful earnings. In the summer of 2022, however, the Amsterdam court ruled that she was entitled to a mere 4,000 euros.
Appeal
The woman subsequently filed an appeal against the court’s earlier ruling, alleging that the producer had mismanaged the income generated from the agreements with Talpa and SBS6, leading to misinformation about her rightful earnings. Her claims included accusations of being deprived of compensation she rightfully deserved.
Nevertheless, the court maintained a largely dismissive stance on her appeal. While she may still have a claim to income generated from online content related to the show, this represents a minimal solace amidst her broader financial setbacks.
Process costs
Ultimately, the legal battles have cost the creator of the television format far more than she earned, incurring almost 15,000 euros in legal costs owed to the television producer while also facing the burden of repaying the initial 4,000 euros awarded to her.
Director Vincent ter Voert of Vincent TV has opted to remain silent regarding the ongoing legal matter. Meanwhile, lawyer Bertil van Kaam, representing the format creator, has not yet provided any comment or explanation regarding the court’s recent ruling.
What were the financial implications for the creator following the legal battles with Vincent TV?
Ernationally. Despite some interest from Belgian and German networks, including a few test episodes in Belgium, ‘Palace for a Prikkie’ failed to gain traction outside the Netherlands.
### Legal Battles Unfold
When the creator realized the extent of her financial losses, she chose to terminate her agreement with Vincent TV and sought legal recourse for compensation. In a summer 2022 ruling, the Amsterdam court granted her a mere 4,000 euros, starkly contrasting her expectations from the project. Disheartened but undeterred, she filed an appeal, alleging that the production company had misled her about potential earnings from their deal with Talpa and SBS6.
### Court’s Verdict
Unfortunately for her, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal predominantly sided with the producer, reaffirming the initial ruling and highlighting that while she might be entitled to some income from online publications related to the show, it would hardly cover her mounting legal expenses. The harsh reality of legal proceedings had materialized; her quest for justice had cost her more than it could yield.
### Financial Fallout
All told, the lawsuits had drained her finances significantly, as she now faced nearly 15,000 euros in legal costs, compounded by the necessity to return the initial compensation of 4,000 euros. One can only imagine the weight of this burden, particularly for someone who had once harbored dreams of creating a beloved television show.
### The Aftermath
Vincent ter Voert, director of Vincent TV, has opted not to comment, allowing the matter to linger in silence. Meanwhile, the saga of ‘Palace for a Prikkie’ serves as a reminder of the pitfalls that can lie beneath the glimmering facade of television success. Investors and creators alike may now reflect on this cautionary tale: the journey to potential fame and fortune can sometimes lead to legal quagmires and financial ruin instead.
In this unfolding drama of ambition versus reality, we find a poignant reminder that amidst the glitz of the entertainment world lies a murky underbelly rife with contracts, ambiguity, and, unfortunately, disappointment. It remains to be seen if the creator can turn this disheartening chapter into something more uplifting—but as of now, caution is the order of the day.