Media

Dora the Exploited? Teen Voice Actress Sues Nickelodeon

Dora the Exploited? Teen Voice Actress Sues NickelodeonNEW YORK (AP) — A New Jersey teenager who‘s given voice to the spunky heroine of Nickelodeon’s “Dora The Explorer” cartoon series says the network has cheated her out of millions of dollars.

Caitlin Sanchez sued Nickelodeon and its corporate parents Wednesday in a New York court. The 14-year-old says she hasn’t been paid fees she was due for reruns, recordings for DVDs and other Dora products. She also says she wasn’t paid for hundreds of hours of promotional work.

A Nickelodeon spokesman says her claims are baseless. He says Sanchez has been paid well.

“Dora The Explorer” is in its 10th year. Caitlin has been the bilingual voice of 7-year-old Dora since 2007, leading the show’s audiences on whimsical adventures that also help young viewers learn English and Spanish.

Comments (33)

  • ILFarmer
    Posted on October 12, 2010 at 3:44pm

    Maybe Nickelodeon is just redistributing wealth.

    Report Post »  
  • Amandika
    Posted on October 11, 2010 at 1:59pm

    I see lots of you blaming Caitlin Sanchez. Please remember that she is 14. Her parents are probably the ones handling her and her suit. She is barely a teenager and stuck in the middle. It is hard to call her greedy.

    Also, I bet Dora the Explorer makes a lot more money for Nickelodeon than 2 1/2 Men makes for it’s network.

    Obviously none of us can see this contract, so we have no idea if she is being cheated or if this claim really is baseless. I wouldn’t doubt it could happen either way.

    Report Post »  
  • milo
    Posted on October 11, 2010 at 11:45am

    Caitlin Sanchez needs fired, and her ID checked.
    Never a good idea to sue the hand that feeds you.

    Report Post »  
  • Slevdog1
    Posted on October 11, 2010 at 10:49am

    The millions of children who love Dora are the losers in all this. My daughter is not one of them, she prefers Clifford.

    Report Post »  
  • conservativeone
    Posted on October 11, 2010 at 10:03am

    Isn’t Dora a Communist ?

    Report Post » conservativeone  
    • jaaybird
      Posted on October 11, 2010 at 10:13am

      Just remember, It‘s ALL BUSH’S fault!

      ha ha

      Report Post »  
    • starman70
      Posted on October 11, 2010 at 11:08am

      Not sure about Communist but surely a one world government advocare and a soon to be one world language promoter.

      She should be teaching and encouraging spanish kids to speak ENGLISH!

      Report Post »  
  • nearkolob
    Posted on October 11, 2010 at 12:37am

    Greed on both ends.

    Report Post »  
  • traderdan
    Posted on October 10, 2010 at 11:15pm

    Yeah you’ve been paid well for a 14 year old girl, thats what they’re thinking — they should pay her the same amount that every adult actor is entitled

    Report Post »  
    • Johnny Constitution
      Posted on October 11, 2010 at 9:18am

      Actually, they should pay her what the contract stipulates.

      What others do or do not make has no bearing on the matter.

      Report Post » Johnny Constitution  
  • Level_Head
    Posted on October 10, 2010 at 9:59pm

    As was said above, the contract is the key element.

    Her agreement was apparently done AFTER the lawsuit between Disney and the heirs of the creator of Winnie the Pooh was ended — a suit that ran for more than a decade, and hinged upon exactly this issue: royalties on spin-offs and DVDs and such.

    In that instance, there was no such thing as a DVD (or VHS tape) when the contract language was created, so both sides interpreted new developments in their favor.

    That cannot have been the case with this person’s contract from three years ago.

    I’d have been inclined to very tentatively side with the company — except for the line “she’s been paid well” which raises my hackles, and sounds like “at some point, she’s made enough money.” But in any event, any contract language written in this century should have been clear on videos and derivative products. There is no excuse not to have been.

    At this point, I don’t like the statements by either side. She wasn’t paid for hundreds of hours of promotional work. Was she supposed to be? How much? And if so, how did this just become an issue?

    Both sides seem to be making themselves a bit unlikeable, it seems to me. But the facts are likely to be straightforward, and that’s what should control.

    ===|==============/ Level Head

    Report Post » Level_Head  
  • MissCherryJones
    Posted on October 10, 2010 at 8:38pm

    Mithra, do you know something we don’t?
    Anyway, we don’t know all the facts. So until we do… Either she was paid according to her contract or she wasn’t. Her accountant and agent should be able to produce any evidence one way or the other. The end.

    Report Post »  
  • Jim Hubbard
    Posted on October 10, 2010 at 4:19pm

    She just realizes how much the company has made of Dora and wants a piece of their pie.

    It’s like selling tiny LCD screens to Apple, then realizing that they are being used to build iPhones and upping the price on Apple.

    Just fire her and hire someone else. There are tons of teen girls that would love that gig.

    Report Post » Jim Hubbard  
  • BLUJKTS
    Posted on October 10, 2010 at 4:03pm

    Who cares?

    Report Post »  
  • jgrant
    Posted on October 10, 2010 at 3:05pm

    Right on. “She was paid well” means absolutely nothing. The question is was she paid in accordance with her contracts.

    Report Post »  
    • Skwerl E. Muckenfutch
      Posted on October 10, 2010 at 3:58pm

      I wouldn‘t be surprised she’s getting hosed on her royalties. You can’t swing a cat without seeing or hearing Dora the Explorer. At this point this kid is nearing Bill Gates kind of money.

      Report Post »  
  • ninecarpileup
    Posted on October 10, 2010 at 2:57pm

    Where is Sharpton, Jackson and the rainbow coalition?? You just know there has to be some kind of racism in there somewhere, and if not…just make some up!!

    Report Post » ninecarpileup  
  • Topcat
    Posted on October 10, 2010 at 12:45pm

    She should be suing her agent , and lawyer , who should have reviewed the contract , before signing .It is typical business to have a release written into a contract on all products developed by or for the network as property of the network. it is up to the agent and Lawyer to negotiate changes if any of these terms. It sounds like her contract was up and negations didnt go well for Doras contract renewal , now she is suing . It would be unusual for a network not to cross the “T” and dot the “I” in the contract my guess there will be some settlement to stop the publicity , if she doesnt take the settlement she will get nothing in court.

    Report Post » Topcat  
  • Texas Libertarian
    Posted on October 10, 2010 at 12:34pm

    The actor who plays Jake on Two and a Half Men, makes 300k an episode. The voice of Dora makes 5K?

    Report Post »  
    • Prisca40
      Posted on October 10, 2010 at 9:13pm

      The difference is that 2 1/2 Men is a very popular adult program that uses live actors who can actually act and makes a lot of money for the channel. It’s would be very obvious to the core audience if a different actor replaced the current one and it might even cause defections from the audience. Dora is a children’s cartoon, Dora will always appear the same no matter who does her voice, and makes less money for the channel. As their core audience changes as children get older, a different voice wouldn’t even be noticed.

      Report Post » Prisca40  
    • darasen
      Posted on October 11, 2010 at 3:54pm

      The is a big difference though. I am certain that Dora sells many more DVDs CDs ans video tapes then 2 1/2 men. Merchandising for Dora is amazing lucrative as well. Put all that together and Dora is flat out more profitable and popular.

      Test this yourself ask any parent who Dora is and they can tell you then ask who Jake Harper is. (Myself I had to look up the name)

      Report Post »  
  • Mithra
    Posted on October 10, 2010 at 12:29pm

    Another example of cruel child labor.

    Report Post »  
    • JeffW65
      Posted on October 10, 2010 at 4:03pm

      Oh please. This girl could probably retire now and never have to work again. Wish someone had been that cruel to me when I was 14.

      Report Post » JeffW65  
  • Dodsfall
    Posted on October 10, 2010 at 10:45am

    Did anyone on either side read the contract? I’m sure the solution can be found in there.

    Report Post » Dodsfall  
  • DMD
    Posted on October 10, 2010 at 9:42am

    Send Diego in to kick some Nick @ss.

    Report Post »  
  • NoStar
    Posted on October 10, 2010 at 9:39am

    It is the girl’s own fault: She forgot to say to Nickelodeon, “Swiper, No Swiping!”

    Report Post » NoStar  
  • adifftake
    Posted on October 10, 2010 at 9:32am

    She may have been paid well but was she paid all that was promised?

    Report Post »  

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love