Slashdot Mirror
Lucasfilms Nixes Star Wars Live Screening
An anonymous reader writes "The Seattle PI has an article about Lucasfilms sending a cease and desist letter to a local Seattle-based theater company. The company had been planning to do a live parody of Star Wars in which they would turn off the sound and redub it live. This brings up the question are parodies fair use? And if so, should copyright holders be allowed to order people not to parody their work?"
Lucas Films is overly obsessive over the conditions in the theaters in which Star Wars movies played... they spun of THX as a certification body to make sure visual and sound equipment is upto code for everything from theaters to the recording studio used for a video game.
It shouldn't be surprising that a group like this is going to get legal nastygrams for what they're trying to do here when you put that in context. Lucas Films isn't going to release any part of their movie to people who want to do parodies, if they want to do a real parody the right way they'd have to use their own video content. These people got used to using the real movie's video when they were only doing public domain movies, but they fail to understand that anything that came out after the introduction of Mickey Mouse won't be public domain until at least the 2010s, assuming the law isn't revised agian. Until that happens, copyright holders will have the power to shut down this type of "parody" as being not far enough removed from the original work to count.
I clicked the little checkbox that is supposed to prevent me from seeing all this Star Wars trivia.
Why am I still seeing these stories?
The vast number of Star Wars parodies that exist show that parodies are protected. What isn't protected is charging people $10 to see the movie and then talking over the whole thing.
From the article:
That is not an unreasonable demand.If you ask me it sounds like Lucas was protecting Seattle. If anyone should be suing, it's Best Brain.
Username taken, please choose another one.
Of course Lucas wants it stopped, otherwise how would he be able to release "Star Wars: The Super-Extra-Special-Parody Edition"?
Nothing funnier than a room full of geeks dressed as Boba Fett shouting "LOOK SIR, DROIDS!" simultaneously.
I thought parodies had been established to be fair use by the courts in the past. Am I wrong?
IMHO, as long as they pay the same fee that any other theater would pay to screen the movie, they should be free to pariody it as they wish.
If They don't want people making a parody out of thier films, how about a cease and desist letter to a certain George Lucas?
It seems like the "Your Rights Online" section of Slashdot has outgrown its name into a pure copyright-bashing area. Where's the "online" in this story? All we have here is a group of artists who wanted to do a live performance while showing the video half of a still-under-copyright movie. Having copyright laws that block that from happening against the copyright-holder's wishes may be annoying, but it's the law and they've gotta deal with it.
The connection to online is just plain not there... either this story belongs in the main index section instead, or this section needs a new name.
What it comes down to is (a) the movie will be shown without its soundtrack and (b) some people will be talking in the theater while the movie is showing.
Sorry, but how the hell can this be the target of a C&D letter? Point (a) is up to whoever's showing the movie, and point (b) has no relation to the movie itself. Where does copyright law come into this at all?
I think it's been well established that parodies are fair use. The issue for the theater, however, is whether they want to spend untold sums of money in the courts. The civil court system is causing people to be guilty until proven innocent, which is quite expensive.
Yesterday we had the CNN story with Mark Hamill telling people not to take SW too seriusly and now Lucas does exactly the opposite. Way to go dude, keep pissing off your customers and fans.
Turbo Smorgreff
Remember the company who sued the JibJab over the THIS LAND IS YOUR LAND use the political satire:
/ 14 16257
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/25
I realize there's a legal difference between parody and satire and that this case was over a lapsed copyrighted work.
This still sounds like a great opportunity for litegation against LucasFilms over fair use.
To answer the original poster: Yes, parodies are protected. The better question is: is this a parody? As for your second question, no, copyright holders can't prevent people from parodying their work with copyright law. Hope this helps.
If you want some more answers, go read the (c) act.
Okay, this makes Lucas look like an enormous ass. But, oh, wait, that's long since been established. We already know that Lucas likes to tell Star Wars fans where they can shove their opinions, so he's not really losing anyone's respect here. If Episode II didn't piss you off, Episode I did... if it wasn't the prequels, it was the remastering or the remastering of the remastering...
But I digress.
This brings up the question are parodies fair use? And if so, should copyright holders be allowed to order people not to parody their work?
No--this brings up the question, "What constitutes a parody?"
There's a lot of precedent for parodies being protected under fair use. And certainly, copyright holders should not be allowed to order people around with regard to parodies.
I think the real issue here is, the parody in question employs a public screening of Lucas' films. It would clearly be a protected parody if the movie were re-shot or acted out live. But actually putting on a public screening of the film--even with sound replaced--is not quite so clear cut a situation.
Maybe we'll get lucky and this will go to court and we'll get a favorable ruling. But it probably won't make it so far.
Here's proof. Free 27" flatscreen TVs.
Well, they're getting some press alright.
ILL Clinton - Maker of Machinima Movies
The last two Star Wars movies were parodies themselves. How can you tell the difference?
Seriously, Mr. Lucas, please put down the bullhorn and step away from the camera. Start writing children's books or something, but on behalf of myself and others, I urge you to back away from the franchise and let it die a natural death. There's no sense running it over a cliff.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Wow, Weird Al would be in trouble. I mean, he does make a lot of songs himself, but must be most well-known for his parodies. The Amish Paradise skirmish with Coolio being one example of a deal gone sour. Then there's all the artists who say they haven't made it big until Weird Al makes a parody of one of their songs.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
Just like Paramount shut down Star Drek , an unbelievably funny musical parody of Star Trek by David Rodwin. It ran for a year and a half in Seattle. No matter how funny, no matter how popular, no matter anything, it's all about money. Unfortunately, pieces of entertainment are no longer artistic works that become part of our culture. They are only "properties." We are allowed to "consume" them for as long as they're profitable, and that's all. Then they get locked away and carefully guarded in case they might someday be profitable again.
The Sunday Morning Fog is still hovering over my brain, but I seem to recall that the law makes a distinction between Parody and Satire.
Parody (in which an artist is commenting on the work itself ) is protected as Fair Use, while Satire ( where an artist is merely using the work as a tool to comment on something else entirely) is not.
So, as always, the devil is in the details. And whether this Mashup is considered Parody or Satire would depend entirely on the content of the derived work.
-Sean
A parody doesn't allow for unlicensed playback of copyrighted works. LucasArts are perfectly within their rights to request this!
Regardless of where the law stands in this case, this response proves that George is a tired, cynical, greedy old man who has completely lost his sense of humor and in out of touch with the world.
We used to do this as kids, with two VCR's and a mic. One VCR would play Star Wars, the other would tape the video output, and record the sound from the mic instead of the movie. We'd adlib the whole movie like this, just making up lines as we went. Still have the tapes actualy.
Can I have my cease and desist Mr. Lucas?
Considering that Slashdot runs copyright stories multiple times a week, why does the submitter even question if parodies are fair use.
Among the very few things that are explictly proctected under fair use is parodies.
I know that there's a lot of RTFA going around, but how can people with exposure to the issues multiple times a week even ask such a question, unless:
1. It's obvious flamebait.
2. Nobody RTFAs or even bothers to understand the laws they are talking about.
Not that copyright law is great, but really, why question if it protects parody when the law explicitly states that copyright does not prevent reuse of the material in the case of parodies.
I have met Chinese who regularly purchase pirated computer software, music, and movies. They literally laugh at Lucas and his employees.
Hey! That's racist man. I'm not even remotely Chinese (or even Asian) and I too literally laugh at Lucas and his employees. Plus everything else you just said.
If they publically called it a "Star Wars parody" then it would be legal and the Lucas court order could not be enforced.
% 20Magazine%20v.%20Falwell
Thank Larry Flint: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Hustler
If by "parody" you mean "laughing stock", then Yes.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
Actually, the supreme court decided a few years ago that the copyrigt holders indeed do not have the right to do this.
I believe it was over a weird-al song -- Amish Paradise if I recall correctly. If it goes to the courts, it should be a pretty straightfoward case.
As long as these people CAN convince the judge that what they are doing is a parody, LucasFilm doesn't have a leg to stand on.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Do they have a law about how softly you can play the audio track? Do they have a law about talking in a movie theater? Fuck Lucas. Turn the volume knob down to "1", crank up the audio on the live actors, and talk right over the real audio track.
You should laugh at them - they could have got it for free on Kazaa! dumbasses.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Parody IS fair use, and, more than that, constitutionally protected freedom of expression, but using actual Star Wars in the background is a violation of their IP.
It's a bummer, but there it is. They could make a parody movie of it (a la "Spaceballs") but they can't reproduce the content exactly, while over-dubbing, without getting permission.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
When someone sends a cease and desist letter, or any other threat, without the right oppose the action, that's corporate assault. Unless their threats are legally valid, the sender should be liable for that assault, a court should compensate the victim, and assign punishment.
--
make install -not war
http://newfangledhope.com/
This has been around for years.
"I am a teapot! Short! & Stout!"
Imagine that someone took the source code to the Linux kernel, modified it heavily, gave every command a fake Finnish sound to it, and released it for $50 a pop as "Finux" WITHOUT releasing the source or doing anything else to satisfy the GPL provisions. If you think what this theater troup is doing is fair use parody, "Finux" would be legal. If you think the GPL would prevent someone from releasing Finux without following the provisions of the GPL, then what this theater group is doing is not fair use parody.
2live crew used the tune to pretty woman, but their own lyrics.
These people want to use the visuals from star wars, but their own dialog.
It would not be a hard argument to make that the theater company is in fact doing a parody of star wars. Also, I think that just in terms of common sense people would agree that this is a parody. I only hope that the theater company stands up to Lucus Film. It would be ashame if good, funny, creative mystery science theater style parodies couldn't be made.
Why does a theater company need to do this? Turning the sound off and adding our own dialog is the only way my friends and I watch these films anyway.
Even under the present absurd USA copyright laws this is clearly protected as parody.
- The audio is off and the audience is providing commentary.
- The film is thirty years old and has been seen by hundreds of millions of people. It is outside of the copyright period in effect at the time of the film's initial release.
- A film seen by so many people becomes public domain as a result of having entered the cultural consciousness. The fact that is not legally secure only proves the absurdity of the USA copyright laws.
I say, ignore the Lucas 'warning', and hold your event. If you get legally closed, picket every theatre showing a Lucas film in the future. Hand out leaflets explaining the situation to everyone waiting in line to see the 'new' Lucas film. (New is quotes here because there is nothing new to be found any George Lucas film.)
The people waiting to see 'Star Bores number whatever' are the ones that can really appreciate the parody and can add new and interesting content to the parody.
George Lucas is turning into a freak like Howard Hughes became. He should get himself checked for tertiary syphilis.
That's a Star Wars parody...
That's a curious thing about a lot of these copyright cases, a license is never presented as an option, it's always just "stop!" If someone is managing to make money from someone else's material, surely it would be more profitable to both parties to actually license it, rather than pay the horde of lawyers to make sure there is no revenue stream at all...
sig fault
I literally laugh at Lucas and his employees and it has nothing to do with pirating!
Lucasfilm: "Fr1st c3a23 & d3s12t!!!"
They point is that they were not paying those fees. They were showing the movie for profit without going through the proper channels to get permission first from Lucasfilm or Fox. If they were doing it for free, or had gotten permission first, there probably wouldn't have been a problem.
Lucas is a greedy bastard. Does anyone know that he owns the term "android" and its derivatives? He has been suing independent artists and labels left and right that infringe upon his words. He wouldn't sue big guy like Radiohead for their song "Paranoid Android" because that would be big news and might cause a backlash. One example of a small label was a group that called themselves "Dead Droid Records" in Evansville, IN. Here is my question to you: Has the word "android" entered the American vocabulary and become so popular that Lucas should still have the copyright? Before you answer, remember that popular trademarks often enter the public domain as generic words (like scotch tape and aspirin). Also, should a person holding the rights to a single word have the right to selectively sue people as to not start a public backlash against them, or should they sue everyone who infringes regardless of their status?
By now everyone should know the entertainment media has full control of the laws now and can do pretty much anything they want. Even make things up...
This is why i no longer give them any of my money. No need to add to their pocketbooks, just to help them sue me later.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
while parody is protected free speech and can't be shut down by copyright owners, the court has to determine whether the use of the copyrighted material is actually a parody or not.
one of the factors in that decision is "amount of use."
you have the right to use enough of the copyrighted work as is necessary to ensure that people recognize what you are parodying. you DO NOT have the right to use the entire thing.
there is no way that you can get away with turning down the volume on a movie, claiming that you are parodying it, and then make money during a public performance. (the first factor used is whether the use is for profit or not.)
lucas is totally within his rights here, and he's not being a jerk either.
IIRC parody is when you take a work, and in an intent of humor you change it. In that case one could argue that a film is composed of two things : a copyrighted sound band, and a copyrighted image band, the film being recomposed by being the two together. So if you use the image part and change the sound part it isn't enough. You would have to change both, maybe by adding pink dancing bunny on every scene. Mind you I do not know how the law on parody is amde, but I saw time and time at the end of the films that "the sound band is (c) paramount as well as the image of therein film" , i.e. : separate entity.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Well... it's HARD to get legitimate media content in China. It's also hard to go back to paying Western prices for a DVD when you know production costs are about thirty cents.
That being said, none of the stuff in China is available *before* it come out in theaters. The only example I can think of where the bootleggers beat release was "Matrix Reloaded", and their copy turned out to be a repackaged version of "Johnny Mnemonic".
The notion that Western countries are losing "billions" of dollars to piracy in China is laughable. If Western content was available at higher prices people just wouldn't buy it.
As long as these people CAN convince the judge that what they are doing is a parody, LucasFilm doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Wrong.
Why?
Imagine this. I decide I want to sell Star Wars bootleg videos in the street. So I break out DVDAuthor and superimpose MST3K-ish "parody" subtitles onto the movie. Now, according to you, I can go ahead and distribute my "parody" SW version with impunity?
Fair use doesn't work that way. Just because something's a parody, doesn't automatically make it fair use. In every case, the rights of the defendant must be weighed against those of the plaintiff, and except in very clear cut circumstances, the plaintiff has the upper hand because fair use is an affirmative defense -- you must prove that it applies to your infringement, not just assert it.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Hecklers will be parodying the film, anyway...
The Chronic *WHAT* les of Narnia!
Maybe Lucas is afraid that Best Brains will rise from the dead and the bots from Mystery Science Theater 3000 will make fun of Star Wars....
Horrors...
And while we are remembering the past when I was in high school in the 1980's there was Hardware Wars http://mwp.com/films/hardware-wars/more.php4/
The word "android" certainly predates Lucas. Check any dictionary.
The word "droid", on the other hand, was introduced by Lucas/Alan Dean Foster in the first Star Wars movie. Knowing about all the merchandising that resulted from Star Wars, it's not hard to believe that Lucas trademarked it.
Based on my (somewhat limited) knowledge of copyright and trademark law, he's within his right to ask for damages in the case of "droid" if the word is trademarked. Also, I believe you may use the word "android" all day if you want.
Cheers,
E
http://eugeneciurana.com | http://ciurana.eu
I wonder if the acting was similar to those guys who were acting out the movie in front of that truck on the bit Triumph the Insult Comic Dog did on Conan O'Brian before Episode II came out.
There's a far difference between Rocky Horror-esque play-alongs and muting the sound and expecting the director to be happy with it. Audience participation has its place. Frankly, I don't see the advantage of just redubbing the entire show.
For the sake of argument:
What if, instead, they just turn the sound down real low and provide all the guests with devices of the hearing imparied that play the dubbed version?
Acctually they are able to prevent fair use. In this case parody.
They can use the costs of a lawsuit against the performers.
There is a big difference in being right and getting right.
1. This is not a parody and therefore not protected by fair use laws. It's an illegal use of copyrighted material. Period. If there is a bad guy here, it's the copyright infringers, not Lucas. If Lucas doesn't protect his work, he loses his rights in this regard. Every single one of you, were you in his position, would do exactly what he's doing.
2. Did this group write to Lucasfilms to obtain legal permission to do this or did they just cut out on their own? It's up to them to secure the rights to do this. There are proper avenues to go before just assuming what you can and cannot do.
3. Before screaming foulplay and denouncing Lucas, bear in mind that this is the same guy who gave wide-ranging rights to amateur filmmakers to use the concepts from SW to create their own fan films (go look on AtomFilms or elsewhere.) What other filmmaker has done such a thing?
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
Strange that Lucasfilms won't let this theatre company perform. Charles Ross does a One Man Star Wars live theatre peformance where he takes the classic first 3 films and does all the main scenes. He condenses the 3 films down to 1 hour. Amazing to watch and incredibly funny as well. More info can be found at http://www.onemanstarwars.com/one_man_star_wars1.h tml.
Or to just see a video clip is here: http://www.onemanstarwars.com/OMSWDemo.WMV
Lucasfilms most definately knows about him as he was flown down as their guest for one of the recent conventions. He will also be performing at the big Celebration III for the new movie.
The same guy also does the One Man Lord of The Rings which is also incredible.
The problem with showing the movie in a theater and dubbing it over live is that the length of the segment being parodied is the original work in its entirety. Typically a parody involves excerpting selected portions of the original work and making some type of original yet modified use, be it criticism or parody, of those excerpted portions only. Any more extensive use of the original work, even for parody or commentary purposes, requires the permission of the copyright holder. You have a safe harbor under the concept of "de minimus" with these types of commentary or parody, but only up to a point: you cannot reproduce the entire original work or a substantial portion of it in your commentary or parody. The courts have already been quite clear on this point.
You got a little excited about the law aspect there-- where in the article did it say that Jet City is taking this to court? What judge? They already replaced Star Wars with a cheesy ripoff flick from the 80s. Show happened on Thursday. Wing-it Productions is just concerned with giving people a good time and making a couple of bucks. They're not taking George Bleeding Lucas to court any day soon.
Wait... why is this in the Your Rights Online section? Unless we are living in the Matrix, a live screening isn't an "online" thing.
...states that unless you actively use and protect a trademarked term against ALL infringements, you lose the right trademark. I'm sure if anyone with a half-decent legal team would win if leant on by Lucas for something like "android", though maybe not "'droid"...which is most likely why he doesn't threaten anyone with a half-decent legal team.
Apart from anything, "android" massively pre-dates Star Wars and Lucas himself, unless he finished the first draft sometime during the mid-19th century! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android/
Windows is only $500 if your time is worthless.
This exact thing has alread been done. Back in the 80s there was a group (I forget their name..LA something or other I think) that made a 30 minute show called "Mad Movies" where they did exactly the same thing, took existing movie footage, and dubbed over a completely new voice track. Of course, few people saw this (it was a 1:30AM kind of show), and they used VERY old movies (which may have had an expired copyright), but there should be legal precedence for this. Besides, if anything needs to have some wind knocked out of its sails, it's Star Wars (or as I call it: science fiction with the science fiction taken out).
If I read it correctly, it's showing the visual, but not the audio. This is not parody. However, this is giving Lucasfilm Ltd. bad publicity, so maybe a compromise will happen.
MODERATE PARENT UP -- THANKS.
Parody is coming up with your own original version that pokes fun at something. Stealing someone else's video and dubbing it is a violation of copyright law and hopefully always will be. For a bunch of people hung up on open source and GPL licensing, you seem to have no knowledge or respect for copyright law.
Hey, how many people want to see Mystery Science Theater 3000 (MSt3K) come back on air? Someone has to pick up the work where they left off!
Although WB expressed some concern, this was done with Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in NY, Boston.
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
Nowhere in there does it say that they were planning to pay Lucas for showing the film in the first place. Just like anybody would have to do to show the film in it's entirety with or without words.
Check out this little gem from the article. said Christensen, who added that as far as he knows, Lucasfilm is the only such company that sweeps the Web on a daily basis and issues cease and desist letters on a regular basis.
Wow I guess I was just imagining all those stories about the **AA on the front page of slashdot.
Can someone explain, or point me to a site that explains, how something can be in the public domain if it was made after the mid-1920s and wasn't explicitly allowed to enter the public domain? Right now, copyright lasts for life of the author plus 75 years, or 95 years if the copyright is owned by a business.
One thing that puzzled me was the ruling that the JibJab "This Land" animation was safe because "This Land is Your Land" was in the public domain. It was apparently first published in a songbook in 1945, and at that point, you needed to renew the copyright before the 28 year term expired, which wasn't in 1973.
Wasn't the crux of the Eldred vs. Ashcroft case the fact that the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act put things back under copyright that had fallen into the public domain? Was there a time limit in the Bono act that prevented older works that had been in the public domain for a while, like "This Land" or older movies, from falling back under copyright?
The problem with this is that Lucas is not required to license the film to any cinema that whats to show it and is allowed to set terms on exhibition. This is how they were allowed to set the many requirments which surrounded exhibition of the prequels (some examples being: THX-certified screens only, and multiplexes being required to show SW on their largest screens)
This is ridiculous. I think we should all petition together signatures for a "Cease and Desist" letter to LucasFilms to stop them from making crappy Star Wars "prequels".
LucasFilms obviously has a problem with people being creative and enterprising when it comes to entertainment. I mean, it's just a live version of MST3000 any way, right?
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
Using the video in its entirety goes beyond what fair use is meant to do. If they wanted to do it, they should restage it.
Well umm he's fully in his rights. The BFD here is not poking fun (lucus is ok with that), but that they wanted to charge 10 bucks make a proffit and wel generally do many no no's, he's a controll nut we all know this. So just
Also, I believe you may use the word "android" all day if you want.
I just tried this, but could only keep repeating the word android for a few hours before I got all freaked out. The word totally lost it's meaning! It just became an abstract sound, and I wasn't even sure if I was saying it right. I stopped because I was worried I'd forget the meaning of all the other words I know.
Dubbing over the ENTIRE MOVIE can't really be argued to be a small portion of the copyrighted work.
Here's what the law says.
Well, parodies are protected by law (more or less) in Canada so it really wouldn't be a question here...
There are SOME restrictions... but not a lot.
Lookup "Adbusters magazine" for more info.
For those who do not already know (and from reading the comments above there appear to be many)
Parody (such as the star wars spoof in the article), along with quotation and review, are specifically enshrined as "fair use" in the copyright law of most countries.
Indeed even in the US, with arguably the worlds most restrictive copyright laws, the Supreme Court has reached the unequivocal conclusion that a parody falls within the scope of the "fair use" defense
"Star Wars", dubbed for comic effect, is a plot element for S. P. Somtow's mid-1980s science fiction short story, "Fiddling for Waterbuffaloes" (collected in _Dragon's Fin Soup_ -- I think -- which is in-print.)
...legal... rights to block the dubbed version, as U.S. law would consider it to be a "derivative work", which requires permission. If Thai audiences did get to see live-dubbed versions in the 1970s, I wonder if those would legally be considered derivative works that were licensed by Lucasfilms?
In rural Thailand, silent movie theaters apparently existed into the 1970s, playing recent movies, because it was cheaper to dub them live than to make prints dubbed into Thai.
The characters in Somtow's story can't resist "improving" Star Wars. Much hilarity ensues when an actual alien invasion begins in Thailand.
Lucas is within his
Showing the video with the sound down is a breach of copyright or could be seen as such. Now if they had redone the scenes comedically, then they may have something to fight for, but in this case, Lucas would win easily. A film is more then just it's audio. Plus if the DVD release interviews are any sign, Lucas will be on the warpath as far a spiracy goes. Don't be surprised to see some geek on eMule getting a C&D or worse for distributing divx rips.
Gorkman
RHPS was a well cast and in some cases nuanced effort to bring a a far out stage show to the big screen. As a film, it never would have made another cinema dime if it wasn't parodied like this - and since they have to pay royalties for every screening, this can only make money for Lucas - no one would go to see SW in a regular cinema right now - the faithful just paid $40 for the home version, so wat else is going to bring them in? Something as funny as RHPS shown at midnight - the faithful will go, and word will spread if its funny.
Lighten up, George.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Heirs to the copyright of Margaret Mitchell's "Gone With the Wind" sued publisher Houghton Mifflin to stop publication of a parody novel, Alice Randall's "The Wind Done Gone." HM won in an out-of-court settlement and published the parody. See http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp ?documentID=16230
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
So they got a C&D letter. And probably from a real lawyer on actual letterhead. This is the lowest and cheapest form of legal intimidation. I've gotten one before, as have many other people. By itself it doesn't mean anything beyond a lawyer being paid to tell you Don't do that, or we'll be really pissed!
I'd say, get a lawyer in return. Get a cheap, or free lawyer. Get the ACLU (they like to defend free speech rights). Then send a letter in return. As for myself, the very best nasty C&D letter and their outstanding response will show you that a lot of times, this really is just a cheap scare.
Because, however, IANAL, do consult with one. And point him in the direction of: Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc (1994).
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Since the Star Wars trilogy has become a parody of itself, can we sue George Lucas for making a mockery of it?
This is the guy who thinks a sculptor should be allowed to sue you - if not have you arrested - if you buy his sculpture, put it on your lawn and then paint it blue.
He has no clue about the nature and purpose of property in human society.
This is what you get when so-called "intellectual property" (an oxymoron at best) supercedes correct concepts of property.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
get the actors together in the theater and run the film privately
record their parody
sell the CD set with instructions on how to use it.
If anything, this would help INCREASE the number of star wars rentals and sales to home video, which you-know-who could hardly object to. And, since the work is completely original in its released context, the theater company has great protection AND a nice whallop of milkable publicity.
This would only be a parody of the dialog. It would be an unauthorized use of the visual content. Parody tends to be a complete recreation that uses the original story or theme, but not the actual performances.
The only similar examples I can think of are
Woody Allens "What's Up Tiger Lilly", which was authorized and Mystery Science Theater, which used such bad movies that I would assume that the creators of those movies were just pleased to have their movies played at all. Even if mutilated.
pigfukr
How much would one of those letters go for on eBay? (Mike Rowe made a hefty bit of change by putting paperwork from Microsoft up for auction.)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Well then... What if they hand out headsets for people connected to a little FM receiver or something similar?
I'd go for that, I'd probably even pay extra.
Even more basic is the fact that you also can't SHOW a copyrighted film in a theater without a contract from the copyright holder. Let alone sell tickets.
You can't take a copyrighted anything and modify it without the permission of the copyright holder.
Under the Compulsory License provision for audio recordings, You CAN take a copyrighted and commercially released song recording and make your own original recording of the melody and arrangement with parody lyrics (a la Weird Al Yankovic)as long as you pay the compulsory license fee to the copyright holder. The copyright holder CANNOT deny you permission to do this. But under this arrangement you can't sample any of the actual audio from the actual original.
If you want to sample actual audio from the original, you can't do it unless you get contractural permission from the copyright holder--and that usually involves licensing and money.
But rights for film, theater and television are called "grand rights" and are different than rights for songs and audio recordings.
The point here is that this theater wanted to use George Lucas' actual film (which is copyrighted) and change the soundtrack. They might have been able to create their own original film, without using any footage or images from the real Star Wars. But what they were trying to do here is clearly a no-go, legally.
A couple of years ago, as reported here on Slashdot, a company wanted to release DVDs of movies like "Titanic" with the nudity hidden, by digitally painting clothing over the nude actors. They wanted to pay the licensing fees to the copyright holders and sell the DVDs to people who were offended by R-rated movies but would be willing to buy them if the reasons for the "R" were removed. The copyright holders, including the film company that produced "Titanic" rightly stepped in and prevented this from happening.
If you create a work of art and you copyright it, you have the absolute right to control the way that this art is seen in public, and to protect yourself from having what you created altered in any way that doesn't suit you.
The "parody" question comes into play when somebody makes a piece of art that is 100% their own creation which parodies an existing work of art (Mel Brooks' movie "Spaceballs," which is a parody of "Star Wars"). But that is clearly not what the theater in question was wanting to do.
So, no, modifying copyrighted material for parody is not fair use. The laws defining the concept of "fair use" don't mention parody at all.
I was there and it was still a good time. They legally were allowed to use up to 4 minutes of footage from any of the SW flicks, so they parodied 4 minutes of the interview with lucas off the extended edition VHS tape. Absolutely hysterical... Lucas' actions along with his comments in the yahoo interview about him not really listening to his fans has killed any magic SW once held for me. Lucas is a sh**ty filmmaker, he can't write a script to save his on arse, and is just a money grubbing schmuck...
They have to prove you are not a parody. You have to defend your position of it being a parody.
However, For this case, I think the defendants can use "Effect Upon Potential Market or Value "
from: http://www.publaw.com/parody.html
" 4. Effect Upon Potential Market or Value of the Copyrighted Work
The fourth factor, the effect upon the potential market or value of the copyrighted work, analyzes the extent of harm that is caused by the new work to the market or potential market for the original copyrighted work. This factor evaluates the "potential" as well as "actual" financial harm that is or may be done to the original copyrighted work, as well any harm that may be caused to any existing or possible future derivative works. The United States Supreme Court at one time appeared to declare that this factor was the most important element in determining fair use but a more recent Supreme Court decision that will be discussed shortly appears to have limited this finding. However, when the new work becomes a substitute for, or makes the purchase unnecessary of the appropriated original copyrighted work then it is highly unlikely that the courts would sanction such use as being a fair use of the original work. The courts have expressed this standard by finding that an unauthorized use is not a fair use when the unauthorized use diminishes or negatively impacts the potential sale of the original copyrighted work, interferes with the marketability of the work, or fulfills the demand for the original copyrighted work. Although this factor does not presume that all commercial gain will automatically be an unfair use it does establish a high threshold of proof for the copier to demonstrate that the underlying work was not financially damaged. "
I suggest peopie who are interested in these types of cases go to the link.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Don't get me wrong with this, I like the Star Wars movies, but this is ridiculous, how much money do they want to make off this movie?? I read last week somewhere that DVD release was pushed forward because of piracy fears, I almost chocked, do that not realize that this movie has been out for more that 20 years... it has been on free to air TV many times, the only people who are going to buy this trilogy set are die hard fans of the movie, whom I would guess have also purchased a lot of other star wars merchandise, so my suggestion to Lucas Films is get over it... you made a good film, people loved it, money was made, people careers were helped, and maybe it's time to acknowledge the fans whom with out this would just be another old movie.
"Fair use is the right to hire a lawyer."
--Lawrence Lessig in Free Culture
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
They didn't perform Star Wars but they have done other movies, and my wife and I attended a showing.
http://www.jetcityimprov.com/twistedflicks/
are they adding content which legitimately justifies the price they are charging on its own
They are. That's the whole idea of "Twisted Flicks".
They show the movie without sound, and they take suggestions from the audience. "Okay, I need the name of a place. Sedro Wooley. Okay, now I need a profession. Dressmaker." And so on.
Then improv comedy guys then use the suggestions from the audience to make something up on the fly. They have to think on their feet and make funny stuff up rapidly. What you are really paying for is the improv.
Really, they can use any movie to do this. But there is potentially extra humor value if the movie is well-known; if the movie is itself part of pop culture, then sly pop-culture references might be easy to slip in.
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think these guys can hide behind the parody protection laws. They aren't really looking to specifically make fun of the movie, they just need a starting place to hang their improv humor.
They are showing a movie in a theatre, so they need permission from whoever owns the movie.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Common sense applies. If you intend to parody a work, you are obliged to create your own extended passages in the style you wish to lampoon. Inability to create similar material is bad parody, but fair use. Swiping someone else's work and drawing mustaches over every frame of their original art is both plagiarism and vandalism. Cease and desist is the fair rejoinder.
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
and I have a machine that used to be an iMac running a web server but I'm done with Apple.
If you purchased an iMac, you did that at least a couple years after Jobs renigged on the contracts with PowerComputing, Umax, Motorola, et. al. How long after the clones disappeared did it take you to get mad at Jobs? As for the 'resultant changes to the hardware' Jobs and Company as only improved Apple hardware. Your Performa 6400 was a competitive box for several years, but doesn't hold a candle to a G5 Powermac in any comparison. I know. I used to do tech support as an Apple employee.
I'd also encourage you to shut down the iMac and just let the Performa 6400 function as both a 'linux server' and your 'web server'. No need for two computers to be jacking up your electric bill. And you can run the 6400 headless.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
http://www.kinokadr.ru/articles/2004/06/13/goblin. shtml
In russian but with some screenshots
I always thought that Star Wars was a porody itself.
Did Lucas have any permissions?
None of my peripherals would work with a new Mac.
I remember a lot of people complaining that the iMac was USB-only. The thing is, Apple sold millions of those computers. Suddenly, there was a market demand for USB peripherals. Now nobody is making parallel printers. If it wasn't for Apple pushing firewire, who knows how long it would have been before vendors would have been building it (IEEE 1394) into their video cameras and motherboards. Carrot and the stick, my friend. The carrot was a bunch of consumers who no longer had serial connections on the computers. The peripheral makers wanted to eat that carrot very badly. And this pushed technology in the marketplace forward.
So yeah, I can't use my old laserwriter IInt on my new G4 Powerbook. I'm not too disappointed, though. It's a 300dpi laser printer. Now I can get 1400dpi inkjet printers for under $100.
Glad you resurrected that dead iMac!!!
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!