Question: Did the producers pay him?
About the article "Forrest Gump", section "Author controversy".

Candidate passages:
On March 6, 1995, "Jenny Jones" taped an episode called "Same Sex Secret Crushes" on which Scott Amedure, a gay man, confessed to his best friend Jonathan Schmitz, that he had a crush on him.
Schmitz's appeared unconcerned as he laughed about that revelation in front of the audience.
However, three days after the taping, an upset Schmitz killed Amedure.
After the murder made headlines, the producers decided not to air the show.
However, the episode did air on Court TV when the network was covering the trial.
Clips of the episode were also featured in the HBO documentary, "Talked to Death".
Schmitz's history of mental illness and alcohol/drug abuse came to light during the trial in which Schmitz was later convicted of second degree murder.
He is currently serving a 25-50 year prison term.
Jones and the producers were later sued by Amedure's family for neglecting to find out Schmitz's history of mental illness and substance abuse.
Jones testified under oath that the producers told Schmitz that his admirer could be a man, but Schmitz thought that the admirer was a woman.
Producers admitted under oath that they deliberately lied to Schmitz in order to get him to come on the show.
Jones also admitted that the show did not want Schmitz to know the outcome of his secret crush.
Amedure's family won the ruling and the show was ordered to pay $25 million, but that decision was later overturned by the Michigan appellate court which ruled that the producers were not responsible for what happened to the guests after their appearance on the show. 
Winston Groom was paid $350,000 for the screenplay rights to his novel "Forrest Gump" and was contracted for a 3 percent share of the film's net profits.
However, Paramount and the film's producers did not pay him, using Hollywood accounting to posit that the blockbuster film lost money.
Tom Hanks, by contrast, contracted for the film's gross receipts instead of a salary, and he and director Zemeckis each received $40 million.
Additionally, Groom was not mentioned once in any of the film's six Oscar-winner speeches.
The dispute was later resolved.
Shane Connor joined "Neighbours" in July 1999 as the patriarch of the Scully family, his contract was renewed several times during his stay on the show.
In 2003, Connor had his contract terminated by Grundy Television and he was dismissed from the show after he developed an amphetamine problem, which caused him to clash with cast members and disrupt filming.
Connor later filed an unfair dismissal claim against Grundy and sued them for nine months of lost earnings ($200,000).
He admitted that he had suffered from "amphetamine hangovers", but he denied that he had been aggressive.
He also claimed that Janet Andrewartha, (who plays Lyn Scully) did not like him and was behind most of the complaints to producers.
Connor later won his case and Grundy Television were ordered to pay him more than $230,000.  
Hurley comments that he did not expect Rose's husband to be white, before Jack quickly changes the subject.
The producers felt it was important to address that they are an interracial couple, and that Hurley was saying what the audience would be thinking.
Caldwell agreed with them and thought it would be odd if the issue was not addressed.
Anderson also was glad that Hurley brought up the issue, and liked that Jack did not pay any attention. 
He was also criticized by many for making too many business transactions in the Marathi play allocation dates.
He made loses in many plays but he did not left or change the business of producing the plays.
As the head of the Natya Nirmata Sangh (producers' association), he was the cynosure of many controversies.
Many producers labelled him a 'contractor-producer', criticising his repertoire of commercially successful actors, particularly the faces that he usually banked on.
Those include Prashant Damle, Vikram Gokhale, Kavita Lad, Dilip Prabhavalkar.
He was absolutely unapologetic about his brand of theatre.
He was very clear on his views regarding this.
"To get people out of their houses to pay and watch a play is serious business and I do it very seriously," he had said in an interview.
He even drew flak for alleged unfair allotment of performance slots in Mumbai's select auditoriums.
Many contemporaries called him dictatorial and alleged he had infused a commercial spirit in theatre.
They accused him of using his clout to gain prime slots.
However, Bhat maintained he stood for quality theatre, good marketing and high production values.
He said his theatre was a box-set proscenium parameter, with no pretence of an experimental intent.