Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

007 Dis(Gold)members Austin Powers

Posted by Roblimo on from the submitted-over-and-over dept.

gpinzone writes, "MGM and Danjaq, the British company that controls the Bond film license, have obtained a cease-and-desist order against New Line Cinema that prohibits New Line from calling the latest installment of Mike Myers' shagadelic spy series Austin Powers in Goldmember . The full article is available from E!-Online."

5 of 327 comments (clear)

  1. Precedent by sql*kitten · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Weird how they're upset about this, but allowed "The Spy Who Shagged Me". I thought that satire counted as fair use of copyrighted material?

  2. Play by gnomish · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's a play for revenues. MGM wants cash. My prediction: amicalbly resolved with an undisclosed cash settlement in 2 weeks.

  3. Read all about it by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For the benefit of the hordes who will post "I thought satire/fair use yadda yadda yadda", don't speculate, go and read about it.

    There is a specific codification of fair use for parody or satire, but satire alone is not automatically enough to protect you.

    The factors relevant to this case are:

    • Commercial/non commercial. Goldmember is a commercial production. This counts against it.
    • Nature of work. Goldmember is "creative" rather than "informational". This counts against it.
    • Amount of copyrighted work used. Probably just a small member. This counts for it.
    • Effect on potential market or value of the copyrighted work. Minimal, I'd have thought. Goldmember won't compete directly with Goldfinger, nor will it cheapen a franchise that includes characters like Pussy Galore and Dr Goodhead. This counts for it.

    Prima facia, it's about 50-50. Mike is trading on someone else's idea for profit, but in a small way compared to his original content. Using the character in the title was rather asking for it though. Mel Brooks got away with that, and with significant use of Star Wars material in Spaceballs, because he also parodied at least another 21 sources, and used his borrowed characters to perform a fair amount of critical commentary ("moichandising, moichandising").

    Remember that but fair use is an exception to the law, and as Mike is clear about where he's taking his material from, it really is up to him to prove his innocence. He shouldn't have much trouble doing so, and this is likely just a well timed gambit to land a quick out of court settlement, one that the Goldmember people really should have anticipated and prepared for. But heck, it lands them free publicity, so the only losers here are a few PR executives.

    (Incidentally, I agree with other posters that this article really is -1 Offtopic. If we really care IP issues, then why not run my submission on how all the sound and fury about IP on Slashdot has failed to translate into actual support for the WIPOUT essay competition. For gods' sake, all you have to do is CC your usual Slashdot rants to them!).

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  4. Re:Here's a better article by CaseStudy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The main story's article doesn't even mention the word "copyright".

    Probably because any potential action's not based in copyright, but in trademark.

  5. Slashtard Bingo by grytpype · · Score: 5, Insightful

    OK, I've got DMCA and MPAA, all I need is RMS, SSSCA, and a software patent to commplete the row...

    --

    - Have a picture