Bonnie Aarons, known for her portrayal of the demon priestess Valak in the horror films The Conjuring 2 and The Nun, has filed a lawsuit against Warner Bros. Pictures. The case has drawn attention in the entertainment press for its allegations about profit sharing and contract terms connected to the studio’s merchandising tied to Aarons’ image from The Curse of the Nun.
The actress accuses Warner Bros., along with its subsidiary New Line Cinema and Scope Productions, of not honoring contractual agreements and failing to provide a fair portion of proceeds from merchandise featuring her likeness linked to The Curse of the Nun. The dispute centers on the allocation of profits and whether the terms outlined in the contract were properly fulfilled in relation to earnings from licensed merchandise.
Aarons reportedly received a bonus of $175,000 tied to the film’s performance. The Nun itself achieved substantial commercial success, with production costs and box office receipts contributing to a strong financial return for the studio across its marketing and distribution efforts.
Beyond The Nun, Aarons also appeared in the sequel The Nun 2, which was released as part of the franchise’s ongoing expansion and continued exploration of the Valak character for fans of the series.
In addition to her work on the Nun franchise, Aarons is recognized for a distinctive screen presence that has led to memorable roles in a range of films and television projects. Her performances have included appearances in notable titles such as Mulholland Drive, Drag Me to Hell, and other genre projects that have showcased her ability to inhabit unusual and demanding roles.
Historically, The Nun franchise and related projects have contributed to the broader conversation around how actors’ likenesses are licensed and monetized within major studio ecosystems. The current legal action reflects ongoing debates about compensation structures in film and television, especially regarding the use of an actor’s image in merchandise and marketing campaigns associated with high-profile genre releases. The case underscores the evolving expectations from performers and the strategic considerations for studios in managing rights, revenue streams, and branding for existing franchises.
Meanwhile, the broader legal landscape surrounding entertainment industry practices continues to evolve, with several cases over the years highlighting tensions related to compensation, residuals, and the governance of intellectual property. Observers note that the outcome of such disputes can influence how future contracts are drafted and how profit-sharing arrangements are structured for ensemble casts and iconic characters across major studios. In this environment, parties often pursue settlements, court decisions, or negotiated amendments to licensing agreements to clarify rights and ensure fair returns from creative properties that capture public imagination.
As the industry moves forward, performers and producers alike are paying closer attention to the balance between creative control, brand value, and equitable compensation. The evolving standards in contract language and reporting requirements aim to bring greater transparency to revenue streams generated by films, streaming titles, and related media, ensuring that actors receive a clearly defined share of earnings tied to their performances and likenesses across licensed products and marketing initiatives.