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.
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.
> 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.
No, you A) Have to pay a license fee to show the movie whether or not you B) want to play the sound is up to you
It's a target of a C&D letter because they didn't get the rights to show the film in the first place. If they got the rights to do show it, then this would be a moot point.
It's not like a bunch of geeks dressed up as star wars characters were going on stage and doing the movie without the original lines, it was showing the movie a la MST3K which they need the rights to do so.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
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
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.
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.
- 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.
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.