Slashdot Mirror
007 Dis(Gold)members Austin Powers
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."
... not like that matters to Big Media. They have ways of getting around anything that interrupts their cash flow.
Oh, and FR1ST PS0T!!!
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
It thought most people were aware this movie was in development for a while, so why has it taken so long for MGM to move on it?
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?
It's weird Al allowed to make his songs so similar to the original becuase they are parodies. Surely the the same is true for this film?
Could this be the end to creative Porn Titling? Some of the greatest Adult ventures of all time were titled after famous flicks. Setting a precedent like this could only harm the most sucessful industry in history.
Do it doug.
Has nobody got a sense of humour any more? (Well, I know Mastercard haven't.)
Soon it wont be possible to satirise anything without getting a nastygram?
"Under the iron bridge, we fist" - The Smiths, Still Ill
It will be interesting to see if "MPAA Guidelines" and laws like the DMCA will be used by MPAA members against each other, rather than us consumers. I have visions of a pack of wolves turning on its weaker members in a gory bloodbath.
Did you even read the article? It says MGM and Danjaq only want the title of the movie changed.
The characters and the plot do not need to be changed, even though there is a character in the movie called Goldmember.
It is strange how the film companies only want the title changed but not the character that infringes the copyright
--Metrollica
It's a play for revenues. MGM wants cash. My prediction: amicalbly resolved with an undisclosed cash settlement in 2 weeks.
Why on earth is this new for nerds? This is not stuff that matters.
Whether one likes the Austin Powers movies or not, there are far more important issues that matter that don't appear to be getting /. editor's attention. I don't believe they're not being submitted by the masses. Yes, they've been discussed here before, but each day seems to bring new developments that are *even* being reported on cnn:
People sound off against Microsoft / DOJ settlement
and cnet:
Anti-trust debate heats up
It's saying something about the state of affairs at /. when rubbish about Austin Powers makes the news and issues covered by the non-tech main-stream media that have *serious* implications for nerds, are not.
It's not even like it's a slow news day!
Has it ever been suggested for /. to open the submissions directory for public scrutiny?
- Austin Powers: Dr Yes!!!
- Austin Powers: From Russia with Lovers
- Austin Powers: Thunderballs
- Austin Powers: You Only Live for Shag
- Austin Powers: On Her Majesty's secret Lover's List
- Austin Powers: Diamonds Are For Minks
- Austin Powers: Live and Let's Shag
- Austin Powers: The Man with the Golden Bum
- Austin Powers: Moonraiser
- Austin Powers: OctuplePussy
- Austin Powers: A View to A Shag
- Austin Powers: License to Shag
- Austin Powers: Tomorrow Never Bites (hard)
- Austin Powers: Never Say Lover again
I wonder if New Line Cinema can take any lessons from Star Ballz? If they can get away with a PORN parody it seems like a weak reference like "Goldmember" should be allowed too. Especially when New Line Cinema (with all that cash) is backing it...
The suit ended in a settlement in which Myers agreed to make a movie for Universal and Dreamworks would get a cut of the profit. Dreamworks entered the picture becase Spielberg and Katzenberg helped broker the deal between Myers and Universal. Today, we have MGM issuing a cease & desist to Goldmember. Well, MGM and Universal have had close ties before and have often collaborated in projects. I wouldn't be surprised if some people at Universal are still quite upset with Myers and are trying to make every thing he does quite difficult.
Here's an article with fuller details. I find the following paragraph particularly interesting: The "Goldmember" flap is not the first between MGM and New Line over Austin Powers titles. MGM initially challenged the use of "The Spy Who Shagged Me," an obvious play on the 1977 Bond title "The Spy Who Loved Me." But that dispute was settled when New Line agreed to include trailer play for MGM movies on its Austin Powers sequel.
MGM's past actions show that all MGM is interested in is profiting off anything halfway Bond-related, whether they thought of it or not. If they can leverage copyrights to accomplish that, they will do it. If it takes, as MGM's CEO says, having "a zero-tolerance policy toward anyone who tries to trade on the James Bond franchise without authorization", they will leverage that too.
This isn't primarily an issue about rights. It's primarily about money, and rights are only dragged into the picture when they are likely to bring in more money.
It seems you are correct. Oops, my mistake. I misread the headline. I guess it's time to get some sleep.
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
Other articles:
Movies.go.com
Yahoo
BBC news
CNN
From CNN: Rappers 2 Live Crew, for example, took their use of the Roy Orbison song "Pretty Woman" all the way to the Supreme Court, which then reached the explicit conclusion that a parody falls within the scope of the fair-use defense. It would, however, be impossible to market the film as "Goldmember" during that process.
--Metrollica
That certainly sounds like the Bond licenseholders want more than the title changed.
"The Spy who shaged me" was an unexpected hit. It sort of snuck up on the market place and nocked down box offices. If the Bond owners had known it would be so big they would have cared.
This however is a sequel to a hit movie. The 1st rool of such sequels is that they don't have to be good to make oodles of money. This will be super popular even if it totaly sucks.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Because Austin Powers is so confusingly similar to James Bond, and penises are so confusingly similar to fingers.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Apparently, the 007 folks weren't too keen on the double entendre of Goldmember
Hmmm...I realise this may be a poor choice of words on behalf of the writer of the article, but if not, the people who gave us "Pussy Galore" and "Ivana Onatopp" better not be whining about use of double entendre!
Prisoner #655321
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:
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.
...and why us Brits find sites like this so amusing...
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated up.
Is it a copyright issue? Might it be a trademark issue if they registered the movie title? Are we even talking US law or British? The article doesn't seem to address any of this.
If this is in fact copyright, then MGM is in the wrong as parody is fair use in US law from what I understand of it. As an earlier poster mentioned, there's a ton of porn movies that take advantage of this. You can make fun of an original work all you like. If this is British law, who knows?
If we're talking a trademark issue, different rules apply. Again, I don't see how MGM has a legal leg to stand on as this obviously isn't going to create any more confusion in the market place then the last Austin Powers flick.
There's a stack of unanswered questions this article raises but doesn't address. Anybody know where more information on this might be located?
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
I will, but only by the cor... oh, wait, nevermind.
--Metrollica
Austin Powers: You Only Shag Twice!
"sweet dreams are made of this..."
The problem with "fair use" is that it has to be proven and defended on a case-by-case basis. If New Line wants to fight it they wouldn't have a chance of sufficiently marketing it and still get it out for the summer blockbuster season.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Yes but what do they mean by major tweaking?
If it's just a title change, how about Goldphallus, Goldshlong, Golddong, Goldhairybanana, Goldbigchap, GoldflyingScotsman or something to that effect.
But then if the call it GoldflyingScotsman they could get sued for damaging the reputation of Scots.
--Metrollica
I always liked 'Sex Trek - The Next Penetration'
No sharp objects, I'm a programmer!
What loss are you writing about ?
The cease-and-desist letter actually deals with the name Goldmember, not the film in itself.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
"MGM/UA and Danjaq have a zero-tolerance policy towards anyone who tries to trade in on the James Bond franchise without authorization," says an MGM spokesperson.
Really? Veerrryy interesting.. So what about:
"The Spy who Shagged Me"
The Spy who Loved Me
"Random-Task"
"Oddjob"
"Dr. Evil"
Dr. No
"Alotta Fagina" / "Ivana Humpalot" / "Robin Swallows"
"Pussy Galore" / "Plenty O'Toole" / "Mary Goodnight"
"An unnesecarially slow moving device to which i'll leave them alone so i can't actually witness their deaths."
umm... pick any of the last 19 bond flicks..
And approaching 100 dollars each in the bids!
007 dismembers Austin Powers
Oh, you gotta feel sorry for his wife.
--Metrollica
So, Jay Roach just tell anybody how his not-filmed-yet movie will be funny and especially how it will be called.
If he used an Apple-like strategy (only unveil what's ready) then he'd have the chance to gain some notoriety in order to ask the public whether his movie is prejudiciable to 007 or not.
Look the next Bond : "Bond 20".
I guess this is obfuscated enough not to raise lawyers' suspicion around, the world, isn't it ?
Trolling using another account since 2005.
But then if the call it GoldflyingScotsman they could get sued for damaging the reputation of Scots.
And hasn't Fat Bastard done enough to warrant such a case already?
You're right, it doesn't. This article does. It's a copyright issue.
But officials at New Line, a unit of AOL Time Warner Inc., insist last week's ruling dealt with a "procedural infraction" involving the studio's attempt to register the movie's title.
"The issue that is currently in dispute does not pertain to the title or content of the film," New Line said in a statement. A studio spokeswoman said New Line would take its appeal to the MPAA on Thursday. In the meantime, the film will be referred to as "the third installment of 'Austin Powers.'"
The older Bond films are classics - your thinking of the terrible Roger Moore flicks. The really early Sean Connery films: Dr No, From Russia with Love and Goldfinger are great films. The plots are not too far fetched even though the girls' names might be - I still don't know how did they got away with Pussy Galore!
--
Reverse outsourcing: it's the future
Whatever way it turns out, I think Mr Myers should add a new character called 'Emgi M. Sucks' :)
Vs lbh pna ernq guvf, ybt bss abj. Tb bhgfvqr. Syl n xvgr.
Featuring Gobblin c**ks, D***o Daggins and *** *****.
Now let's hear no more about it.
I am a Karma Library.
- Austin Powers: The Shag is Not Enough
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Mike Myers makes money with an old idea , MGM makes money with an older idea. I don't see the problem. I also saw the preview of Goldmember and they make use of a midget to be "funny" and it's not funny at all, it's another old idea, they used to do that in circuses. Im glad he pays for his unoriginality.
Its Xenia Onatopp.
Thou Shalt Not Disrespect the Famke. Woof.
You see, old school geeks will go around quoting Monty Python all day, much to everyone else's annoyance. New school geeks will go around quoting Austin Powers all day long, to everyone else's annoyance.
/.?
Now do you understand why this was brought up on
On the one hand, I firmly believe that parody should be protected by law, and that a mangled title such as this easily falls under that category. On the other hand, anything that would prevent or even delay the release of another idiotic Mike Myers film should be counted as a blessing.
Oddly, I cracked a malicious smile when Star Ballz had and won its day in court against George Lucas. No mixed feelings there... anything that makes Georgie uncomfortable in the slightest is good news to me, especially after Ep. 1 and what I've seen of Ep 2.
Seriously, though, Hollywood is taking protection of copyrights just a little too far these days. But as we know, money talks. I'm waiting to be charged a licensing fee to wear a Bond costume on Halloween...
-- Minds are like parachutes... they work best when open.
> they mock the dreams and aspirations of young male teenagers (like myself) who wanted to drive fast cars, have laser watches and get all the hot chics....
r wa tch shows it was a Seiko. Unless Casio ripped off Seiko's design and I didn't really have exactly the same watch).
I used to have the the same cheap watch as Bond in Octopussy(I had the watch before I saw the film). I never had a Faberge egg with a tracer in to see if mine did the homing thing though.
(I thought it was a Casio, but
http://www.thejbw.com/gadgets/op/opgag.htm#home
And now I'm married with children, which limits my interest in "hot chics" (sic).
I still fancy some of his cars though.
rant
ok, i'll go back in my box now.
update comments set karma=-1, reason='offtopic' where sid=26315
yeah, but that isn't the point. The point is, that all of the bond movies, and the bond movie titles, etc. are protected intelectual properity. Of course nobody will confuse the movies, just like nobody confuses weird al songs with the real deal. It is just the bond people saying, "hey! I don't want you making fun of my movies again" It was stupid to begin filming before anybody asked.
...as I recently discovered while scratching my nose. No, wait!...
You are such a typical censorist. Just because you don't understand and appreciate something doesn't mean that no one should be able to experience it.
They aren't suing because you don't like the austin powers movies, anyways. They just want money for someone else's work.
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
Worked on Carl Sagan. Didn't it?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
This issue of parody vs copyright was in focus this past summer with the release of
The "Gone With the Wind" parody. If Universal wants to pursue this route against MGM, they have a legal leg (IANAL), but MGM has time on its hands, so the next sequel may be titled "Austin Powers: So Very Old".
This may be all moot if MGM keeps it 'inhouse' with the MPAA as arbitrator.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
In the words of Eric Cartmen "what's the big fucking deal." Star Ballz just won against Lucas in court and I don't see how Goldfinger and Goldmember are much different. Unless it is because Goldmember isn't a porn, but with a title like this it's only a few scenes shy...
So they are both spy movies. They both use Gold in the name. So what? One has 007 and the other doesn't. One is serious and the other is a comedy.
If this were the first Austin Power's and it was being challenged, it would seem reasonable that people might get Goldmember and Goldfinger confused and MGM might lose some money. But this is the third installment of a very popular series, and most people are well familiar with Austin Powers and it's spoof. But other than making fun of a certain spy movie what's the big fucking deal?
I don't think Goldfinger (TM) had a real gold finger, but I bet Goldmember has a real gold member. Somehow most people will know the difference between a finger and a member, gold or not. Of course maybe the JB's secret that MGM is trying to hide.
James check the your email, and you to can have 3 or more inches too.
Check the date on the article. This was reported back in September. It said that filming was scheduled to begin in November.
Meanwhile, a few weeks ago I saw a preview for Goldmember. It was still a ways off, but I'd assume they would have changed the name in the nearly 4 months since this article was written if there were still legal issues surrounding it.
Now if you guys would stop going outside to have a fag, we'd be even.
-- Sigs are for losers
This has beeen discussed ad infinitum on alt.fan.james-bond many times before. This isn't a copyright or trademark dispute. It's a standard part of the MPAA.
Basically, MGM has a problem with how Goldmember is being marketed (the trailer comes too close to some of the sight gags in Goldfinger, mainly). They're not suing New Line; they've complained to the MPAA panel that governs member's promotions and titling and so forth and convinced them to bar New Line from promoing the film until they work out their differences.
I think MGM/Danjaq/EON are being morons, but this is not a threat to parodies of Bond films outside the MPAA. If you want to make a homemade porn film titled "GoldenCock", you can.
That said, it is nice to see the Bond series getting some play on Slashdot. Enough of those crap Sci-Fi series like Star Trek and Star Wars...
the band named Goldfinger?
or Goldfinger Premium Fruit?
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
I just assumed that the reporter, like most of the Slashdot crowd, thinks that trademarks are covered by copyright law. A copyright-infringement case will obviously lose under Acuff-Rose, while a trademark dilution case has a good chance of success (the Star Ballz case hasn't reached a point where the courts can apply it as precedent).
Sucks doesn't it but thats business.
A journey of a thousand miles starts with a brutal anal raping at airport security
This reminded me of the original script for Austin2. Now this would have attracted a little more attention ..
AUSTIN POWERS 2: THE WRATH OF KHAN!
NARRATOR (VO) The producers would like to point out that this movie is in no way related to or inspired by the original Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan. It shares neither characters nor setting nor action with the film of that name.
NARRATOR: As time goes by it becomes increasingly unclear why the name Wrath of Khan was chosen for this film, since it will surely provoke a costly lawsuit.
NARRATOR: Well there you have it, a copyright suit has been filed against us by the makers of Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan. Our counsel informs us that we are without legal recourse and therefore, the new name of this film is:
AUSTINPUSSY
NARRATOR (cont'd) We've just been notified that in order to meet the requirements for the Motion Picture Association of America's PG-13 rating, we must, once again, change the title of this film. The new, and hopefully, last title is:
AUSTIN POWERS 2: THE SPY WHO SHAGGED ME
http://www.frankwu.com/AP2draftscript.html
<? include ('signature.inc'); ?>
Doesn't "The Spy Who Shagged Me" capitalize on the well-known 007 movie "The Spy Who Loved Me"?
Of course it does. Why no comment from MGM over that one?
This was industry arbitration panel ruling, not a legal one. They have the legal right to a parody, but the MPAA has their own internal rules. I doubt pr0n makers are members of the MPAA so they don't have to deal with arbitration rulings.
Austin Powers battles Bond over "Goldmember" film title
By Steve Gorman
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Suave secret agent James Bond may have won the first round in his battle with bucktoothed superspy Austin Powers, but the international man of mystery isn't giving up his mojo without a fight.
New Line Cinema vowed Monday to appeal an industry arbitration panel ruling that forced the studio to withdraw movie trailers, posters and online promotions for its upcoming third installment of the hit comedy franchise starring Mike Myers, "Austin Powers in Goldmember."
The Motion Picture Association of America panel ruled last week that the "Goldmember" title was inadmissible, in response to a complaint by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc., home of the Bond films.
MGM claims that "Goldmember," a spoof on the title of 1964's "Goldfinger," the third in the Bond series that starred Sean Connery as agent 007, infringes its copyright.
Studio executives also object to "Goldmember" promotional materials that send up various Bond characters and posters.
MGM Vice Chairman and CEO Chris McGurk in a statement said the studio and the production company behind the Bond films, Danjac LLC, "have a zero-tolerance policy toward anyone who tries to trade on the James Bond franchise without authorization."
But officials at New Line, a unit of AOL Time Warner Inc., insist last week's ruling dealt with a "procedural infraction" involving the studio's attempt to register the movie's title.
"The issue that is currently in dispute does not pertain to the title or content of the film," New Line said in a statement. A studio spokeswoman said New Line would take its appeal to the MPAA on Thursday. In the meantime, the film will be referred to as "the third installment of 'Austin Powers.'"
The decision forced New Line to recall about 11,000 trailers it had in circulation in theaters across the country, many of them attached to its hit fantasy epic, "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring," the spokeswoman said. She added that "teaser" posters for the film "would be coming down about this time anyway."
The movie, set for release next July, co-stars Michael York, Michael Caine, Heather Graham (reprising her role as Felicity Shagwell) and Beyonce Knowles from the soul trio Destiny's Child as Foxy Cleopatra.
It's the third in a series, following 1997's "Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery" and the megahit 1999 sequel, "Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me," in which Powers resorts to a time machine to recover his stolen "mojo," the secret to his incredible libido.
Myers, who co-wrote the script and shares producer credits, again plays an assembly of roles, including Austin Powers, the villainous Dr. Evil and a new character, Goldmember.
As a legal matter, New Line could easily defend its use of "Goldmember" as a parody protected under the "fair use" doctrine of copyright law, as the rap group 2 Live Crew successfully did in a U.S. Supreme Court case involving a parody of the Roy Orbison song "Pretty Woman," legal experts said.
The "Goldmember" flap is not the first between MGM and New Line over Austin Powers titles. MGM initially challenged the use of "The Spy Who Shagged Me," an obvious play on the 1977 Bond title "The Spy Who Loved Me." But that dispute was settled when New Line agreed to include trailer play for MGM movies on its Austin Powers sequel.
All the discussion about fair use, parody, etc. applies only to copyright claims. This a clearly a TRADEMARK dispute. As far as I know, "fair use" doesn't apply to trademarks, although the "requirements" for infringement are much higher (e.g., will the customer be confused, etc.).
--Doug
Al doesn't have to get ANY permission from the original writers/producers of the songs. They're protected as long as they are parodies. If you remember Amish Paradise, the rapper who originally did that song wanted to kill him for "Stealing his music" .. When all was said and done - Sorry, protected because it was a parody. please drive thru thnx.
The theatrical trailer for the film certainly indicates that the new film will find a way to break new creative ground. The 2-minute short appears to be a parody of the original 1997 film.
We spoke with director Jay Roach. "It's a copy of the dance sequence from the first movie, but with all small actors. Get it? It's a mini Austin! The wig, the teeth, even a tiny sports car. Ha. Little people are funny."
Full Story
... is just to rename. Pick something pseudo-Bond, but different enough to be easily defended.
I suggest "Goldenrod."
The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
I wish something like that had existed back when I was in high school. I really could've used some beginner's shag lessons.
---------------------------------------------
SERENITY NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just hope the /. effect dosn't end up shagging their server...
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated up.
Sex Trek III: The Search for Sperm
That was an actual porn flick!
The impression of Cpt. Kirk is so funny, I fastforwarded the sex scenes just to hear the dialogues!
Oh, and there's that thing where Sperm's ears become "engorged" whenever he is aroused.
For an extensive list of Star Trek inspired porn, check out Adult Comics
http://www.club977.com/ - The 80's Channel!
Your source for commercial free 80's music!
... if they'd planned on calling it "Goldmember in Austin Powers".
Think about it baby, yeah.
erroneous: look me up in a dictionary
We will hold the title of your movie hostage until you give us ONE MILLION DOLLARS! Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Ha ha ha. Ha ha ha ha ha. He he. He.
A U.S. court of appeals threw out an injunction against distributing the novel The Wind Done Gone, a parody of Gone With the Wind. Read the decision here.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Folks, MGM and Danjaq are located in Britain ... This means that U.S. court decisions don't apply.
So what? That only means that AOL Time Warner (parent company of New Line) will have to use region coding to keep the film from being distributed in the UK. Without the Hague Convention, there is no such thing as a worldwide injunction.
Will I retire or break 10K?
... in at least two places: here in medium resolution and here in high resolution.
Featuring ... D[ild]o Daggins
Looking for "Dildo Bugger" in an LotR spoof? Look no further than Bored of the Rings .
Will I retire or break 10K?
Also, Wierd Al has quite a few songs which are not paraodies (completely original, but with the basic influence of a certain style, such as "Stuck in a Closet with Vanna White" or "Albequerque") Also he has a number of polkas which use the lyrics, but not the music from popular songs at the time (to point out just how wierd the lyrics are.)
He's also been turned down to do parodies, and well, you haven't seen any Prince ones out there.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
And yes, I'm just kidding... it would have been as bad as the other bottom of the barrel SNL movies (anybody ever see that 'Pat' one? Not just a zero-star rating, negative stars were in order for that one.) Too bad that the Bond camp has to insist on bleeding the Bond turnip to the last drop... I loved the Bond films while growing up, but the whole concept is now, sadly, anachronistic. Hang it up, Bondies, and let Mikey have his fun.
I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
I would hope that if this came before a Court, they would dismiss the complaint. Parody is protected expression, and will necessarily involve mimicing sight-gags. But that may be meaningless if the MPAA has effective control over trailer distribution. OTOH, such monopoly control could be the basis for suit. IANAL.
To the tune of "Goldfinger"
John Moeller! (horns)
John Moeller! (horns)
He's the man! The man with the golden schlong!
His schlong is long!
John Moeller! (horns)
He's the man you want to fuck with...
Because of his width!
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
I doubt that. Remember Shag Carpet?
We may not openly admit to the rest of the world that we know what shagging means, and our TV commercials maybe be a bit more repressed, but why else would we have come up with shag carpet but to ease those pesky carpet burns from regular carpeting.
Face it. Everyone enjoys a a bit of the old slap and tickle. I do have to admit it's much nicer to ask a lady if she wants to shag than if she wants to F*ck. It just has a more friendly tone to it.
-Goran
Carpe Scrotum - The only way to deal with your competition.
Isn't satire protected against this type of legal action?
Reminds me of the Mastercard "Priceless" incident on the rec.humor.funny newsgroup
Yeah, there's actually some ad for the BBC that shows up in magazines here that says something like this:
...
Shag
Bollocks
Wanker
Find out what they mean before the American censors do.
"Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
Yeh I know, my friends and I (15 year old spotty geeks) have great fun pointing out that porn film companies are getting their 'adults' and 'adolescents' mixed up. Muwahahaha. But still, masturbation is great no matter how old you are.
Mod me down, fine with me, it's my real karma I try to keep up.
...and HOW is this news nerd-related?
There's no sig like this sig anywhere near this sig, so this must be the sig.
What?! Your reading slashdot so I'm assuming you're a geek. You're a geek and you don't drive fast cars, have laser watches and get all the hot chicks? Man, where did you go wrong? You must still be using Windoze or something.
Mod me down, fine with me, it's my real karma I try to keep up.
OK, I've got DMCA and MPAA, all I need is RMS, SSSCA, and a software patent to commplete the row...
- Have a picture
Does anyone really think any differently of the 007 series because Mike Meyers makes fun of it? The last three bond movies have sucked... come to think of it, none of the Bond movies were very remarkable. The Austin Powers franchise may be kitschy and not all that inspired, but at least the studio doesn't take itself too seriously. ("If you see one movie this summer, see Star Wars. If you see two....")
I wonder if Albert Broccoli and Ian Fleming would care about the name of the AP movie.
Kill the lawyers.
Anything that's bad for the Austin Powers franchise is Good For America.
The whole Austin Powers franchise is basically a spoof
Go figure.
Bowie J. Poag
And a dozen more I dont feel like mentioning...
Please do me the favour of going and reading the publaw link. Parody does not make it a non issue. It makes your derivative work eligible for protection. If you parody someone else's work, you'd better understand the issues: commercial nature of your work, intended audience of your work, degree of copying, and the effect on the sales or potential sales of the original. And the most important issue: do I have enough money to prove my innocence in a court that considers both parties to be starting off equally and deals in degrees of probability, rather than an assumption of "innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt" in the defendent.
Wied Al has the clout to defend himself, which makes him far less liable to get sued. Goldmember does likewise, but the timing of the suit (after the title was fixed and promotional material had been produced) means that they have to come to a compromise, and quickly, rather than screw their release schedule fighting a case, even one that they can almost certainly win.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Brownfinger?
While we might at one time have thought the law well-settled concerning the copyright issues of parody as fair use, the truth is far more interesting.
Clearly, we know that a rap reworking of O Pretty Woman, parodizing the song as an unrealisticly romanticized account of the horrific life of a prostitute on the street is fair use, for the Supremes told us so in Campbell v. Acuff Rose.
Alas, the Courts in infinite wisdom have distinguished with a fine hair the parodizing of a work of authorship with the satirizing of a societal issue by reference to a work, for example the Dr. Seuss-esque storybook about the O.J. Simpson Trial, the "Cat NOT in the hat, which was held NOT to be fair use. There was an interesting article about this case in the Cardozo Law Journal. (big pdf file)
Finally, we have the recent reworking of the civil war epic "The Wind Done Gone," which led to one of the more important recent copyright and parody decisions, and an excellent Eleventh Circuit opinion.
And that's just the Copyright issues. There remain the trademark parody cases, which have an even odder range of uncertainty. Certainly, there are a host of cases where trademark parodies have been found permissible and protected (I think "Off the wall-street journal" was an example of one that passed), but apparently there is an invisible (or at least very gray at the fringe) line of cases where the use is so offensive to the trademark that it borders on unfair competition. (I think Jordache with a depicted butt and Cocaine with the Coca-cola commercial style failed, but again, I may be misremembering).
I had a case not too long ago when I analyzed these issues and this absolutely murky hunk of case law. The best I could approximate is the SDR&R standard: "it is ok to parody a trademark, unless you make reference to sex, drugs or rock & roll."
Interestingly, these standards (trademark and copyright) are NOT consistent. The Campbell Copyright case was a fact pattern as egregiously offensive to the Orbison estate as Cocaine was to the Coca Cola Company. Yet there, it was protected expression.
It would be interesting to see a case well-resolved that addresses these conflicting areas of law clearly. But at any rate, I wouldn't presume without seeing ALL the facts and ALL the arguments that either side has a clear win. This is one of the truly gray margins of the law, except in the few arenas where the conduct has already been litigated. Unless your case lies foursquare on the facts of an existing, controlling case, this is as uncertain an area as it gets.
*Austin finishes a conversation with an innuendo laden one-liner and walks brisky away and around a corner where he runs straight into the chest of a very tall, thin man who's head sits above the frame of the shot.
Backing up, and looking up Austin says, "Well, excuse me, sir." Offering his hand, he continues, "My name is Austin Powers..."
The tall man takes his hand, "Randy Johnson."
"Excuse me? I thought you... Did you just say your name was, 'Randy Johnson'?"
In a new shot, the camera takes in the scene of the large sportsman towering above the dimunitive International Man of Mystery.
"Yes, I'm a Pitcher for a Major League Baseball team." Randy says matter-of-factly.
........
I'm sure someone that really is a writer can fill this in and make it funny, but damn... With a name like Randy Johnson, he HAS to at least have a cameo!
okay, nevermind.
Weird Al always sought permission as a courtesy.
But don't you remember when Coolio refused permission for him to release "Amish Paradise",
but he did anyway?
"Extremism in defense of liberty is more fun."
Why else would they be suing for such a frivolous reason? Do they honestly think that I'm going to confuse Goldfinger with Goldmember? Austin Powers is undoubtedly a very popular character, but today he still doesn't hold a candle to the popularity of James Bond. Though he may be closer in people's minds today (more recent really), in the long term it's likely that James Bond will survive the test of time. It has already, really. They could both make out like bandits in a strategy like that, and not get into all this legal B.S..
I guess another option is that MGM is thinking "Hmm... these guys are going to have a hit on their hands. I bet we can make really good money off this movie if we get a settlement out of them...". That's just plain evil. This type of legal crap is silly. It'd be far better if the next James Bond film took a poke at Austin Powers instead. Imagine if it was a ritual for an Austin Power movie to come out after every James Bond movie, and each on is slinging mud at each other. Now that would be far funnier. Now an Austin Powers fan would watch James Bond, and the other way around. (It probably happens anyway, but I think it's a fun idea.)
So either MGM thinks I'm a total moron who can't distinguish an over the top parody from James Bond, or MGM is illegitimately suing for the title. I tell you what, it's enough for me to boycott any more James Bond films.
"Derp de derp."
he'll do yet another Austin Powers movie where the evil villan is the head of an evil movie company that's suing him for infringing on their 'copyright' which threatens to take him out of the 'spy game'. The whole situation with MGM just begs for a satire of it.
"I just don't get it baby, it's like Dr. Evil all over again trying to steal my mojo."
-
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
mike myers was born in Scarborough, Ontario, Canada.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
The post is funny, but it actually points to a good legal precedent. New Line could argue that MGM doesn't have a leg to stand on because they've let the Bond series be parodied explicitly twice before in the previous two Austin Powers movies. It's the responsibility of the person or organization that holds a copyright to enforce it in the courts. Thus, if you have been aware of previous copyright violations and failed to act, you've put yourself in a position where your copyright may be invalidated because you've tacitly allowed use of it before through your previous inaction.
Basically, MGM doesn't get to decide to enforce its copyright sometimes and not others. It either enforces it or not, and if it's chosen not to with the Powers movies then it may not legally have the option to now.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
According to Harry Knowles at AICN:
"Now it is QUITE CLEAR that New Line would easily defeat MGM under Parody Laws, but because MGM could tie up the marketing on the film in the meanwhile... They are going to go ahead and do a new title anyways. Taking the path of least resistance."
Sounds right to me.
He married an ax murderer!
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
God that's funny! But those bastards at MGM/UA et all would do doubt sue over that one as well.
Or maybe I should have said "Fat Bastards..."! Hee hee...
Worst 1st ammendment violation ever.
we have a law protecting creative satire. Obviously it doesn't neccesarily apply to internationally released films. The previous 2 installments of austin powers were blatent satires of Bond and similar spy movies. How come the Bond people didn't file C&Ds then? and furthermore.. the musical group Goldfinger got away scott free. Nothing bites my bunyons more than seeing governments or big-boy corporations standing in the way of artistic creativity. This here has an easy solution, however. Boycott Bond. Any company who is going to thrust their "Zero-Tolerence" upon a blatently positive creative entity for no reason other than protection of their prescious trademark deserves a boycott untill they can accept creative satire.
I bet that New Line refused to pay and now MGM is playing hard ball.....
There was a series of Porn films featuring agent Jane Bond, 0069 (which is pretty close to 007). The titles included:
(Jane Bond vs) Thunderballs
(Jane Bond vs) Thunderthighs
The man with the Golden Rod
Undressed to Kill
For Your Mouth Only
In some of them, Jane comes up against the evil forces of S.M.U.T.R.A.
A good Bond parody besides the Austen Powers films is "Licensed to Love and Kill" starring Gareth Hunt from The New Avengers
This will not set a legal precedent, as it has nothing to do with US law. Both New Line (Austin Powers) and MGM (The studio that makes Bond flicks) are members of the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America). It is in New Line's best interest to remain a member of the MPAA, which collectively represents most studios and many other entities. The MPAA sided with MGM, meaning New Line has to conform to MPAA guidelines or quit.
You are right, however, that under US law, the new Austin Powers flick should be protected as satire, but the name it is being sold under (Goldmember) very likely violates trademark issues (Although not the character in the film - satire again. He isn't being sold; the film is.)
From the article:
MGM and Danjaq, the British company that controls the Bond film license, have obtained a cease-and-desist order from an Industry panel that prohibits New Line from calling the latest installment of Mike Myers' shagadelic spy series Austin Powers in Goldmember.
See the bold part there? They didn't get the cease-and-desist from the Government. This is a private business issue.
And a Motion Picture Association of America arbitration panel sided with MGM.
Ayep. Your friends, the MPAA at work.
If New Line is taking it seriously, then there's probably a contract issue in place here. Chances are, New Line is un-titling their movie because MGM would sue the pants off New Line for releasing it as is, probably a breach-of-contract suit; I would guess stemming from some rules of membership in the MPAA.
While I personally think it's pretty stupid of MGM to push this, it's _entirely legal_. This has nothing to do with copyright law or fair use.
-JDF
When I first heard it, I thought it was a porn flick. there have to be tothers who think the same. Changing the title might attract viewers.
Okay, okay. The guys at MGM/UA aren't bastards and I publically apologize for using such a foul word and would like to take back what I said.
Great, thanks.