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."
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.
- 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.
Why on earth is this new for nerds? This is not stuff that matters.
... Ah geez, nevermind. Maybe you'll figure it out.
Well, I'm not sure that it's "new" at all.....
And let's forget for a minute that this might be an appropriate topic for slashdot (think think think.. owwww), just consider that a site like this is popular because of one thing. It continues to draw visitors. Do you see a lack of visitors? Content must be ok... If you aren't pleased with the direction the content has taken, then you could just
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
"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!
"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!
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?
The idea of "conjuring up" the original work has become both a basis for protection, and a limitation. You can use enough of the original so that the target of your parody is obvious, but you can't simply copy the original, hoping to benefit from its success, and then throw in a few jokes in order to gain protection. Commercial parodies are just as entitled to this protection as non-commercial ones, as well.
You're right, it doesn't. This article does. It's a copyright issue.
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.
- Austin Powers: The Shag is Not Enough
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
with links to three different items on the raid ... three IMCs were the sources
/. that keep pointing at IMC.
IAMNAE (editor), but if IMC was your only source then I probably would have rejected it too. IMC is about the most twisted source of information I've ever seen on the net. I can't figure out why there are a couple of people on
IMC calling itself Journalism and NewsMedia is good for a laugh though. They make SlashDot look like CNN.
Finding an actual news report on the incident would probably get the story accepted.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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.
...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!
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...
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
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
I think MGM and Dunjaq will in the end lose the case because of the precedent set by MAD magazine back in the 1950's, where the courts in the end ruled that parody is a protected First Amendment right.
Somehow, both MGM and Dunjaq seem to have forgotten that the entire Austin Powers concept is a parody on the whole idea of spy movies in the first place! (rolling eyes skyward)
Just hope the /. effect dosn't end up shagging their server...
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated up.
... in at least two places: here in medium resolution and here in high resolution.
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.
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.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
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."
OK, I've got DMCA and MPAA, all I need is RMS, SSSCA, and a software patent to commplete the row...
- Have a picture
The whole Austin Powers franchise is basically a spoof
Go figure.
Bowie J. Poag
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.
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.
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."
Actually, I remember an interview with Weird Al in which he stated categorically that he thought he had obtained permission.
Coolio insists that he didn't, but I tend to believe Al. Weird Al always gets permission as simple courtesy.
not like that matters to Big Media. They have ways of getting around anything that interrupts their cash flow
Well, what about the other big media company? The one that would have to pay a shitload of money to remake and edit AP3?
Actualy, a settlement will probably end up taking place. Legaly, I don't see how Goldmember couldn't go forward, Austin Powers as always been a parody of James Bond type movies...
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
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.
He married an ax murderer!
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
We are currently in the arbitration process and trying to resolve this matter under the MPAA guidelines
I think we all know how the MPAA feels about fair use, and arbitration is extralegal, so the results are rarely about the law. It really comes down to who bought the arbiters.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
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.
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