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.
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.
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?
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
> 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?
This is not the trivia you are looking for.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Parody is not talking over someone else's movie. Parody is making your own movie. It's a very, very, very clear distinction. Whether Lucasfilms was being jerks or not is up for debate, but this has nothing to do with parody.
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
The problem is that this probably doesn't qualify as a parody under the common law. This is probably characterized as a derivative work, with the video from the film being combined with parodizing content, and so is not protected by fair use provisions. But IANAL.
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.
If you'll take a look at the little icons next to the story, you'll find that it's cross listed under law and money as well. The way the checkboxes work (someone please correct me if I'm worng on this) is that it'll block out any stories that are listed *only* under star wars. So to not see this story, you would have to have law and money blocked out too. This is the same deal for people who keep seeing the political stories. It's not broken, it just works in a way contrary to what you expect ^-~
You know you've lost it when you begin signing physical documents with =^_^=
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?
- 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.
Damn. Where the hell did you learn about copyright law?
The US modified our copyright laws to conform to the Berne convention in 1976, thus making Lucas's Star Wars release in 1977 covered by the life-of-author+50 measure. So you're wrong on the first quoted claim.
The second quoted claim, that somehow over-use of copyright can erode it, is a misunderstanding. TRADEMARKS can be eroded to lose their legal meaning (i.e., Xerox), but copyrights cannot. Even if everyone on the entire planet has seen a work and can recite it from memory, the work is still protected by copyright until it expires.
Actually, the film is no longer 30 years old. In the 1997 re-release, it's been modified and cleaned-up enough so that copyrights are in full effect.
You wont be able to find a 30 yeard-old print now. Impossible. And you can bet in 25 years, there will have been a few "improved" re-releases to further milk^H^H^H^H protect the SW franchises.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
Even if everyone on the entire planet has seen a work and can recite it from memory, the work is still protected by copyright until it expires.
Good example: the "Happy Birthday" song, which is copyrighted. That's why when somebody has a birthday at a restaurant, the employees have to sing their own dumb little song to embarrass the poor fool.
Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
Legally, over-use of a copyrighted work can't erode the copyright, but most people are of the opinion that morally, at least, it should. Why should you have to pay royalties to be allowed to sing "Happy Birthday," for example?
Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
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.
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
The movies or the book?
The book has been around for 40 years, and the author has been dead for 30. A fair case could be made that the purpose of copyright, to give authors a financial incentive to produce new works, is not being fulfilled by keeping it under copyright. Quite a similar story for Happy Birthday.
LoTR, the movies, on the other hand, are only three years old at the most and would still be under even the extremely short (by today's standards) terms of 14 years originally set down in the 1700s.
Make me a friend and I'll mod you up