nor talked about it to the media. The Screen Actors Guild ruled her contract was not binding, but then Dietz declined to arbitrate the matter. Around the same time, Warners paid Friedkin $4 million, his 10 percent share of the film's profits by that point. A year later, Friedkin sued the studio, claiming it had withheld another $8.5 million he was due under those terms. By 1978 it was reported that Friedkin had settled that suit, but by then Blatty was involved in litigation against Warners, claiming that the $15 million he had received from the studio as his share of the profit was still $1.5 million short. In 2001, following the release of the extended version, which restored 11 minutes of footage and did well critically and commercially, Blatty and Friedkin sued Warners in federal court, alleging that they had been cheated out of profits they had been led to believe they would receive in return for helping promote the film. Specifically, they had been induced to do so by a promise of a share of the sale of the cable TV rights, which the studio gave to Turner Network Television and Turner Broadcasting System for free. Warners called the suit "ludicrous" Later that year, they filed an additional suit in state court, alleging that Warners had further defrauded them by selling broadcast rights to CBS at a discount, by claiming itself as the sole author of the new version of the film when registering it with the U.S. Copyright Office and by failing to honor an oral agreement with Friedkin to share the profits. Nine years later, Blatty brought suit against Warners again, asking for the opportunity to inspect the studio's records and accounts, to see whether the studio had properly paid him what it owed. He argued that his deal with the studio made him a co-owner of the film property and thus he had unique rights to access those records. "[Warner Bros.] has asserted that Blatty must 'stand in line' with profit participants in [Warners'] other works who seek to audit [Warners]," his complaint read, "but who do not share Blatty's status as a co-owner." Copyright infringement claims Within a year of The Exorcists release, two films were quickly made that appeared to appropriate elements of its plot or production design. Warner took legal action against the producers of both, accusing them of copyright infringement. The