Firefly Fans Fight Back Against Universal

Gossi writes "What happens when a film studio and a fanbase get into bed? Fans of Joss Whedon's Firefly, and the movie by Universal Studios — Serenity — are not amused. After being encouraged to viral market Serenity, the studio has started legal action against fans (demanding $9000 in retroactive licensing fees in one case and demanding fan promotion stop), and going after Cafepress. The fans response? Retroactively invoice Universal for their services."

Comments

Missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA:

In other words, this site should not be taken as an attempt to actually bill Universal Pictures for all of our time, energy, and effort, nor encouragement for any fan do try to do so. We just believe that there is a point to be made.

Re:Missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to say that to me this speaks to a greater problem that I see in the business world. The overwhelming number of bad managers that seem to be running things. When I worked for RadioShack (canada) I saw the company run into the ground by a managment team who was completely incompetent. I predicted that the company would be bought out by walmart, and 2 years later it was bought out by circuit city. Now that I work in health care, I watch a well conceived system collapse under inept management. And to see all these studios, be they movie or music, completely unable to adapt to the changing landscape. I have to ask my self, "how, and why, did we end up with such incompetent management up in the ivory tower?"

Re:Missing the point

[free space]

"how, and why, did we end up with such incompetent management up in the ivory tower?"

Offtopic, I know, but here's my theory: It's due to a universal (pun not intened) misconception that a manager should focus on the "big picture" and delegate responsibilites to subordinates. So your average manager is totally out of touch with the customers, the employees, and the market. The only thing he or she sees is charts, reports and presentations, and somehow key decisions should be made with this stuff.

Re:Missing the point

[nursegirl]

I wish I had modpoints. Interesting and important point. A

Re:Missing the point

[aichpvee]

I think it's more because greedy and incompetent people are more likely to be driven to do what it takes to succeed in such positions and competent but not greedy people are less likely to because they aren't incented by greed. Same reason you end up with so many crooks and frauds in politics.

Re:Missing the point

[kaltkalt]

All they are ever shown, and all they see, are fallacious reports and charts showing how much money they "have lost" and "will continue to lose" due to copyright infringement. Just like the RIAA and MPAA, they guestimate how many times people download their movies, and multiply that number (which itself is probably twice the actual amount) by the price at which they sell or plan to sell their movies. This figure is presented to management as their losses. Obviously these figures are bullshit as it is based on two false assumptions. First, that nobody buys a product after downloading it. Second, that every download is an actual lost sale (that is, the downloader would have purchased the product had he/she not downloaded it). Both of these assumptions are false, particularly when dealing with a movie/tv show with a very dedicated cult following. But if you were a wrinkly, fat, 97 year-old white billionaire with liver spots all over your face and severe prostate issues, and you were told your company was losing 75 billion dollars every month due to product "theft" you'd react the exact same way these Universal execs did. You can't be out of touch if you're misinformed ab initio.

Re:Missing the point

[eonlabs]

I agree,
I think $75 an hour for being a fan of something with the risk of lawsuits
seems pretty fair.
$9000 is a huge risk.
If they don't back off, you might say that Universal Pictures just isn't getting the picture.

Re:Missing the point

[mortong]

I wish I could unbuy the Serenity and Firefly DVDs. I also wish I hadn't convinced other to buy them. This is just sad. You're suing the people who made the show a financial success; who spread the word.

Re:Missing the point

[pipingguy]

It's also status and the perks that often go with the title. A popular and personable individual can fake his/her way into management via suckupitude if the superiors are prone to appeals to their vanity. When you find a manager that can describe in detail a task or help you with your work, stick with that person. It wasn't so important before to be competent technically as a manager but now it is becoming so.

Re:Missing the point

[sowth]

Have you ever had a manager who didn't delegate responsibility? I have. It doesn't work. (I'm sure there is a pun in there somewhere) They sit and micromanage everything, wasting time and pissing off the people under them. (I know how to fasten a stembolt, thank you.)

Re:Missing the point

[mpe]

All they are ever shown, and all they see, are fallacious reports and charts showing how much money they "have lost" and "will continue to lose" due to copyright infringement. Just like the RIAA and MPAA, they guestimate how many times people download their movies, and multiply that number (which itself is probably twice the actual amount) by the price at which they sell or plan to sell their movies.

Which is rather greater than the actual profit which would result from a retail sale.

This figure is presented to management as their losses. Obviously these figures are bullshit as it is based on two false assumptions. First, that nobody buys a product after downloading it. Second, that every download is an actual lost sale (that is, the downloader would have purchased the product had he/she not downloaded it).

As well as ignoring that some people may not have purchased the product had they not downloaded.

Re:Missing the point

[RobertLTux]

The perfect defintion of a manager is to do a few very precise things AND NOTHING ELSE

1 shield the workforce from upper management
2 keep information flowing
3 tell what needs to be done
4 expect it to be done

Re:Missing the point

[sowth]

Yes, this isn't kindergarden.

I might add a 5th point:

5 make sure everyone is trained to do their job. Arranging for training those who are not, unless they said they were in the interview/on the resume, in which case, they should be fired.

Serenity

[56ker]

If anyone doesn't think viral marketing works - then they should read this. The first I heard about Serenity was on a friend's blog. I think they'd got into a preview screening on the basis that they'd blog about it. I then watched the first eight minutes of it which was being shown to promote the film and enjoyed it. I then went to see the film and enjoyed it and thought it was worth it too.

There are very few films I go see at the cinema and because I don't have a TV most of the promotions for them pass me by - and a lot don't appeal.

Re:Serenity

[Zarniwoop_Editor]

Step 1: Get fans to promote us
Step 2: Allow viral marketing to create a demand for our product
Step 3: Sue the people from step 1
Step 4: Profit!

This has to be the most cynical thing I've ever seen.

Re:Serenity

[arachnoprobe]

most of the promotions for them pass me by - and a lot don't appeal.

I think here lies the best part of viral marketing. Assuming, that most of your friends know what (style, content...) you like, the company could offer serveral different trailors as promotional videos. When your friend will recommend the movie (or else) to you, he can select which of the trailors will be the most interesting to you, therefore maximizing the effect of it.

Re:Serenity

[Anonymous Coward]

This has to be the most cynical thing I've ever seen.

Meanwhile thousands of people died of famine and war.

Re:Serenity

[56ker]

In this case it was a she not a he friend. I think I found the trailer/first eight minutes myself online after they'd piqued my curiousity.

Re:Serenity

[Maestro4k]

If anyone doesn't think viral marketing works - then they should read this. The first I heard about Serenity was on a friend's blog. I think they'd got into a preview screening on the basis that they'd blog about it. I then watched the first eight minutes of it which was being shown to promote the film and enjoyed it. I then went to see the film and enjoyed it and thought it was worth it too.

It was indeed a great viral marketing campaign, and most of the people/groups who participated will either be directly affected by Universal's actions (by getting a letter from Universal's lawyers) or know someone who was (often through being participants on a site that has been targeted). The thing that Universal isn't considering is that viral marketing can work to put out the negative word at least as easily as it puts out the positive ones. (It's likely it will be even more effective because people that are mad about something tend to complain to more people than they would if they were complementing something.) This will affect the sales of Serenity going forward, but Universal probably doesn't care about that as they've made the majority of the money from it already (or at least they think they have). I don't think it'll stop there though, people are going to look up what current and future stuff (as well as past titles) Universal owns, and they're going to tell others what those are and what Universal has done to fans of Serenity. It's going to have a financial impact, although it's hard to say how big of one. Univeral's throwing away future income here. I know I'm not going to be going to see any of their movies or buying any of their DVDs from now on and I doubt I'm alone.

Of course Universal will attribute any drop in sales to piracy and never figure out it's their own damn fault.

Re:Serenity

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be confusing "cynical" with "tragic".

Re:Serenity

[Udo Schmitz]

And here's what Joss thinks about "free advertising" (It's an excerpt from an interview, posted by original submitter gossi at Whedonesque):

Q. You've also done an absolutely smashing job of ignoring the massive amounts of bootleg "Firefly" fan merchandise. I'm thinking specifically of BlueSunShirts.com... [now closed -gossi].

A. I'm a Deadhead, and where I come from, bootlegging's a good thing.

Q. If the movie's a hit, and more official merchandise starts coming out, do you think there's going to be a crackdown?

A. I have no idea. I never have a piece of merchandising; I haven't reached a place in the Hollywood DNA chain where I can actually ask for that. So it's not like I'm losing money. But even if I was? You know, I'm doin' fine. I have a job. I'm doing just fine. And the fact that people are making this stuff? You can call it "bootlegging" or you can call it "free advertising."

Q. Let's hope they keep calling it the latter.

A. You can also call it "the fact that people are taking it to their hearts." It's no different than fan fiction or any of these online communities. It's important to them and they wear it -- and that makes me proud. And I don't give a good goddamn who's makin' money off it.

Q. Now, do you have a favorite piece of fan -- I'm sorry, "free advertising"?

A. [laughs] A favorite.... You know, I have to admit, when I first saw the Blue Sun t-shirts, I thought they were pretty cool -- because it didn't announce itself, and I think it had a really good logo.

Re:Serenity

[miskatonic alumnus]

Of course Universal will attribute any drop in sales to piracy and never figure out it's their own damn fault.

Not a problem. They'll just get their lapdogs in Congress to pass a video tax that every citizen will have to pay --- because we're all pirates, ya know.

Re:Serenity

[bhiestand]

Why don't you have a TV? Are you poor?

I don't know about the GP, but I'm definitely not poor, and I don't own a TV. I've been considering buying a good projector for gaming and the occasional movie, but I have no desire to watch any of the junk I see friends watching on TV at their houses. I'd rather read a book, go scuba diving, or do pretty much anything else. I guess I just don't see any benefit to having television. The only show I've seen in the last five years that entertained me was Stargate, and I'd rather just download it. If they offered it online at $1/episode I'd definitely pay for it. Why have a big, useless TV taking up space? Just so I can have a reason to pay $30-100 every month on a cable or satellite bill?

Re:Serenity

[no_pets]

No joke. No matter the outcome on this situation, fans of any show - specifically a scifi show where fans are probably familiar with the Firefly/Serenity history - will give serious thought before expending time, money and effort to supporting future series from cancellation.

Re:Serenity

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

So all this time, the "..." was just "Stab the guys who helped you in the back to make more money"? Damn, it's so obvious once you've seen it...

Re:Serenity

[Gossi]

Here's some hilarity - that interview was published under a picture of a Firefly fan poster. Designed by 11th Hour. The person being sued by Universal.

Also, some of 11th Hour artwork was used in the prepublicity material from Universal, and it's seen on the Serenity DVD in the special feature on fans.

None of 11th Hour's artwork is from the movie. It's all original. It doesn't feature characters, screen shots or anything like that. You can view it here: http://www.cafepress.com/11thhourart.

Basically, what's happening here is slightly retarded. Universal's lawyers are digging themselves into a hole by not understanding what they are doing in the scheme of things.

Re:Serenity

[TychoCelchuuu]

Viral marketing actually didn't work very well; the movie bombed at the box office.

On a lighter note, if you liked Serenity, you should watch Firefly, the TV show it was based off of. Same actors and everything, and it's every bit as good (IMHO, better).

Re:Serenity

[Blue Stone]

It's an interesting flashpoint, I think: the point at which a people's culture and the system whereby someone else can actually own that culture, meet.

It's a point that the limited times of the early copyright laws directly addressed, and which has repeatedly been swept away by the rich, the greedy and the powerful, for their own mean and selfish ends.

Re:Serenity

[c_forq]

Holy crap that is genius. The gnome lawyer was going to turn around and sue the underpants gnomes, using the psychological distress caused by lost underwear to get MASSIVE jury trail payouts! It all makes sense now, and it is frick'n brilliant!

Re:Serenity

[nihaopaul]

yeah i agree, i hope universal can say 4:1 thats $:! so for every x people that viewed the movie, expect x4 more people to see the complaint!

life sucks and i was watching the reruns of serenity on my home entertainment system this week also, from my pirated dvds.. btw F.U.Universal thats a bit FUU!

Re:Serenity

[Original Replica]

If Firefly has taught me anything it's that the proper response to this is to: Put the executives responsible in the airlock, and disscuss their transgressions with them as we fly out to orbit. Never mention it to the crew.

Re:Serenity

[Wellspring]

I think this is a lesson to people who would participate in fanac: do not cooperate with a studio or publisher's viral marketing programs. Instead, if you are going to participate at all, you need to avoid any contact or interaction with the studio, and behave as if they were hostile to fan promotion and viral marketing from the get-go. The lesson is that just because Universal was actively encouraging it before, doesn't mean that they can't or won't go after you later. Notice that they didn't try to communicate with the fan base, they encouraged fan promotion, then issued the C&D letters.

IANAL, but even if the fan sites are 100% in the clear legally, the costs of defending yourself against legal action will be enormous. This is what they count on: the ability to intimidate through the sheer cost and time of a lawsuit. It's why the trial lawyers spend huge amounts of money blocking tort reform. They win even if they lose, because their lawyers are salaried and you can't afford to fight them.

And according to the article, Universal isn't just going after 11th Hour for trademarks that they own. They're trying to claim ownership of the word "serenity" itself, and the chinese character for the word. In other words, even fan material that doesn't overtly use a trademark or copyright is vulnerable to a crippling lawsuit.

Re:Serenity

[Pharmboy]

The movie didn't bomb. It wasn't a smash success, granted, but it did mediocre at the boxoffice and very well with DVD sales, as did the one and only season with DVD sales. According to IMDB, it cost $40 mil to make and made about $39mil worldwide, plus an unknown amount in DVD sales. They didn't get rich, but they made money. It would have helped if they actually promoted the movie, and if the new Fox execs who cancelled the series (after showing it out of order at different times) were not such asshats.

And speaking of viral marketing, it was on a Slashdot poll that I first heard of Serenity. Went and watched the first episode of the series (the real first, not what the network aired first), got hooked, bought the DVDs. Viral marketing at it's finest, as a silly poll produced a customer that bought both the movie DVD and the complete first season DVD set.

Re:Serenity

[arth1]

If anyone doesn't think viral marketing works - then they should read this.

I hate to tell you, but if viral marketing had worked, the show wouldn't have been canned after half a season.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:Serenity

[Kemanorel]

Might want to do a bit of looking at the reasons why the series got cancelled. Given that the network (FOX) aired the show out of order, demanded more "action-oriented" episodes from the producers, and constantly messed with which time slot Firefly was aired at, it's small wonder it never found a solid audience. If ABC did that with Lost, or hell, if FOX themselves had done that with The X-Files, neither series would have lasted a season. Hell, if FOX had screwed with X-Files in the same way they screwed with Firefly, I'd be surprised if they were still around as the "4th network" given that X-Files was one of the tent pole series in FOX's early days.

Firefly not succeeding had very little to do with viral marketing, if anything at all. It had everything to do with TV-execs having their heads stuck up their asses and not giving their viewers credit for being able to think for themselves and be able to get into a show with multi-seaon story arcs.

Thank you, come again,

Kemanorel
Proudly feeding trolls since... fuck, I can't even remember... Where's my scotch?

Re:Serenity

[c0bw3b]

eh, I think most of the viral marketing didn't really kick in until after the series had been cancelled.

Re:Serenity

[pilkul]

You also seem to be confusing "cynical" with "tragic".

Re:Serenity

[oaklybonn]

specifically of BlueSunShirts.com... [now closed -gossi].
www.bluesunshirts.com/index2.php
seems to work though :-)

Re:Serenity

[56ker]

Yep sounds like the RIAA/MPAA all over again doesn't it? I'm sure there are first amendment issues to fan-made stuff that doesn't tread on the toes of someone's trademark.

Re:Serenity

[pipingguy]

This will affect the sales of Serenity going forward

Please stop using marketing and corporate report bullshit terms in the future.

Re:Serenity

[mpe]

This will affect the sales of Serenity going forward, but Universal probably doesn't care about that as they've made the majority of the money from it already (or at least they think they have).

Maybe Universe think suing their customers will get them more money.

Of course Universal will attribute any drop in sales to piracy and never figure out it's their own damn fault.

In the same way that they never think producing a poor product could be responsible for a sales drop...

Re:Serenity

[mpe]

Might want to do a bit of looking at the reasons why the series got cancelled. Given that the network (FOX) aired the show out of order, demanded more "action-oriented" episodes from the producers, and constantly messed with which time slot Firefly was aired at, it's small wonder it never found a solid audience.

Also Firefly isn't the first example of this kind of thing happening. It appears that these people just can't learn.

Re:Serenity

[StikyPad]

What if they helped you in the front?

Rule number one:

[Zadaz]

Don't annoy someone who has more spare time than you do.

And this group has a lot of spare time and energy and has shown they'll fight for something they believe in.

But of course no one is required to have any social literacy to head a major corporation. Obviously.

Re:Rule number one:

[asb]

And this group has a lot of spare time and energy and has shown they'll fight for something they believe in.

They have also shown that they will work for free for an international multimillion dollar corporation. They are not exactly the smartest people on this planet.

Come on! They worked for free so that a corporation could make profit by selling them mind dumbing entertainment! It would be just as stupid if I worked for free at McDonalds and then went to the other side of the counter and bought the hamburgers I just cooked.

Re:Rule number one:

[Reality Master 101]

Don't annoy someone who has more spare time than you do.

Why not?

The site is mildly amusing (very mild), but it's hardly going to cause an uprising by the people against Universal.

Re:Rule number one:

[msobkow]

I'm involved with a wee activist group that has that same power base: people with a lot of free time. It's really quite amazing what a few hundred people can do when they work together and have the time to put in; I can only imagine the power of tens or hundreds of thousands behind an "issue" like the Firefly fan base. :)

But what I really like is the reverse invoicing -- it's a great response and 100% legal AFAIK. I used the same tactic on a doctor or two over the years. When I had to sit more than an hour waiting for a scheduled appointment and the doc hadn't been called off to some emergency but was merely over booked, I invoiced him for a full emergency consulting service bill rate.

Obviously he objected, but after a bit of discussion he understood my time was as valuable as his, and I never had to wait more than 15 minutes again. (Except one afternoon when there was an emergency, which was perfectly understandable.)

I just hope the fan base doesn't underbill. They should make sure they find out what a marketing agency charges for advertising, and what advertising companies charge for creating an ad campaign. Include the service delivery rates for content delivery, the expenses for promotional content creation, and a reasonable overhead.

Most important of all, don't forget the late fees for failing to negotiate and pay in a timely fashion. :D

Re:Rule number one:

[Greyfox]

Fans willing to do your marketing for you are an unpredictable bunch. It doesn't take a lot to keep them happy but God help you if they ever turn on you. Treating them like this is a good way to make that happen. Sadly, it's not too surprising that the braniacs at Universal can't figure out how to treat their loyal fan base right. They could still avert the impending PR disaster by claiming it was a mistake and making some gesture by way of apology, but I really don't see them doing that. My prediction is that within a couple of years there'll be a lawsuit started by a fan, something along the lines of Universal was trying to get free labor. You'd be surprised how often those work when a company encourages people to do stuff for it for free. After that, no one will be talking about Firefly anymore.

Now if Universal wanted to fix it right they'd apologize, throw parties in various states with the cast and the fans over the course of a week or two and announce another season's worth of episodes are about to go into production. But I don't see that happening.

Re:Rule number one:

[Lemmy Caution]

That's the big cognitive gap, there: fans are only vaguely aware that the objects of their affections are, essentially, commodities. I view such fandom as a close relation of the Stockholm Syndrome.

Re:Rule number one:

[metamatic]

You cannot bill people for services that they did no agree to pay for.

Tell that to the government.

Re:Rule number one:

[Giant Killer]

Don't annoy someone who has more spare time than you do.

Yep, geeks annoying lawyers is never a good idea.

Re:Rule number one:

[saxoholic]

But really... who could have more spare time than a bunch of nerds? Come on! The person I heard about serenity from very rarely gets off the couch in his mother's basement, and when he does it's to play risk.

Re:Rule number one:

[sd_diamond]

I thought rule number one was "don't get involved in a land war in Asia".

Re:Rule number one:

[ronanbear]

Well they're just trying to do something to get the legal attack dogs away from the throat of a fan. t-shirts of artwork can still be considered viral marketing. A simple take down notice would have sufficed. They went totally overboard and the fans are angry and feel used.

They've exposed it and it will hurt Universal. Universal should count themselves lucky that this probably won't develop much more momentum and end up turning into a campaign of active un-marketing (sic) against Universal.

Re:Rule number one:

[msobkow]

Of course you can bill for services people didn't agree to pay for. Their use of those services is an implicit contract, and if they didn't bother reading it before taking what they wanted, that's their fault.

Caveat Emptor.

Even if you didn't think you were buying anything...

Re:Rule number one:

[mpe]

You cannot bill people for services that they did no agree to pay for.

If they have agreed to being provided with the services the best they can do legally is haggle over the price. Worst case senario for the party provided with the services is to end up being prosecuted for fraud.

You cannot bill your doctor for being overbooked, you cannot bill a cable company for missing a service appointment,

These two examples are nothing to do with billing for services they didn't agree to pay for. They are actually breaches of contract by the doctor and cable company respectivly. Also if either had a policy of charging their patients/customers for broken appointments they'd have tough time putting convincing a judge that they shouldn't pay when they broke appointments.

Re:Rule number one:

[mhatlau]

All of you do realize that you are courting legal action and heavy fines by posting on this. I quote the demand letter;
"That, no later than close of business on October 30, 2006, 11th Hour Art agree in writing to permanently cease and desist from the advertising, promoting, marketing, sale or distribution of any products bearing or referring to Universal Property".
I specifically point out the word 'promoting'. In plain English, any discussion of any products bearing or referring to Universal Property could be construed as promoting, and is a violation. This would, of course, refer to any movie produced by Universal. So be careful not to mention any movies produced or distributed by Universal, such as Flash Gordon, Jurassic Park IV, Namor, etc.

Fanbase Overboard?

[fohat]

It seems to me a case of some people going a little overboard with the whole "promote" idea. In this day and age, you can't use a corporate trademark like that and not expect some kind of backlash. Kudos to the fanbase on the other hand for getting the word out there about this fine show(s).

Re:Fanbase Overboard?

[andypoole]

But did Joss Whedon not say in the introduction to the preview screenings to tell as many people as you can about it and spread the word?

Re:Fanbase Overboard?

[elronxenu]

It's not a trademark, it's our culture that is being promoted.

Re:Fanbase Overboard?

[fohat]

Does he own exclusive rights to the name? If so it's a moot point, but if not then the people creating merchandise need to license that name from someone. Example: Every Calvin and Hobbes T-Shirt is counterfit, because Waterson never consented to merchandising that name. I'm not aware that he went after people directly, but I do recall there were repercussions for people that sold the counterfits.

Re:Fanbase Overboard?

[LatePaul]

What he definitely didn't say was to infringe Universal's copyright and trademarks.

Re:Fanbase Overboard?

[nursegirl]

Perhaps that is true with the blue sun shirts. The Serenity shirts were definitely not identical to the image/font used by Fox/Universal. I find it particularly reprehensible that 11th hour was told to take down all shirts with Serenity written on it in English or Chinese, no matter the font, layout, or colouring. It shouldn't be legal to trademark a common word. You can only complain of trademark infringement when it might contribute to trademark dilution. I can make a t-shirt with the word "Bounce" on it in my handwriting, and it doesn't violate the trademark of Proctor&Gamble. That said, I can't sell a laundry product called "Bounce" and not expect to have angry lawyers chase me down.

Re:Fanbase Overboard?

[Technomancer]

There is a movie "Bounce" so forget about your Bounce t-shirt idea.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0186894/
pwned!

Legality?

[Krazy Nemesis]

I don't know how legal this would all be considering there was not initial contract or bid for services... but just the same: fuckin' ballsy response guys... I love it! I'm a little jealous though, as I'd love to bill a client for over a million someday... well, before a million isn't worth anything.

Re:Legality?

[Compholio]

I don't know how legal this would all be considering there was not initial contract or bid for services... but just the same: fuckin' ballsy response guys... I love it! I'm a little jealous though, as I'd love to bill a client for over a million someday... well, before a million isn't worth anything.

They're not actually billing them, if you read the site it says they're trying to make Universal aware of all the time and energy people have put into promoting Serenity/Firefly* without expecting any monetary return.

* Serenity and Firefly are the intellectual property of "Universal Studios Licensing, LLLP" ;)

Re:Legality?

[crossmr]

Forgetting about when the AOL volunteers turned around and sued AOL for time. That damaged the volunteer movement on websites, and effectively ruined geocities and other websites as they suddenly cancelled their volunteer programs for fear of being sued.

I'm partial to wrath

[vandelais]

Browncoat+turncoat=trenchcoat

wish I had someone to bill...

[artifex2004]

Very soon after the "browncoats" fan site announced it was shutting down, I started getting spam to the site-specific email address at my vanity domain. So I figure someone made money off that.

Well, the thing is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, having only briefly looked it over... I think what Universal is objecting to is this knucklehead selling merchandise for profit, utilizing their images. This isn't promoting the film, this is promoting his bank account. If I am reading it correctly, they're not telling him to stop promoting the film, they're telling him to stop promoting his products using their IP.

So, well, what's the problem?

Re:Well, the thing is...

[Warlokk]

But if you read even a little (I know, I know, it's Slashdot), he points out he isn't using ANY of their property or images, he's using his original work and just making references to Serenity/Firefly in the text on the site. Their objection includes even MENTIONING their property on his website... which is, of course, ridiculous.

Re:Well, the thing is...

[LordKronos]

But if you read even a little (I know, I know, it's Slashdot), he points out he isn't using ANY of their property or images

But if you read a little MORE (I know, I know, it's Slashdot) you'll see he said this:
"The questionable image in my shop were, for the most part, already pulled down by Cafe Press after the first email notice I got last week."

So it would appear at one point he WAS using their images. And then his wording of "for the most part" sounds like he removed some of them but STILL was trying to profit off of a couple. I can't imagine that Cafe Press makes it THAT difficult to remove a product from your store offering, so I get the impression he was dragging his feet a bit on the matter.

Re:Well, the thing is...

[raduf]

As far as I can tell (if I got it right), this is the second or third time I hear the same story: fan gets letter telling him/her (nicely) that he's breaking copyright. Fan says sorry and does what the letter says. A few days later comes a different letter, from a different source inside the same corporation, telling in very not-nice terms (read threatening) that he's breaking copyright, and he'd better start dancing on a chair on the table, painted in blue, or else he'll lose his house and spend a few years in jail.

Fan is... upset by this.

So again, the problem is not with the corporation protecting their profits. The problem is with sending a very threatening letter to a person who's been helping their interests for a while now. And again, for the fan it's not an abstract matter. It's a real letter, from very real lawyers, saying they're going to ruin him and not even miss lunch over it. For selling t-shirts with serenity on them.

Re:Well, the thing is...

[swelke]

Ok, having only briefly looked it over... I think what Universal is objecting to is this knucklehead selling merchandise for profit, utilizing their images.

So, well, what's the problem?

No problem whatsoever, if that was in fact what was happening. The trouble is that Universal is claiming this with regard to images this "knucklehead" made himself, related to Serenity, but not using any of their copyrighted work. If anything it's a violation of trademark, not copyright. That's a more subtle case entirely. Copyright infringement is clear-cut. Either a derivative work contains copyrighted components, or it doesn't. Trademark infringement is difficult to prove, especially when the trademark involved is one on a word that's been in the English language since long before the trademark holder got around to claiming it.

Of course, the guy was probably infringing more directly back when this started. In the forum linked to, he says that he's already removed all of the stuff that mentions serenity. The most closely related thing left is this, a T-shirt based on the Chinese character translated as "serenity".

Re:Well, the thing is...

[parcel]

But if you read a little MORE (I know, I know, it's Slashdot) you'll see he said this:
"The questionable image in my shop were, for the most part, already pulled down by Cafe Press after the first email notice I got last week."

And if you keep reading (this could go on forever, I'm sure) there was an original C&D related to the copyright and images, which was complied with (the 'already pulled down...' part). These being images that Universal had previously encouraged use of for promotion of the movie - there have even been (unsupported) claims that Universal employees had at least turned a blind eye, if not passively encouraged, use of the images on infringing merchandise. Of course, I could encourage someone to use my company's logo, that doesn't mean it's okay for them to do so... but keep in mind, the people infringing copyright here are the 'average joe' types that are not nearly as aware of copyright law as the slashdot crowd. They're scared to death, because they're honest people who made an honest mistake by taking these Universal employees at face value, and are now taking these letters at face value as well, thinking they suddenly owe a tremendous amount of money to Universal.

It sounds like the first letter (the C&D) was for the copyrighted images, and the second letter billing for the retroactive licensing fees - in addition to other demands, including a year's backlog of customer order information - was for Firefly/Serenity related original works.

What apparently happened is that Universal sold T-shirt rights to a third party, which is now either enforcing on behalf of Universal, or demanding that Universal enforce (all this is going through a... fourth(?) party law firm, of course) the Firefly/Serenity copyright. Again, no supporting evidence, but that's what's been said.

Seems to me, the appropriate/ethical thing for Universal to do would be to acknowledge that they have sent mixed signals to the fans of their IP, and take care of this. I've heard it said that Universal has in the past been pretty even-handed with their IP enforcement, so maybe there's still a chance that they'll step up to the plate with this one.

Re:Well, the thing is...

[Physician]

I'm pretty sure the guy is hosting it on his own server. If he is using Universal's IP then I'm sure that violates some sort of hacking law. :)

Re:Well, the thing is...

[jafuser]

What apparently happened is that Universal sold T-shirt rights to a third party, which is now either enforcing on behalf of Universal, or demanding that Universal enforce the Firefly/Serenity copyright.

Whoever that third party is, good luck selling many T-shirts now.

Money Money Money / Must be funny...

[BeeBeard]

Free time is one thing, but financial resources are another. I really like their response by retroactively invoicing Universal for marketing and promotion--it's funny, clever, and ballsy. But will that spirit translate into meaningful legal protection? It's doubtful.

Re:Money Money Money / Must be funny...

[garylian]

I don't think resources are an issue for the fan base. They've already shown a willingness to go to bat for a show/movie they liked, and did it all for free.

It can be pretty amazing what people can accomplish out of pure passion for the work, as opposed to the profit to be made from it. In this case, the fans are more than willing to make the effort. The question is, will it be for or against Universal releases of the future?

If it goes against, there could be some problems for future TV and movies from Universal, as this loyal block will remember and potentially boycott. Universal knows that the potential loss of revenue from a rabid base of fans in that much coveted "18-35 male without an understanding of credit card debt" demographic would be something advertisers would look at closely. It would certainly cost them more than the 9,000 they are looking for in liscensing fees.

Then again, the MPAA and RIAA are dumb enough to cut off the hands that feed them all the time. Why should this be any different?

Re:Money Money Money / Must be funny...

[swelke]

If it goes against, there could be some problems for future TV and movies from Universal, as this loyal block will remember and potentially boycott. Universal knows that the potential loss of revenue from a rabid base of fans in that much coveted "18-35 male without an understanding of credit card debt" demographic would be something advertisers would look at closely. It would certainly cost them more than the 9,000 they are looking for in liscensing fees.

Don't fool yourself. The Firefly fanbase is an infinitesimal drop in the vast ocean of the '"18-35 male without an understanding of credit card debt"' demographic. They won't make any notable difference in the revenues of a mainstream movie or TV show.

For a science fiction movie/series, however, they could be a big enough chunk of the market to make a difference, but only if they show solidarity and don't just go see the movie anyway. I don't think enough of them would feel strongly enough about it for that, however (I know I don't, and I'm the most ardent Firefly fan I know).

Re:Money Money Money / Must be funny...

[91degrees]

Legal action isn't the only method at our disposal. Firefly fans are organised, and highly fanatical. This is pretty much the point. It's actually possible that they would be able to encourage a lrge part of the fanbase to avoid all universal products. More tactically, they could pick on a single specific proerty, and decide to encourage a direct competitor. If Universal's #1 big budget film is pushed into the #2 spot, they might just notice.

Boycott

[ronanbear]

I just went onto the universal studios website to find out what movies to not watch. Shouldn't have bothered.

The Black Dahlia
Man of the Year
Idlewild
Accepted
Miami Vice

You, Me and Dupree

coming
Lets go to Prison
The Good Shepherd
Children of Men
Alpha Dog

Re:Boycott

[Oronar]

I was going to watch that crap in the first place?
Wow, I must by psychic and I can boycott bad movies before we decide to boycott them!

Re:Boycott

[mcmonkey]

I just went onto the universal studios website to find out what movies to not watch. Shouldn't have bothered.

I don't think the boycott is going to work. How do I not see those movies any more than I was already not seeing them?

Re:Boycott

[DigitalSorceress]

Dear Ronanbear,

Please cease and desist forthwith all usage of any words in the title or script of any Universal intellectual property.

We have reviewed all of your previous posts and have constructed an invoice for One Billion Zillion Trazillion Dollars for your usage of such intellectual property as "and" "the" "Ronan" "bear" etc...

Sincerely,
Dowee, Cheetham, and Howe
Attorneys at Law
on behalf of the greedy bastards at Universal. /sarcasm

Re:Boycott

[Malfourmed]

I have to say that Children of Men is the best SF movie I've seen in years. It's better than (but very different to) Serenity.

Re:Boycott

[WilliamSChips]

Universal also makes Battlestar Galactica.

Re:Boycott

[Rixel]

Don't Boycott....Bittorrent

That drives them up the wall.

Invoicing?

[teslar]

The fans response? Retroactively invoice Universal for their services."

Wrong. From TFA:

In other words, this site should not be taken as an attempt to actually bill Universal Pictures for all of our time, energy, and effort, nor encouragement for any fan do try to do so. We just believe that there is a point to be made.

Re:Invoicing?

[Rob the Bold]

The fans response? Retroactively invoice Universal for their services."

Wrong. From TFA:

In other words, this site should not be taken as an attempt to actually bill Universal Pictures for all of our time, energy, and effort, nor encouragement for any fan do try to do so. We just believe that there is a point to be made.

One of these headlines in interesting and makes me want to read the story and discover the quote in the second. The other is not and does not.

you gotta be kidding me

[fontkick]

So a guy decides to print up some Serenity t-shirts and sell them on cafe press, and is surprised when he gets sued by Universal. How braindead can you be? Viral marketing means putting a mention of Firefly/Serenity on your website with a link to Amazon.

That said, bring back Firefly. Best sci-fi series since ST:TNG in my opinion.

Re:you gotta be kidding me

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually his t-shirts are just the chinese characters, drawn by him, that translate as "serenity". No pictures or artwork from the movie at all. Think Universal should be able to control the expression of single word? (as opposed to a substantial quote from a movie)

Re:you gotta be kidding me

[anethema]

Try BSG. Most intense show ever.

Re:you gotta be kidding me

[91degrees]

What was so bad about TNG? Well, okay, apart from the moralising.

I think it was one of the finest sci-fi series of the 80's. It covered various real world issues, the production values were top notch, it had some excellent actors, and the stories could be about just about anything.

Here's a tip

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a tip for those of you who don't get it. Viral marketing means promoting via word of mouth/press. It does not mean I can take copyrighted/trademarked material and sell it for my own profit. Otherwise I'd be running around selling DVDs of my favorite movies and shows and claim that I'm "marketing" it for the studios.

Re:Here's a tip

[punkelf]

yes, but we're not just talking about 'round the watercooler talking up here.
The Browncoats printed posters, ran websites, really ran a promotional campaign.
sure, there was some infringement, and the selling of merchandise is a little sketchy.
But ultimately this is about on the level of the Grateful Dead suing tape traders, and ordering them to quit trading tapes, because they're supporting that enterprise by selling homemade "steal your face" tiedyes.

It's called the hand that feeds you, when you bite it, you're gonna get smacked.
it's about time the entertainment industry learned this.

I've never seen firefly

[fmwap]

and I hated this movie, but I still paid my $8 dollars to watch it on opening night because of all the hype.

Can I get a retroactive refund?

Re:I've never seen firefly

[fdiskne1]

I've never seen firefly

That would be the problem. I could understand how not seeing the Firefly series would make the movie not so interesting. For me, the series by itself was okay, but not great. The movie by itself was okay, but not great. If you've seen the series, the movie makes much more sense and I think they did a great job in the movie of explaining a lot of what happened in the series. There were several "Ah-HA!" moments for me where I now understood what was going on in the series, which probably made my view of the movie that much better. While I'm glad I watched both the series and the movie, taking 12 hours or so to make the experience worthwhile seems a bit excessive. Of course, it took Babylon 5 four seasons to do the same.

Re:I've never seen firefly

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

if sitting down to watch a mediocre sci fi show is a requirement for a lame 2 hour movie after paying 8 bucks...

Fuck Joss Whedon

Browncoats

[Anonymous Coward]

There's something about the color brown and Mr Whedons work that I'd rather not put my finger on...

Some people are just ... stupid.

[BrianRoach]

Sorry, but that seems to be the sad truth.

Somehow, because they volunteered to promote a movie for little or no compensation, they think they have some right to personally profit from selling merchandise which uses the IP from that movie without getting permission or paying a licensing fee.

This is one of those cases there copyright is working exactly as it is supposed to.

- Roach

Re:Some people are just ... stupid.

[Triskele]

This is one of several comments that assert that since Universal own the IP and there was no format agreement, then Universal were completely right to c&d and even bill their volunteers. Sad loser geeks eh?

However this is missing the point of how viral marketing campaigns are supposed to work. Viral marketing can be scary particularly for large control-freak companies, as the essential point behind viral marketing is to give away control of the brand to the fans / early adopters and let them be a mouthpiece for your product, a voice that other fans and their less fanish friends, family and acquaintances will trust when they wouldn't even notice a conventional marketing campaign via TV, radio, print and billboards.

I wouldn't be surprised if Universal's marketing dept were over the moon with all the fan promotion including Serenity T-shirts (free advertising by the wearer). And at the same time their IP dept were doing the only thing they know how to do. Plenty of YouTube vids were posted by marketing depts only to be retracted by their own lawyeres.

It seems to me that part of the deal with viral marketing is giving away control to the fans and while this may be informal (how do you contract for that 20th C-style?) and the fan volunteers have a right to be treated with respect for their work. Even if that means they make a little money out of the owner's IP. Under the technicalities of the law that may be "unlicenced" use, but there is an implicit grant of rights in marketing a product that we consumers have let slide and given the corporations free rein to trample over. Otherwise every time we told a mate about a great product we'd have to pay a licence fee and balance that by billing the corporation for marketing services. Just as these Browncoats have tried to show...

Re:Some people are just ... stupid.

[wubboy]

I understand if they were selling pictures or screenshots of the movie on a T-shirt, but from the site's blog it seems that they are more "inspired from" a movie. To what level is a thought inspired from a movie and placed on a shirt IP from the movie? If I liked "Cars" and I draw a car with a smile on a tee shirt does Disney have rights to my t-shirt If that's the case wasn't there a cartoon car (a dunebuggy I believe) that talked and had animated expressions who's creators should be getting rich right about now.

Re:Some people are just ... stupid.

[BrianRoach]

I understand if they were selling pictures or screenshots of the movie on a T-shirt, but from the site's blog it seems that they are more "inspired from" a movie. To what level is a thought inspired from a movie and placed on a shirt IP from the movie?

It's called a "Derivative work", and you need permission from the copyright holder.

If I liked "Cars" and I draw a car with a smile on a tee shirt does Disney have rights to my t-shirt If that's the case wasn't there a cartoon car (a dunebuggy I believe) that talked and had animated expressions who's creators should be getting rich right about now.

Lets put it this way: If your car on the T-Shirt looked like the animated car in the movie, and other people thought it was from the movie ... you don't have an original work, do you?

Please point out a car in "Cars" that looks just like Speedbuggy, or is an obvious derived work. I'll wait. Oh, and you can't copyright an IDEA, so we're talking about actual depictions.

This isn't rocket science. If you profit (and not just financially) from someone else's copyrighted work without their permission, you're violating copyright. None of these people came up with or created any of the characters.

- Roach

Re:Some people are just ... stupid.

[wubboy]

Thanks Roach. Now I just have to find the owner of that xxx movie my wife and I were watching and pay for my daughter. ;-)

No really, I understand your point now thanks for taking the time.

Re:Some people are just ... stupid.

[Triskele]

Sorry mate, I disagree. You are wrong. You clearly believe in the absolute rights of copyright holders. I believe in fair use and implicit covenants between seller and buyer. But then we in the UK have more of those enshrined in law than you do in the US.

Re:Some people are just ... stupid.

[DaAdder]

Jesus Christ.

People were *NOT* using property owned by Universal. At least in a large degree, if at all.

They were using originally created artwork, granted referencing Serenity/Firefly.

Why on earth you'd do anything to the fanbase, that was pretty much responsible for giving you the money to make this movie break even, and would keep doing so indefinitely with some goodwill, I will never ever understand.

Oh, except of course if the people in charge were found to be ignorant asshats.

That could explain a lot.

Re:Some people are just ... stupid.

[BrianRoach]

Sorry mate, I disagree. You are wrong. You clearly believe in the absolute rights of copyright holders. I believe in fair use and implicit covenants between seller and buyer. But then we in the UK have more of those enshrined in law than you do in the US.

Where am I "Wrong"? That's how copyright currently works in the US. You do not have a right to create a "Derivative work" from another. And yes, I do believe that the copyright holder should have ... a copyright, especially when it comes to for-profit endevours.

As for "Fair use" ... what's the fair use in this case? (Seriously). He didn't buy anything from them (except maybe a movie ticket or DVD), and he's selling things wholey based on their creation. If the series/movie didn't exist, neither would these items. He can only sell these things because someone else spent a lot more money and did a lot more work.

And taking this idea of fair use to its conclusion, you're saying that the creators of film, art, etc do not have any exclusive rights to their creations - anyone can just copy them and make money. This is the whole reason copyright exists - to protect the rights of the creator.

- Roach

Re:Some people are just ... stupid.

[BrianRoach]

People were *NOT* using property owned by Universal. At least in a large degree, if at all.

They were using originally created artwork, granted referencing Serenity/Firefly.

Really? "Originally created", yet it wouldn't exist and no one would buy it unless someone else had made a TV series called "Firefly" and a movie called "Serenity". Interesting concept.

It's called a "Derived Work". And it's a copyright violation unless they received permission from the copyright holder to create it.

If you think that you should be able to profit from others' work and disagree with copyright law, I respect your opinion, I just don't happen to agree with it.

- Roach

Re:Some people are just ... stupid.

[parcel]

As for "Fair use" ... what's the fair use in this case?

There were two letters, a C&D related to copyright-infringing merchandise (which was complied with), and a second letter afterwards demanding licensing fees for Serenity-related original artwork (a T-shirt that has the chinese characters for 'serenity' - Universal is asserting that they own the word. At least, the word in chinese.)

So, you're probably right... fair use doesn't really enter the picture.

Re:Some people are just ... stupid.

[Triskele]

And taking this idea of fair use to its conclusion, you're saying that the creators of film, art, etc do not have any exclusive rights to their creations - anyone can just copy them and make money. This is the whole reason copyright exists - to protect the rights of the creator.

What are you some kind of MPAA shill that must make absurd leaps of logic to make his point?

What I SAID was since the copyright owner had been taking advantage of the fanbase to market their IP, some quid pro quo seems perfectly reasonable. While copyright exists to protect the rights of the creator, we as democratic societies also have the rights to limit what those rights are particularly in stupid cases like this. Show me harm to Serenity's sales (which was the original purpose of copyright) and I might start taking you seriously.

Re:Some people are just ... stupid.

[parcel]

This is the whole reason copyright exists - to protect the rights of the creator.

USC pertaining to Copyright, emphasis mine -
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. 17 U.S.C. sec. 105

Re:Some people are just ... stupid.

[BrianRoach]

What are you some kind of MPAA shill that must make absurd leaps of logic to make his point?

The point was made in the extreme opposite of the one presented. You said "Fair use", I asked what was fair use about using someone else's work for your own personal gain.

What I SAID was since the copyright owner had been taking advantage of the fanbase to market their IP, some quid pro quo seems perfectly reasonable. While copyright exists to protect the rights of the creator, we as democratic societies also have the rights to limit what those rights are particularly in stupid cases like this. Show me harm to Serenity's sales (which was the original purpose of copyright) and I might start taking you seriously.

How was the fanbase taken advantage of? Did someone promise them something in return and not deliver it? I was under the opinion that this was not the case.

What you find reasonable and what the copyright owner does is obviously not the same. Universal never granted the right to use the copyrighted material or derived works on T-Shirts to these fans, therefore they don't have the right under US copyright law. This makes perfect sense to me.

The fact of the matter is that if the original work (Firefly) didn't exist, then neither would any of this. We wouldn't be having this conversation. This work is based on someone else's work, without permission.

If you disagree with this part of US copyright law, I respect your opinion, I just don't agree with you.

- Roach

Re:Some people are just ... stupid.

[Firehed]

As far as I know, the Chinese language isn't under copyright. Which is what was used on the merchandise being sold. By your logic, just about everything in existence is a derived work, which I'm fairly certain isn't the case.

Re:Some people are just ... stupid.

[sabernet]

1) I don't believe any items sold were anything more then loosely based on the property. I may be wrong, but actually reading up on this and RTFA, that appears to be the case.

2) Some of the material created by these fans WERE USED ON THE DVD EXTRAS. In other words, UNIVERSAL ALREADY PROFITED FROM THEM.

3) This did not cause any damages to Universal nor cost them any money. It more then likely did the opposite of just that.

4) How many fucking Elvis plates are painted by Priscilla?

Re:Some people are just ... stupid.

[ecuador_gr]

You mention "fans" and "volunteers". This is the point, that viral marketing is supposed to involve people who are doing it for the movie/series they love. The studio will have to give them slack, for example they could make T-Shirts and sell them close to cost etc.

Then I go to the 11th hour website. Ok, they look nice, but $23 T-Shirts???? It is obvious they are not doing it to promote Serenity. They are more expensive than official Star Trek merchentise (and that should say something given Paramount's paramount greed). Serenity was just an opportunity they took advantage of, just like Universal took advantage of the REAL fans.

And to those that say there is no infringement, as there is no mention of Serenity, this is only AFTER the seller got a notice. So, if you sell bootleg stuff for a year and you get a notice, they can't ask you to provide details of how much you made and compensate the IP holder, just because you stop from the moment of the notice?

Re:Some people are just ... stupid.

[seebs]

Inspiration does not a "derivative work" make. You have to be actually *copying something* before you are creating a derivative work.

A lot of the material in question is in no way going to pass any coherent test for derivation, even if it was made in response to the movie in some way.

But we're not talking about pictures of things from the movie, in some cases; we're talking about much more general stuff, uncopyrightable short phrases or words, things like that.

if they ever try to send this invoice

[superwiz]

They will be guilty of fraud. Doing something for someone does not entitle you to compensation unless you have a prior agreement that these actions will be compensated for. This is equivalent to me showing up on your lawn, mawing it and sending you a bill that I deem is fair. You didn't agree to pay for before hand, so you don't owe the money. Billing someone for the money they don't owe you is fraud.

Re:if they ever try to send this invoice

[xRizen]

If Universal knew about it beforehand and profitted, it can be considered a quasi-contract (quantum meruit, I believe is the latin term).

Re:if they ever try to send this invoice

[bigskank]

They will be guilty of fraud. Doing something for someone does not entitle you to compensation unless you have a prior agreement that these actions will be compensated for. This is equivalent to me showing up on your lawn, mawing it and sending you a bill that I deem is fair. You didn't agree to pay for before hand, so you don't owe the money. Billing someone for the money they don't owe you is fraud.

This is entirely incorrect. Law in the U.S. and other common law countries has long recognized the legal principle of quantum meruit. Quantum meruit allows for a person who has undertaken labor for another party with that party's implied consent to sue for compensation. It is an equitable principle, and the court decides what fair compensation should be, as well as what could fairly be implied as being allowed to be done by the party doing the work. If the studio really did encourage these people to promote, and now is suing them for it, quantum meruit (being an equitable principle built around fairness) may very well allow them to recover compensation from the studios based on the studios promise and subsequent bad faith actions. Your lawn mowing analogy is incorrect. It would be more proper to say that you asked someone to mow your lawn, but didn't agree on the price to pay the person mowing it. When that person was done mowing, you said "Ha! We didn't agree on a price for your labor, and now I'm not going to pay you." Quantum Meruit would provide a remedy. Wikipedia has a great entry on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_meruit

Re:if they ever try to send this invoice

[superwiz]

Well, I would say that the lawn mowing analogy is incomplete rather than incorrect. It is like putting up a sign on your lawn saying, "please, maw my lawn". And then when being presented with a bill claiming that there was no prior agreement to exchange of compensation for services. In light of this, I will take exception to your sentence, "If the studio really did encourage these people to promote, and now is suing them for it, quantum meruit (being an equitable principle built around fairness) may very well allow them to recover compensation from the studios based on the studios promise and subsequent bad faith actions." The fact that the studio encouraged these people to promote the movie does not constitute a promise to compensate. After all they encourage people to do all kinds of things (for instance, to see movies), but that does not mean that they agree to compensate the said people for these actions or in any way imply that such a promise exists. By explicitly encouraging fans to promote the movie they recognize these people as having a priori self-interest in promoting this product and therefore tacitly reject any potential claim of promise of exchange of future compensation for the work done. To put it blantly, asking someone to do something for you does not constitute any promise. I read the wikipedia article. I don't buy it. It doesn't seem fair to be forced to pay a bill that you never agreed to pay.

Re:if they ever try to send this invoice

[superwiz]

Now that I thought about it a bit more, I will re-iterate that sending such an invoice would constitute a fraud. An invoice is a statement that the money is owed. The money is not owed unless the other party agreed to pay or a court has made a judgement stating that the money is owed. Absense of these two, sending and invoice is making a false statement about level of debt. A false statement about such a large amount has got to be fraud. Quantum merit (if you accept that it applies here) allows the fans to sue for compensation or to request a compensation. But requesting that someone agree to compensate is not the same as demanding that someone fork over the money because it is owed (which is what an invoice does).

Re:if they ever try to send this invoice

[Loki_1929]

You cannot bring legal action for theoretical harms. In other words, one must request payment (as an invoice explicitly does) before one can claim payment was refused. Ergo, they wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on unless and until Universal is invoiced.

An invoice may be challenged in a lawsuit or its validity may be decided in a lawsuit brought for non-payment. If the fans submitted the invoice, Universal could sue the individuals or the group that submitted the invoice challenging its validity. If they win, the issue is dead. If Universal ignored the invoice, only then could the fans in question bring a suit claiming quantum meritus.

By your logic, Universal's request for payment of $9,000 in retroactive licensing would be prosecutable as fraud if the individual(s) involed successfully challenged Universal's right in court to seek said licensing compensation. That isn't how it works because that just wouldn't make sense - you'd have 100,000 fraud cases a day filling court schedules across the country to the exclusion of all else.

Re:if they ever try to send this invoice

[Matilda the Hun]

Actually, I'd argue that your analogy is incomplete, because it's not that the mower charged the person who's lawn he just mowed. For one, the sign says "Please mow my lawn for free." And two, it's more a matter of the person who had his lawn mowed turned around and sued the mower for trespassing. Mower then says "Hey, that's not cool; this is how much work we put into mowing your lawn and this is what it should've cost you, but it didn't because we're not charging you, so stop suing!"

The issue I take to all of these "Oh, those stupid geeks, working for free" things is because they're not stupid. They enjoyed a show and pushed it to people they knew, and they got the word out because hey, they enjoyed the movie, why shouldn't other people know about it? I don't hear anyone who pushes linux distros to people they know being called stupid for doing free marketing for said linux distro. And another key point that keeps being missed is the fact that it's not like they're saying "Wait, pay us!" The entire invoice is just a little reminder to Universal, "This is how much your free advertising would have cost you". Is it accurate? Of course not. Could you take it to court to force Universal to pay? Helluva no. But if there's any non-lawyer types with a shred of decency in Universal, it is an eye-opener.

Re:if they ever try to send this invoice

[parcel]

The fact that the studio encouraged these people to promote the movie does not constitute a promise to compensate. After all they encourage people to do all kinds of things (for instance, to see movies), but that does not mean that they agree to compensate the said people for these actions or in any way imply that such a promise exists.

But watching a movie is an activity that is typically not compensated for. Advertising is an activity that typically is. Not a lawyer and all that, but it seems that is the difference.

The wall example (from wikipedia) seems a little crazy, but the lawn-mowing example makes sense to me. Self-interest shouldn't really enter the picture (perhaps short of compensation from a third party) - if I derive satisfaction from mowing lawns, am I not entitled to compensation for doing so?

Re:if they ever try to send this invoice

[superwiz]

Actually, if it can be shown that Universal did encourage people to make these promotions, I believe that their demand for retroactive licensing fees does constitute fraud. The fact that fraud is as wide-spread as you claim it is doesn't change the fact that it is fraud.

Re:if they ever try to send this invoice

[superwiz]

You are not entitled to anything that noone promised you. This is the fundamental premise of a free society. The only reason the government owes you anything is because you have a social contract with the government. Whatever you do for anyone does not entitle you to anything. You are free to do whatever you want as are they. If you agree to something, then both you and the other parties are obliged to follow through on the agreement. Otherwise, "to each according to his efforts" is a fundamental premise of a socialist society (please, don't confuse with communist). Again, in a free society, everyone is entitled to do whatever they wish (as long as they don't harm others in whatever ways the society defines what harm is) as long as they don't enter into an agreement to do otherwise. The moment that freedom goes away, you no longer live in a free society. If you want to be paid for what you love to do, you have to get someone to agree to pay you before you start doing it.

Re:if they ever try to send this invoice

[parcel]

You are not entitled to anything that noone promised you. This is the fundamental premise of a free society.

I agree with you, at least to an extent. This "quantum meruit" thing (I wish Wikipedia had citations for the entry) seems to disagree - again, to an extent - with that premise.

I could definitely see some pretty clear-cut cases, even more so than the lawn mowing example... Say I am a satellite TV company, and you call me and ask me to install satellite TV in your home, and I come and do it, and then present you with a bill. Not previously making any agreement on the cost of said services should not mean you don't need to pay. Now, I should have told you what the price would be before starting work (and on the other side of that, you should have asked), but it definitely seems that when services are requested from a business, compensation is implied.

Which doesn't mean that I can bill you $50,000 for installing satellite TV. The gist of the concept seems to be that, when I do work for someone, I deserve to be reasonably compensated for my service. I imagine, had I billed you $50,000, that you would refuse to pay, and I would need to take you to court, where it would be found that a reasonable price installing satellite TV was $79, and you would then be required to pay me $79.

Well, in that specific case, you could probably counter-sue me for extortion or something similar related to that ridiculous bill, but that's a different story.

This whole thing kind of reminds me of getting "estimates" for things... which I always thought was crazy, but I can see the other side now.

Re:if they ever try to send this invoice

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

As far as I can see from one of the links above in the headline, Universal actively encouraged and attempted to "consolidate" the large fanbase in an effort to virally market the movie. To take your lawnmowing analogy, they gathered up a bunch of kids that liked mowing lawns, and asked them to mow their lawn, before suing some of them for selling "Great Universal Lawnmowing Festival, everyone invited for another one next year!" t-shirts. Not only is it stupid, its probably illegal, so the kids are now asking for payment for their time and effort.

Re:if they ever try to send this invoice

[Loki_1929]

"The fact that fraud is as wide-spread as you claim it is doesn't change the fact that it is fraud."

In the social sense of the word, possibly; but not in the legal sense.

Re:if they ever try to send this invoice

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Doh, can't edit posts on slashdot. In addition, the smart move would have been to buy out these fansites and merchandise and incorporate it into their Firefly merchandising efforts. Everybody wins, and they get to keep selling the merch for their own profit for the foreseeable future.

Re:if they ever try to send this invoice

[superwiz]

The thing is they are not suing the kids (in this analogy) they are asking them for licensing fees. And since it seems like Universal has tacitly granted them this license, Universal is committing fraud here. But the fraud on part of Universal cannot be remedied by the fraud on the part of the kids. This is not a school yard. We have courts for this. The fan sites should sue Universal for fraud instead of trying to bill them for work which they clearly volunterly did without any prior promise of compensation.

Re:if they ever try to send this invoice

[ToastyKen]

If you read the FAQ on the "billing" site, you'll see this quote: "In other words, this site should not be taken as an attempt to actually bill Universal Pictures for all of our time, energy, and effort, nor encouragement for any fan do try to do so. We just believe that there is a point to be made."

The billing is meant as the kind of statement you make, not the kind of statement you get in your mail. :)

The Second Sundering?

[lupine_stalker]

As a convert of the "guerilla campaign", I am shocked that Universal, who I had hailed as the saviours of the 'verse after the Serenity movie was announced, would stoop to this. I really can't understand why they would seek to alienate the fan base this way.
If Universal aren't planning on making another movie, then there is no reason that they shouldn't allow the fans they're 'memorabilia'.
If they are, why go after the fans who will only be driving more people in to see the sequel?

Sorry if this post isn't particularly insightful or interesting, this is just a fan and loyal browncoat venting steam. You can't stop the Signal.

Re:The Second Sundering?

[BrianRoach]

I really can't understand why they would seek to alienate the fan base this way.
If Universal aren't planning on making another movie, then there is no reason that they shouldn't allow the fans they're 'memorabilia'.
If they are, why go after the fans who will only be driving more people in to see the sequel?

They're not going after fans. They're going after people stealing their IP for personal profit.

I'm quite sure you can buy your "memorabilia" from them (Universal). You know ... the ones who actually own the rights to sell it to you.

Or, you can buy it from someone ripping off the studio and selling it without a license for personal gain. Your Call.

Want to sell the stuff? $9k sounds like a pretty reasonable license fee. I'm quite sure the companies that license IP from other movies/sports/etc pay a LOT more.

- Roach

Re:The Second Sundering?

[lupine_stalker]

Unfortunately, the $8750 price tag is a retroactive one, and (as I read it) would involve closing down the stores anyway. I can agree with a coporations need to protect its copyright, but as far as I can tell (having looked for 'official' merchandise on the Universal web site) there isn't even Serenity gear available.
Now, I agree these people were making money off items that they did not own the IP for, but designing and shipping these things would take an awful lot of time and effort, so there would have to be some small recompense. Oh well, just my opinion.

Re:The Second Sundering?

[A beautiful mind]

They're going after people stealing their IP for personal profit.

There is no such thing as stealing of copyrighted material and there is no such thing as Intellectual Property. Intellectual property is a misleading term coined by lawyers to umbrella up copyright and patents. It is not a term of law and it is misleading to use.

I'm sure you think I'm just a grammar nazi for mentioning this, but if you allow the redefinition of the language of the law this way, don't be suprised when the FBI gives you a greeting, by which they mean a 'visit', by most other people would mean a warrantless search.

Re:The Second Sundering?

[swelke]

They're not going after fans. They're going after people stealing their IP for personal profit.

Come on, this is Slashdot; do you think I'm going to let you get away with making a statement like that? First, there's no such thing as "IP". There's copyright and there's trademark (and patent, which doesn't apply here). Second, you cannot "steal" any of those things. Putting somebody else's picture on a T-Shirt you're selling isn't stealing, in exactly the way that downloading music off the internet (without copyright-holder permission) is not "stealing" the music. It's copyright infringement, which is a completely different crime. "Stealing" the music would be walking in to Wal-Mart, putting the CD in your pants, and then running away. Stealing something means that you now have it, and the original owner now does not have it. Infringing on somebody else's copyright means that you now have it and the original owner might have a reduced market available to sell their stuff (but that's nigh-on impossible to prove definitively). The word "stealing" being applied to copyright is a political tactic, intended to make increased copyright protections palatable to the general populace.

Why yes, I have been reading RMS's writings lately. How did you guess?

Re:The Second Sundering?

[BrianRoach]

You're absolutely correct.

Let me change the post so it's literally correct:

They're going after people using their copyrighted material without permission for personal gain, which they are 100% within their rights to do. :)

- Roach

Re:The Second Sundering?

[BrianRoach]

Let me change the post so it's literally correct:

They're going after people using their copyrighted material without permission for personal gain, which they are 100% within their rights to do.

- Roach

Re:The Second Sundering?

[wytcld]

It's not "stealing" intellectual "property" - and the "for profit" part ... would you say it's okay if it's to "steal from the rich and give to the poor"? Probably not. So how does it make a difference to your argument?

It's not stealing because it's potlatch. Gifts are being passed around at the cultural feast. The movie is getting promoted as a gift, in part by people wearing t-shirts. Those t-shirts are got in exchange for money, but t-shirt makers most always expect to make some return on their labor. So in the potlatch circle promotion is gifted to the movie studio, which then uses that promotion to achieve profit. And those doing the promotion, those involved in actually producing goods, also are allowed some small profit. Those doing just blogs on it may get some profit through advertising links.

Potlatch was an important part of Northwest Native American economies - which were until disrupted by European culture among the most prosperous in the world. They ate and lived very, very well. Those who made the most profits in their various lines of work were expected to also be the most generous at the potlatch festivities. It was part of how they solidified their positions, got the social cred to go on living even better than their neighbors, because they were for whatever reason getting more profit from their positions in the business and governmental communities than their neighbors were.

So a whole lot of us joined in the Serenity Dance at the feast. Many gifts were passed around, but in the end the Leader of the Serenity Dance ended up even more prosperous than before the dance. The circle of giving establishes the basis for profit - it is not a distraction from it (except for an evening), let alone an undermining of it. But now Universal doesn't understand that the circle has to be, well, "universal," or it won't continue to work - both cultural and economic idiots.

Re:The Second Sundering?

[BrianRoach]

Blah Blah Blah.

Since you want to nitpick what I wrote literally instead of simply taking it for what it was, let me rewrite it for you:

"He was using their copyrighted material without permission. This is a copyright violation".

You can't create a "Derivative work" without permission (for any reason, not just profit). He did. He did not have explicit permission. They told him to stop. End of Story.

That's the way US copyright law works. Look it up.

- Roach

Re:The Second Sundering?

[Ed Bugg]

You can't create a "Derivative work" without permission (for any reason, not just profit). He did. He did not have explicit permission.

Right on point one, but are you right on point two? The site was selling a derivative work of the movie Serenity, but from the links in the article and the comments elsewhere in this discussion, there seemed to be an implied permission for the fans to be allowed to self-promote the movie. From the very first link:

Members were encouraged to form regional groups to promote the film and perform activities that would help generate word of mouth, like creating bumper stickers and gift cards to accompany the DVD release.

While no contract with the groups where signed, it sounds like Universal knew that some forms derivative works or use of Universal's trademarks where going to be used in the form of promoting the movie. So does Universal have a right to demand retroactive license fees, from the members of these groups?

Re:The Second Sundering?

[BrianRoach]

Right on point one, but are you right on point two? The site was selling a derivative work of the movie Serenity, but from the links in the article and the comments elsewhere in this discussion, there seemed to be an implied permission for the fans to be allowed to self-promote the movie.

They can have a whole boatload of implied permission. They didn't have explicit permission.

Nevermind that in all honesty, I don't see "Hey, you can sell stuff for profit" was what they were implying :) The simple fact is that if he asked for permission to sell merchandise on the web using their material, the answer would have been no. The jump from "Members were encouraged to form regional groups to promote the film and perform activities that would help generate word of mouth, like creating bumper stickers and gift cards to accompany the DVD release." to "Sell T-Shirts on the internet months later" seems a bit of a stretch to me.

While no contract with the groups where signed, it sounds like Universal knew that some forms derivative works or use of Universal's trademarks where going to be used in the form of promoting the movie. So does Universal have a right to demand retroactive license fees, from the members of these groups?

They only demanded the fee if he wished to continue selling merchandise using their copyrighted material, unless I read his blog wrong. As for knowing that some works would be created, that's fine ... but some is not all. I haven't seen that they have gone after anyone that was doing the things they told people to do.

- Roach

Main point

[TrisexualPuppy]

For Universal, don't mess with the kind of people who have a lotttt more spare time than you do. The group is the kind of group that *will* get into a good television show (especially as good as Firefly was). These fans were and still are super-dedicated to the show and have and will have a lot of energy to spare for the show that is practically their religion.

However, that being said, Universal will disregard everything that they (and anyone else) do. It's going to take a hot poker to get Universal to do anything pro-consumer. Remember, all of the decisions are made by a group of women and men sitting at a table trying to figure out how to maximize profit. And that they are going to try to do, even if they are shortsighted about it.

Re:Main point

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Well but should they be able to stop me from buying a t-shirt that says, "Shiny, Captain!"? Logos are one thing, sure. But "Nothing in the 'verse can stop me."?

Re:Main point

[dfung]

AC here has highlighted the key point which is that Universal must make a good faith attempt to protect their trademarked property or lose it.

The solution for the guy who got the warning letter is probably even easier than what AC suggested. Perhaps the guy selling CafePress shirts sold thousands of shirts that violate copyright licensing, and made a ton of money. But the chances of that are actually happening are pretty slim. If he makes a reasonable showing that he sold some nominal number of items and didn't really make a significant profit from it and agrees to not sell them anymore, that will probably end the issue. A real accounting of costs would be better, and having a lawyer present it would help even more, but Universal will only press this if there's enough money coming out of it to make it worth doing (unlikely) or if they're trying to make an example of somebody (also unlikely even if they keep this up). CafePress probably made more profit from this than the originally cited guy did.

As will be pointed out endless times, if somebody says "hey, fanboy, help me promote this movie" you probably shouldn't plan on getting rich from it. That doesn't mean a smart guy coudln't get some bucks for it, but that meant asking questions up front like "how much will I get paid?" and "how about licensing?" instead of assuming that these were being granted.

Re:I wasn't a fan of the BuffyVerse

[petrus4]

IMHO there was a fair amount of difference between Buffy and Angel. In my own mind, Angel was targetted at adults, (or at least 20 somethings) while Buffy was targetted at the real-world equivalent of Dawn or Willow...Ergo, 14-16 year old angst-ridden female Wiccan scenesters and/or fake Goths.

The first few seasons of Buffy I found at least tolerable, and occasionally interesting...although once Dawn and Tara showed up, I lost interest more or less immediately...Dawn in particular reminded me a little too strongly of a number of girls I'd known at high school who I would have preferred left forgotten.

As others have probably said, Whedon *does* have a wonderful gift for taking well-known stereotypes and turning them on their head...thus effectively re-inventing them. He's probably the closest we've come to genuine originality since the end of the 80s, for my money.

As I was going to say though, for me Angel is really where the "Buffyverse," hit its' stride...Although to me David Boreanaz, James Marsters, and Andy Hallett had as much to do with that as anyone behind the camera would have. We're not going to see another character with the level of charisma that Boreanaz in particular exhibited there for quite some time, I don't think.

Wrong interpretation!

[Wylfing]

This is the clue bat. This is your head. This is the clue bat hitting your head.

As others have already pointed out, it's not copacetic to sell merchandise like that. You think you can start selling Star Wars t-shirts and Lucasfilm will be OK with that? Not likely.

But that is entirely beside the point. The point is that Universal believes this is a valuable franchise, and acts to protect it. They are not trying to shut down the fan community. Simply, there are people at Universal who think a Serenity sequel is a possibility, and they want to maintain control over that so when they fund the next movie they're going to get a proper ROI. That is all.

It's basically good news that they want to defend this.

Re:Wrong interpretation!

[An Onerous Coward]

It's basically good news that they want to defend this.

I disagree with your interpretation. While I think you're right that the fans overstepped the bounds of "viral marketing" here, my interpretation of this action is that they figure they've pretty much milked the franchise dry, to the point that the good will of the fan base is worth less to them than the $9000 licensing fee.

Ah, well. Firefly, we hardly knew ye.

Re:Wrong interpretation!

[swelke]

As others have already pointed out, it's not copacetic to sell merchandise like that. You think you can start selling Star Wars t-shirts and Lucasfilm will be OK with that? Not likely.

At present, this is the closest thing I could find to an infringement of any copyright or trademark on the T-shirt site in question. The product itself has no hint of infringement, and the description of the product has the word "serenity" but it's just a translation from the Chinese character in the picture on the shirt. Maybe the site used to contain more infringing stuff; I don't know. But at present, the Universal lawyers are still demanding that he take down the site (and holding the usual obscene $150,000 per instance copyright infringement damage number over his head to make sure he does it).

There is a danger to the Firefly/Serenity franchise here. Viral marketing works, but it works in both directions. The whole mythos of Firefly is about rebellion against a powerful government. If it looks like the franchise is in the hands a pseudo-government (big corporation) the most ardent fans will rebel. Of course, Firefly/Serenity has been in the hands of a big company since it was started, but the Browncoats might actually notice it now and become rather disillusioned rather than support it as fervently as they have done so far. No viral marketing means (maybe) no market. No market means no movie.

Re:Wrong interpretation!

[DrJimbo]

Right back at ya.

The key point IMO is that Universal allowed their trademarks to be infringed when the infringement served as "free advertising". Universal is not allowed to come back now and try to retroactively enforce their trademarks. In the legal world, this is called estoppel:

1. [Universal] has done or said something to induce an expectation
2. The [Browncoats] relied (reasonably) on the expectation...
3. ...and would suffer detriment if that expectation were false.

It is perfectly copacetic to sell merchandise like this as long as the trademark owner knows about it and does nothing. It is not copacetic for Universal to come back now, years later, and try to change the ground rules upon which people have developed a business model.

I also disagree with your interpretation that this indicates Universal is considering a sequel. I think it indicates the exact opposite: they've given up on a sequel and are now trying to wring the last few pennies out of the franchise on its way to the trash heap. If Universal were planning for a sequel then they would have wanted to encourage the fan-base buzz, not squash it.

Someone is going to have to hit Universal with a cluestick before they realize that the "legal bootleg" nature of the fan merchandising was a significant factor in its success. I almost never buy logo-wear but I've bought several items from Blue Sun Shirts. I'm sorry they've been shut down because I would have continued to buy things from them. There is no way in Hell that I'd buy any Firefly merchandise from Universal now. The actions of the fans mimicked the actions of the heros in the series and the movie. Universal got cool points for letting these small businesses prosper. Now Universal is acting like the evil Alliance.

Well, while they're suing for IP use, why not...

[Channard]

.. go after the 'authors' - and I use that word in the loosest possible sense - of all those responsible for the inevitable shitty fan fiction based on Firefly, as well as all the crappy Buffy/X-Files stuff. If I'd created or owned the rights to a series, I'd be more concerned about that. To say nothing of the really disturbing slash stuff.

Firefly has been one single corporate fuckup

[Nice2Cats]

I hope somebody uses the whole Firefly case in business school one day as an example of how to fuck up something great. First, they let the guy do his stuff just enough to show everybody it is a brilliant idea. Then, they pull the plug. They piss of the guy. They piss of the fans. Then, they make one movie, and seem to have off the guy even more while doing it. And now they piss off their customers some more. These are the best and brightest that are running America's economy?

Don't you wish Bill Gates were a Sci-Fi fan? He could just finance a whole season, no strings attached, just for the heck of it, and donate the the sales of the DVD to his charity fund. I'd buy.

Re:Well, while they're suing for IP use, why not..

[An Onerous Coward]

Generally, I think they leave the fanfic world alone, because there isn't any money to be made from it. Now, if somebody started selling a hardcopy of their favorite River/Buffy crossover slash, I think they'd invoke the wrath of the demon lawyer hordes.

I am a lawyer on the wind

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch how I sue.

Re:I am a lawyer on the wind

[Schwartzboy]

Say again?

A lawyer on the wind, watch how I... *KA-CHUNK*

Well, there's that sorted out.

quantum meruit

[Anomalyst]

I remember that show. Something about David Bowie and spiders from mars leaping back and forth within their own lifetimes earning merit badges or something like that.

Here is the thing.....

[jonfr]

I did look into this matter a bit. I find it intresting that the author of the drawing that did contain the word "Serenity" did make here own artwork, based on what I saw here (http://www.cafepress.com/11thhourart). Since I am no laywer and I don't live in the U.S, my own estimate that this is Universal trying to claim ownership of something that they don't own. This is a, in my opinion a corporation blackmailing a person becose they can. I don't belive for one second that this is a trademark issue or a copyright issue.

Re:Here is the thing.....

[XiX36]

But you forget, Universal owns the copyright to the Chinese character for 'serenity'.

Re:Here is the thing.....

[BrianRoach]

The link you provide takes you to his store which now only contains non-infringing items - he removed the ones they told him to.

Since I am no laywer and I don't live in the U.S, my own estimate that this is Universal trying to claim ownership of something that they don't own

They own the original work, and any "Derived work". He was selling works wholey derived from their creation without permission. Under US copyright law, he can't do that.

- Roach

Re:Here is the thing.....

[jonfr]

Actually, I do belive that letters and words are under public domain. If you had just bother to check the story and the webpage of the author that got C&D demand. You would have known better.

What does Joss have to Say?

[archieaa]

I am curious, what does Joss have to say about this? Seeing as he is the one that got the ball rolling, I would think he would have something to say about these goings on. I would imagine that he would have mixed feelings about this. One of his stuggles has always been to get support for his projects. Using "viral marketing" is one tool at his disposal to show the studios that there is a market for a project. That being said I would also imagine that It would be bad juju to double cross those who made the project possible in the first place. That is to say many fans would likely think twice before putting so much effort into getting the word out if what once was theirs suddenly is ripped from their hands and given to the media corps. To my eyes this looks rather like trying to close the barn door after the cows have left. Part of the reason that fans put so much energy into things like senerity and firefly is there is a feeling of ownership involved. A bit of " hey, look what I found.". That feeling of "Look, Heres something really cool that the big guys have overlooked. Its ours now. Lets show the world what they missed.". While this sort of thing is good in that you tend to get loyal fans you do have to be carefull in that they will take things personally. One of the thing I have observed in my daughter (15) and her friends is that they wear their media much in the same way that we wears clothes. They delight in finding something interesting that has been passed over by the mainsteam. They in large part define them selves by their taste in music, movies, blogs, and the like. An example would be if asked what someone is like they might decribe them as " Elliot Smith and Degrassi.". If one of their finds gets taken from them, so to speak, they aren't going to look so kindly on the next release from the same artist, reguardless of quality.

Re:Firefly fans being short sighted here.

[jonfr]

Look into the issue, then speak about it. You did fail on the first one, you where successful on the second one. When that happens, you usally don't know what you are speaking about and usally just say some nonsense that makes you look stupid.

Have a nice day!

This just in...

[blue l0g1c]

As an addendum, Universal has stated that they also want the sky back.

Snakes on a Plane

[DoorFrame]

There are THOUSANDS of shirts on CafePress for Snakes on a Plane. How many of those shirts infringe on New Line's copyrighted material? And yet, does anybody doubt that New Line would have been better off not having that fan-based for-profit marketing? New Line was even smart enough to partner with CafePress so everything became more or less legally legit.

And here's the real issue. If Universal REALLY didn't want this person selling those t-shirts... just ASK them to stop. A nice letter with an explanation of why you'd like them to stop with a few official promo goodies would probably be more than enough to get someone to modify what they've been doing. Why do these companies think it's wise to open with threats as opposed to genuine dialogue?

Ugh, I hate people sometimes.

Re:Snakes on a Plane

[Oligonicella]

"A nice letter with an explanation..."

That's what a C&D is.

Re:Snakes on a Plane

[whitehatlurker]

Why do these companies think it's wise to open with threats as opposed to genuine dialogue?

After seeing quite a few films where the dialogue was hackneyed, clichéd, corny, or simply stolen from previous films (BTW, Serenity is an exception to this); I believe that many film companies don't know what original dialogue is. This could go a long way to answering your question.

Re:Snakes on a Plane

[jafuser]

Except the issue here isn't with the C&D. The C&D came and was complied with well before the second message demanding a retroactive $9k in licensing fees, to close their entire store permanently, and logs of the last 12 months of sales.

Re:I wasn't a fan of the BuffyVerse

[no_pets]

I'd have to say that I liked "Buffy" more than you did but I'd agree that with "Angel" the Buffyverse went to another level. Much darker and adult and I hated to see it go.

As has been said numerous times, Joss Whedon is at his best when creating an ongoing series as he has much more time to develop everything as compared to a movie.

I wish a television network with some balls or nothing to lose would fund another Joss series and just let him run wild. Perhaps the new CW station (or whatever UPN/WB station is called) or even FX would give him a shot.

Surely there are lots of Joss fans out there that would give nearly any series of any genre of his a chance.

Totally wrong, not a grassroots effort at all

[BeeBeard]

Sure, we can all agree to that, but you miss my point about legal protection. Unlike the labor of fans, it takes money to buy the labor of lawyers. Promoting something by posting about it on your free personal blog about how you like it is not even close to the same ballpark as filing a motion in court. Not even close. This community you are so fond of has yet to pool together money to mount a legal defense--it is only free time they have pooled. And like it or not, money and labor are not the same thing. And who is going to pony up the money to pay the legal professionals who can actually help them wriggle out of this problem? Mr. Free Blog Post? Probably not. It's a very real problem that cannot be glossed over by fandom.

Not only that, but if you read the copy of the email that was sent, it seems that Universal's issue is with the unlicensed sale of shirts. Hmm let's see...selling something for profit like a shirt is hardly the benevolent, grassroots effort that it's being made out to be. It's making that sweet merchandising money off of a property you absolutely don't own and have no right to profit from in that manner. For a community that loves the GPL and loves to espouse rhetoric such as "You can only license something you own", Slashdot sure does want to have its cake and eat it too. I would rate seeking compensation for unlicensed clothing as something no less petty than, say, demanding that "GNU" precede the word "Linux" in the name of an operating system.

Re:Totally wrong, not a grassroots effort at all

[Blain]

Actually, on Whedonesque, there were offers to help provide for legal costs, and some indication that the attorney helping 11th Hour was to some degree the product of donation from the community. So let's not be too quick to judge whether the community is contributing to this effort substantially. This is a community where individuals were known to buy out the tickets for entire showings of Serenity in the theater so they could give them away, or to buy boxed sets of the series and give them away to friends to get them hooked on it. For folks like that to donate $5 a head would not be a stretch, and that can add up when you're looking at the size of the Firefly community. Browncoats don't always know when to fight and when to run, but they tend to be very loyal toward their own, and Universal isn't in the crew unless the conjure they are.

Selling T-shirts for profit with your own designs, using none of the trademarked images or likenesses thereof is definitely a commercial endeavor. I suppose, if it were competing with similar products from those paying license fees for those images, it could be seen as unfair, if it used the same images or designs, or in any substantial way cashed in on the work of Universal. But evidence of that kind of thing hasn't been shown in my seeing. If somebody can show a bunch of Universal licensed t-shirts that are similar to products 11th Hour is selling (even if 11th Hour was selling them first), I'd be a bit more sympathetic to their claim of injury. I can't imagine that products with those trademarked images having any problem competing in the marketplace -- who's not going to want shirts with the faces of the BDHs with memorable lines and the Serenity logo? I'd love one with River standing in the doorway to the infirmary saying "Besides, I can kill you with my brain." But I'm having a hard time taking seriously a company of their size complaining about being injured by a small operation like this, and the other fan-based businesses they've been sending c&ds to. Especially with the idea that they're unfairly competing with the products they could license that would be way cooler than they can be without that material. Why aren't they discussing a licensing agreement with 11th Hour to bring that licensed material to play with the 11th Hour creativity that's capable of unfairly competing with the apparent wusses they've sold licenses to?

I appreciate to the end of the day Universal making this movie, and I don't want my displeasure with the choices of their legal division to get in the way of my gratitude on that count. I disagree with the folks who are calling for boycotts -- we're not going to make friends, nor movies, with that kind of approach. I think the site the FA is talking about is good at making a point that Universal is showing a lack of gratitude to those who have helped sell it's product, and that the suits in the other part of the Universal building should go to the folks at legal and suggest they back off with the jackboot approach and treat these folks like friends in a misunderstanding rather than thieves. That would be the smartest possible outcome for all involved, and I won't even bill them for the idea on the site the FA is about -- that one's gratis.

Re:Totally wrong, not a grassroots effort at all

[Gossi]

And who is going to pony up the money to pay the legal professionals who can actually help them wriggle out of this problem? Mr. Free Blog Post?

a) She has legal representation from a fan's company. There's also a donate button on her website.

I would rate seeking compensation for unlicensed clothing as something no less petty than, say, demanding that "GNU" precede the word "Linux" in the name of an operating system.

b) Have you actually seen the artwork? Here's the store: http://www.cafepress.com/11thhourart. Universal are currently disputing the designs with serenity written in chinese on them. Yes, you heard it here first, Chinese folk: Universal own one of your words.

Re:Totally wrong, not a grassroots effort at all

[_Sprocket_]

I would rate seeking compensation for unlicensed clothing as something no less petty than, say, demanding that "GNU" precede the word "Linux" in the name of an operating system.

Don't sell yourself short. I would say it was even more petty.

Why should anyone be shocked?

[Anonymous Coward]

Universal paid for the DMCA. Why is anyone shocked that they wouldn't use it?

Any calls for boycott will be forgotten when the new movie you want to see is being shown. Just like it has always been.

Re:Why should anyone be shocked?

[Alizarin Erythrosin]

What movie I want to see? The last movie I saw in theaters was Clerks II on opening night. Before that, I can't even remember what movie it was. Mission: Impossible III maybe? Somewhere in there was Cars and that's it for recent.

Movies pretty much suck now-a-days.

The Marketing worked here...

[Anonymous Coward]

I keep hearing how Serenity was a flop, and yet the cinemas i saw were packed when it came out, and the dvd is selling well in the stores i check.

I was never a fan of Firefly, in fact i've never seen an episode and yet the 8 minute trailer sold me on going to see Serenity (despite the tv Ad that gave me shivers and a horrible sickening feeling). I would love to see a sequel to Serenity or anything along the lines of it and would buy the dvd, even though im not a dvd buying person.

As far as i can see the marketing worked, not the traditional marketing though. I think somone has some sore feelings after having their "tried and trusted" marketing system shown to be as unrealible and broken as it is.

Re:The Marketing worked here...

[eskayp]

AC:
"... would love to see a sequel to Serenity or anything along the lines of it and would buy the dvd, even though im not a dvd buying person. ..."
I stumbled onto Firefly while browsing for some new video to watch while using our exercise machine.
Walmart had a 4 disc set of all the Firefly episodes, in the right order.
( Unlike Fox TV, who ruined the product with their botched, out of sequence broadcast version. )
I tried Firefly and liked it -- great storylines, effects, dialogue, and character development.
I still re-view episodes from time to time as there are always nuances that I missed previously.
Serenity carried on the Firefly storyline, and possibly ended it.
If you liked Serenity you will enjoy the Firefly DVD's.
Firefly will provide new insight and background on the Serenity characters and their struggles.
One Serenity disappointment was Shepherd Book dying without learning of his enigmatic past.
Firefly made it evident that he wasn't always a preacher, quite the contrary.
Sidebar: don't know if the rental places have Firefly on the shelves or not.
I buy what I like so I can watch it anytime I want.
Without the distractions of brats, phones, and conversations which infest the cinemas.
The spouse uses NetFlix, giving me a chance to review unknown titles.
The biggest problem is finding time to watch what's available.

Re:The Marketing worked here...

[idobi]

Not including DVD sales, the production budget for the movie was $39 million - not including advertising. Worldwide gross was $38.5 million.

By those standards, the movie was a flop. So what if the theater was packed... that $38.5 million came from somewhere...

Here we go again, FF this, Debian that...

[AlXtreme]

Why don't they just call it Iceweasel and be done with it?

Oh, Firefly. Nevermind, do carry on.

What the heck?

[NubKnacker]

In this era where TV is everywhere, in your room, on the internet and even on your handheld devices, this action makes no sense. We have a craving for good TV, sure there are enough crappy shows that we can watch and not whine when they get cancelled but to cancel a show which has a huge fanbase doesn't seem to make sense.

I simply don't understand why a studio would want to cancel such a show.

Re:I have a solution

[blue l0g1c]

You mean "acquire the financing without ceding all rights to the bankroll" since I would gamble that Joss Whedon's signature isn't the one on the cease-and-desist orders.

Re:I have a solution

[cryfreedomlove]

Wow! Do you mean that film production is hard and risky?

I do it.

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife and I don't buy anything that has a Sony name on it or affiliated with it. We look at EVERYTHING for Sony.

We've started doing the same for Universal a few months back (over other issues). Do we make a difference? No.

But we tell our friends and family about it, and we know it does make a difference. Why? Because they've not bought any Sony electronics, or even gone to any recent Universal movies. It's gotten to the point that we even get e-mails from friends and family asking us about a particular movie or CD -- and we'll do a quick Google or IMDB or Amazon search to confirm if it's Sony or Universal.

Does that make a difference? Probably not, but in the long run I'm happier not supporting those companies. That's all we can do, and big companies have been surprisingly toppled by individual decisions (see GM).

--dada / anarcho-capitalist

Should I buy Serenity to watch it .. now?

[Mirar]

I few days I was reminded that I have not yet watched Serenity, and was pondering buying it to support the coming back of Firefly as much as possible (as opposed to just download it).

Now I'm not sure anymore. I'm not sure I want to support a greedy company, but I want Firefly back.

What should I do?

Re:Should I buy Serenity to watch it .. now?

[punkelf]

find a friend who has the series on dvd borrow it, make a copy for your legitimate personal use, while you are borrowing it.
and out of great loyalty to universal destroy it when done.

or not.

again, entertainment industry... the fans are the hand that feeds you. DO NOT BITE US!

Re:Should I buy Serenity to watch it .. now?

[arth1]

I'm not sure I want to support a greedy company, but I want Firefly back.

What should I do?

Simple:

1: Buy the rights
2: Fund a production run
3: ???
4: Profit for someone else who DIDN'T pitch in to buy the rights, but sells merchandise you purchased the rights to.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:Should I buy Serenity to watch it .. now?

[sabernet]

Firefly == Fox.

Serenity == Universal

They're both asshats, but if you buy the Firefly DVDs, you're paying Fox.

their own damn fault

[nurb432]

Oh, they will figure it out. Its just they will still claim its piracy, to help push the anti-digital-freedom agenda along.

Looks like the lawyers took over there too.

Viral marketing

[Vivieus]

Well, it's really an appropriate name. You sleep with someone of ill-reputation (movie/music/tv major), it feels good on the moment ("oh fans, we love you! Just bend over a little more"), but it burns like hell in the long run (C&D in the butt).

Universal gave up their rights

[nbauman]

I'm not a lawyer, I'm just the guy who cleans the coffee maker in the secretary's lunchroom, but until a real lawyer comes along --

There's a principle in law that if you allow someone to infringe on your rights long enough, and to depend on that infringement, you can lose those rights.

For example, if you let people cut across your lawn for 50 years, you may have given up your right to stop them from using your lawn. That's why sidewalks in front of some buildings have a brass plate saying, "Permission to cross revokable at will."

If Universal encouraged those fans to promote Firefly, using images from Firefly (and how else can you promote it), and knew that they were using those images, and permitted them to use those images, and didn't charge them fees to use those images because Universal thought they were getting enough benefit from their fans to make it worthwhile, they have a pretty weak case for demanding damages now.

This varies with the state, but the fans could reasonably argue that they had an implied contract with Universal that the fans could use the images, Universal would benefit from their use of the images, and so the fans could use the images free.

Universal signaled their agreement to this contract because they knew that the fans were using the image, they allowed it, they didn't protest promptly, and they even encouraged it.

There's a principle in law called "reasonable reliance". The Cafe Press vendor could argue that Universal indicated that activities like his would be tolerated, in return for the benefits of viral marketing, and he reasonably relied on their knowledge of his activities and their silence. (He wasn't making much money, because he said he couldn't afford a lawyer.)

I think the vendor would win this case in court (if you were on a jury, would you give Universal $9,000?) but unfortunately it would take a lot of money for legal fees to defend it. However, a lawyer might take the case and ask Universal for his legal fees after he won.

I think the reaction on Slashdot indicates that most people (and jurors) think Universal's actions are unfair.

What does a real lawyer think of this?

Let's see if this works...

[The name is Dave. Ja]

Oh yeah?
Well, how would you like it if Hitler killed you?

I win!

Reference: http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilb ert-20061028.html

--

Serial emergency: any old port in a storm

Universal idiots

[Volante3192]

As you presumably are aware, Universal owns the valuable copyrights and intellectual property in and to an assortment the theatrical motion picture "Serenity" and all images contained therein

Wait, first they revive a hit show in movie format, treat it like garbage, rely on it's fanbase for marketing (which really shuts out the mass majority because viral advertizing doesn't hit the masses...), express shock and horror that it tanked, let it die...

And now they call it valuable?

Make up your mind, Universal!

Comment from an attorney

[Damiano]

Looking at the postings and the takedown notice, it seems that the person being threateded with legal action might have a strong position.

Yes, they are clearly creating derivative works and would normally be violating Universal's copyright. However, it seems that Universal specifically was encouraging fans to create derivative works to promote the release of the movie. I would personally subpoena every document involving the viral campaign and look for language that I could use to prove a grant of license to the fans.

Disclaimer: I am not your attorney, I am most likely not even licensed to practice in your state. This is simply an academic discussion.

Re:Comment from an attorney

[mamamoonie]

*smacks forehead* They didn't want us to sell t-shirts to promote the movie? D'OH!! Then I guess they shouldn't have given out the Official Movie Logo graphic out free on the website, Hmmm? Especially not in suitable-for-making-transfer size and reverse image format.... We Browncoats had that logo graphic right from Universal MONTHS and MONTHS before anyone else knew there was even going to be a movie. On the Official Movie Fansite no less. Hmmm again. Low down dirty...decievers!

Re:The Fans are Wrong

[eskayp]

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one." (Bushwhacked)

Battlestar Galactica fansites take notice!!!!

[Picass0]

There's nothing stopping the mentally challeged lawyers at Universal from doing the very same thing to the fansites promoting the new Galactica. In fact, those websites would be doing themselves a favor by raising awareness of this action.

The new Battlestar Galactica series is popular and has good ratings by cable standards, but not great ratings by new. The season premier got a 1.5 share. The CBS evening news pulls a 5, and CBS is embarrassed by the low rating. So there's some perspective.

Sci-Fi recently encouraged fans to "Make Galactica #1" with a spread the word campaign. Sound familiar? Kinda like what the Browncoats were encouraged to do?

Next year the marketing machine for Star Trek will ramp up to promote the new TOS based movie. Do you think they might reach out to the fans? Do you thing Paramont might be desperate for some old school Trekkie action? Perhaps it would be stupid for Paramont to sue fan sites, biting the hand and all that.

Universal hasn't learned this leason.

Oh bullshit

[theshowmecanuck]

There is a line between blogging about the movie and showing trailers on your web site, and marketing licensable items (like shirts). The first two are viral advertising, the latter is, well, marketing something that someone else owns as your own products.

From the fucking article:

Members were encouraged to form regional groups to promote the film and perform activities that would help generate word of mouth, like creating bumper stickers and gift cards to accompany the DVD release.

I don't see any mention of marketing t-shirts as viral advertising.

Now while I generally think of movie executives as dick heads, but to be fare, they put up a lot of money to finance a movie that returned not so much. If they make a few million dollars on this, then good for them. They put up US$39 million dollars in production costs, around US$15 million in advertising costs, and about US$8.5 million in distribution costs. The film made US$38.3 million GROSS at the box office (meaning before the theaters take their cut). If the movie ran over production budget, or flopped, etc. You wouldn't give a rat's ass about the folks who would have lost their shirts. They paid for the right to market shirts.

Just because you REALLY REALLY like something, doesn't mean you can take if for your own and do whatever you want with it. This is also the reason we have patents (real patents, not business rules patents). If someone spends time and a lot of money to develop a new something, whether directly as an investment, or in their own time (so they can't earn money elsewhere), why do you think it should be OK for someone else to profit off of it. Or is it a matter of "if it's the little guy getting ripped, then defend the hell out of him, but if it is the big guy, or they have something you really really like, then fuck it, rob him"?

Man on the street to another guy: "Excuse me, but do you know what time it is?"
Second guy: "It's three P.M."
First guy: "Thank you... and I really really like your watch... I want to sell it to that guy over there."
Second guy: "What? Excuse me, it is my watch, I paid for it."
First guy (gathers a mob around him): "We don't care. We want it , and we're going to sell it."

I know this can easily be called a troll since there are going to be a lot of fanboys reading this thread, but really. And I happen to really really like Serenity (saw it twice in the threater), and watched and really really liked Firefly when it first came on TV... and was supremely disappointed when it was canceled. But I still think that showing trailers on your web site is one thing and selling someone else's idea as your own is another.

Re:Oh bullshit

[Belial6]

yes it is a troll.

1) When it comes to advertising, t-shirts are indeed... "like creating bumper stickers and gift cards"

2) Man on the street to another guy: "Excuse me, but do you know what time it is?"
Second guy: "It's three P.M."
First guy: "Thank you... and I really really like your watch... I want to sell it to that guy over there."
Second guy: "What? Excuse me, it is my watch, I paid for it."
First guy (gathers a mob around him): "We don't care. We want it , and we're going to make our own and sell it."
Second guy: "Ohhhhh....well, I'm glad that I could spark your creativity. Good luck. (shakes second guy's hand)

Re:Oh bullshit

[eno2001]

Quit being stupid.

THIS is NOT what we're talking about here: "We don't care. We want it , and we're going to make our own and sell it."

If it were, the t-shirts would have been "spin-offs" from the original. They would have been more like Fan Fiction, in that they would have featured NEW characters that didn't exist in the original. They would have had different names instead of Firefly or FIrefly related names. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN HERE. Wake up and stop decieving yourself.

Re:Oh bullshit

[aevan]

What fanfiction do you read? In the majority of fan fiction I've came across, it all used the original characters, occassionally introducing original characters (flagged as "OC" and often heavily criticised for imblance), and for the most part are just plot deviations or continuations OF THE ORIGINAL EVERYTHING.
Just check out FanFiction.net for a million instances of it.

Re:Oh bullshit

[Richard_at_work]

While anti-IP culture has people like you touting it, it doesnt stand a chance. Congratulations on being the destroyer of your own point.

Re:Oh bullshit

[theshowmecanuck]

and we're going to make our own and sell it.

Just another way to say, we're going to take your ideas or things you have spent a lot of money developing because we think we appreciate it more. Regardless of the fact that you spent the money to bring it to this point and should be able to make a return on your investment.

Grow up. You need to ask before you take, otherwise you are breaking the law. It doesn't matter if you think you are being creative. And no, **selling** t-shirts is not like making your own bumper stickers (and they didn't say anything about allowing you to *sell* bumper stickers either, just create them). **Selling** anything that comes from someone else's ideas, work, or investments, including bumper stickers is wrong unless the right is explicitly granted. The studio has to go after those who are doing it, otherwise a precedent will be set, and they will have to allow it in the future.

If they were sending cease and desist orders out to people who were making t-shirts and **giving them away for free** I would see the point of your complaining. However all we can see is that the studio is going after people who are trying to make a buck off of the studios investment.

If you are really that creative, come up with your own movie, finance or talk others into financing it, and then market the goods afterwards. Or allow others to take your ideas and make money off them if you are that generous. Just don't presume to be so generous with other people's money.

Re:Oh bullshit

[theshowmecanuck]

My response to someone else is just as applicable here.

Re:Oh bullshit

[russotto]

Consider this before you stick up for the studio -- if _Universal_ had sold the T-shirts, and any of the artists who worked on the images on the shirts had demanded Universal give them residuals, would they have? Damn right they would not have -- they would have claimed the T-shirts were "promotional items" and therefore not covered.

Re:Oh bullshit

[version5]

If someone spends time and a lot of money to develop a new something, whether directly as an investment, or in their own time (so they can't earn money elsewhere), why do you think it should be OK for someone else to profit off of it.

You argument is incoherent. This scenario applies equally as well to writers and authors -- it is not OK for them to be influenced by and make a profit off other people's intellectual property without proper clearances and providing compensation to the original author. There is nothing new under the sun. Every idea is rooted in a prior idea, so to claim that an idea is property, you have to restrict the property to only the completely original contributions, and license the borrowed parts. Otherwise, its stealing. That would be coherent, but I don't see you making that argument, I see you making an arbitrary determination about who owns an idea and who is authorized to license a work, and by strange co-incidence, that determination favors profit-making.

Re:Oh bullshit

[Lonewolf666]

While you are right about the legal situation, it seems a bit unfair (and very stupid) to me if Universal first encourages people to do their advertising for them and then goes after them for selling fan articles. Especially at a point where they seem to have given up on marketing Serenity themselves.

As others have mentioned, Universal might have a hard time to find similar fan support for any of their future products. Personally, I would refuse to do viral advertising for anything which is from a big company and NOT released under GPL, Creative Commons or a similar free license.

Re:Oh bullshit

[FLEB]

Y'know, I've found myself getting to the point where I want to make a page of "FLEB's 100 Stock Editorials About Copyright", then just reference them by number. It's always the same old misconceptions and the same old lousy arguments (ntm the analogies).

Of course, then I just remember that old quip about arguing on the Internet, and I calm down a bit... then I realize what an empty shell it is that composes my life... ::sob::

One word: estoppel

[DrJimbo]

IANAL but I think the browncoats have an excellent chance of prevailing with an estoppel defense:

• [Universal] has done or said something to induce an expectation
• The [Browncoats] relied (reasonably) on the expectation...
• ...and would suffer detriment if that expectation were false.

This is one of the many defenses IBM is using against SCO. IBM claims that for 20 years the owners of the AT&T contracts let IBM publish its own home-grown code and therefore SCO is estopped from now trying to interpret the contracts differently.

Since Universal Pictures knew about the "infringing" activities and did nothing when those activities helped promote their film, their retroactive licensing fees should IMO be estopped. I don't know if Universal's cease and desist orders can be estopped or not. Since people built business models based upon Universal's tacit acceptance of the use of their trademarks, I think a good argument could be made that Universal delayed too long and have thus invalidated their own trademarks. If trademarks are not vigorously enforced, they are forfeited.

I had NEVER seen firefly til

[ChaoticLimbs]

A buddy showed me a bit of Serenity because I'm a sci fi fan. I hadn't seen Firefly because I worked nights during its run. I had heard of it but didn't see it.
I went and bought Serenity, watched it, loved it and bought the entire DVD set of Firefly. Showed them to the Mrs., and she loves it too. Too bad it was underwritten by douchebags.

Re:I had NEVER seen firefly til

[BgJonson79]

You're giving a SERIOUSLY bad name to douchebags.

It was the lawsuits...

[monopole]

The lawsuits that we served to the web sites. It was supposed to calm the population, weed out aggression. Well, it works. The people here stopped fighting. And then they stopped everything else. They stopped going to work, they stopped breeding, talking, eating. There's 30 million people here, and they all just let themselves die...
I have to be quick! About a tenth of a percent of the population had the opposite reaction to the lawsuits.

Summary makes no sense!

[Bob Hearn]

"After being encouraged to viral market Serenity, the studio has started legal action against fans"

I hate what the Internet has done to basic language skills.

Re:Summary makes no sense!

[Gossi]

It wasn't the internet, dude - it was all those rock'n'roll songs I listen too. Either that or, you know, I just didn't pay attention in skool. Or Muslim's made me do it. Or Darth Vader.

Re:Summary makes no sense!

[Bob Hearn]

OK, that I can understand; the dark side can be hard to resist. But sure are you that Yoda instead it was not?

Re:Summary makes no sense!

[Gossi]

That's it! I'm sending George Lucas a cease and desist.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

This is IDIOTIC...

[eno2001]

...on both sides. The companies have no right to screw the fans this way. But, that's what people like me have been trying to tell people like these fans for years. On the other hand, the fans are being idiots in thinking they can win against a big corporation. This will have about as much effect as the liberal boycotts of various company's products and services over the past few decades. As one scientist put it when that asteroid hit Jupiter back in the 90s and everyone was predicting the end of the world, this will have as mush effect as "...a grape hitting a bowling ball". Sorry, but the idealists in the fanbase of Firefly will NOT get a decent result from these actions. If anything, they'll have to settle for something, and if I know the type well enough, they'll still tell themselves they won, when in fact they didn't. I sincerely hope that this totally fails because it will show you just how excessively powerful corporations are in this society. Then maybe you'll come around. You CAN'T win.

Re:The Fans are Wrong

[Garse Janacek]

Sorry but the fans are wrong in this one. Viral advertising doesnt mean stealing intellectual property and copyrighted material to show your "love" for whatever is being promoted.

Aha -- then presumably you think that the fan site being billed (11th Hour) should also be compensated for its original artwork that was included in extra features on the Firefly DVD release? Since, you know, the studio shouldn't be "stealing" "intellectual property"?

See, this is what I don't get. Obviously the studio has a legal right to do at least most of what they're doing, but that completely ignores the unwritten ethics of the situation -- yet everyone is jumping all over the fan site.

The studio encouraged this site earlier. Even up to including their work in features about fan support, on the official DVD. You don't see any hypocrisy (albeit legal hypocrisy) in then turning around and trying to shut the site down and take its money?

The thing is, the $9000 they're asking for is a huge deal for a fan site, but means very little to the studio. They aren't going to pump up their income from the movie by getting money in this way. They could have requested that sites take down allegedly infringing material -- it seems like the guy has done everything he can to comply with the law since getting the letter, at least, so this would have been a very easy way to solve the "problem" -- but instead they are being assholes, and trying to take money from someone they not only benefitted from, but actively encouraged.

Sure, it's legal, but that doesn't make it right.

All lawsuits in the world...

[mcguyver]

...will not fix the fact that serentity sucked in the box office. Why would Universal push a movie that's not going to make money? /captain obvious

Re:I have a solution

[SoulRider]

What a tool, you must live in a terrible, lonely, harsh world. I feel sorry for you.

On topic, if I am reading this correctly there is a chance that Universal could have given away the rights to the trademark when they enlisted the fans to help them market the movie. This would then make the offending t-shirt perfectly legal. Of course all correspondence needs to be reviewed by a court to determine what the actual terms of use were.

There are two things that may have prompted this, 1) Universal is planning on a new series/movie based on the franchise and they dont want the fans using the new properties or 2) Universal is essentially being a bratty 4 year old and shouting "MINE" now that Serenity/Firefly has achieved some success with DVD sales. My guess is 2 since you would think there would at least be rumors floating around if they were planning anything new.

Re:I have a solution

[cryfreedomlove]

Why do you feel sorry for me?

Re:The Fans are Wrong

[russotto]

See, this is what I don't get. Obviously the studio has a legal right to do at least most of what they're doing, but that completely ignores the unwritten ethics of the situation -- yet everyone is jumping all over the fan site.

Everyone? Or have the pro-draconian-copyright people finally cottoned to the idea of Slashdot shills?

IceMaggot

[JumperCable]

Your use of firefly is offensive. It's Icemaggot now.

This news is rather upsetting

[ross.w]

Serenity Now!
Serenity Now!

this simply demonstrates

[alizard]

that there is no point by a fan community in trying to add value to a Hollywood content cartel corporate creation, no matter how good it is. The best that one can do with it is to use it to make connections with other people, but that's as far as it can go. All creating promotional materlals to help keep a show on the air accomplishes is. . . the chance to get sued.

A Hollywood corporate interest isn't the friend of any consumer. Just an effort to create and package ideas as cheaply as possible and strip-mine all the value out of them ASAP, and at the strip-mining phase, fans with ideas interfere with the process more than anything else and are dispensible.

If a fan base wants to buy a series that's dead due to inept marketing. . . try to keep organization of a fundraising quiet from Hollywood, create a dummy organization to buy the series for profit, and then do it before announcing anything to anybody. Or reverse engineer the basic series plot enough to build a new series with similar values and self-launch.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Language Nazi

[Malfourmed]

Thanks for the tip. I bow from your superior language skills. Heil!

Control your own cultural destiny (was Re:Serenit

[sowth]

But if people create their own culture, then the rich, greedy and powerful won't have a basis in copyright to squash the fans. Question is: how to do it?

Re:Mod parent up

[91degrees]

This is probably not in breach of trademark. Just like after Jurassic Park, there were countless cash-in products, with the word "Purassic" in their name, and nobody could touch them because Jurassic is an ordinary word used to describe dinosaurs. It can clearly be argued that "Serenity" shirts are about expressing the sentiment. Just because it's a cash-in doesn't always mean it's a trademark violation. Key points are that this is in a different market from the movie, the font used is nothing like that used on official merchandies, and the trademakred term is a commonly used word in the English language.

Re:Language Nazi

[dylan_-]

"Different to" - I have noticed this illogical construct being used lately by the British.

1526 Pilgr. Perf. (W. de W. 1531) 125b, His lyght is moche different and vnlyke to the lyght of the holy goost.
1588 R. PARKE tr. Mendoza's Hist. China 257 If..they could write any other language that were different vnto theirs. [Ibid. 271, 291.]
1852 THACKERAY Esmond II. ii. (1869) 169 The party of prisoners lived..with comforts very different to those which were awarded to the poor wretches there.

Please accept our sincere apologies for the recent lapse in our standards. Normal service should be resumed by 2500 AD at the very latest. We appreciate your patience in this matter.

my screensaver...

[GentlemanRogue]

is the standard Windows marquee, with the words "Define 'interesting'?" "Oh god, oh god, we're all gonna die?" scrolling across it. Universal can kiss my ass...

Re:Comment from an attorney - I'm Curious

[BranMan]

      Sorry I missed this thread over the weekend, but I must say at first glance your post infuriated me (the word *clearly* especially). I've gotten over it and now I'm just curious - by what standards are you posing that the person in question is *clearly* making derivative works? Blacksun.com was already taken down, but what I saw when I checked out cafepress.com site was a T-shirt with the perfectly good, average vocabulary, word 'serenity' on it - in another LANGUAGE even. No tie in to Firefly, no characters, no trademarks, nothing from the series or movie at all. This seems tatamount to MicroSoft suing Anderson for selling 'Windows'. I hope you check follow ups to your posts as I would love to hear your response. If this is so, it seems to me (a layperson) that something is SERIOUSLY wrong in the copyright/trademark system.
      Looking forward to hearing back - thanks in advance.

Not all firefly designs are gone

[chris2x]

Joss's blog says that all Firefly designs are gone from Cafepress, but I think it is just those that use their copyright. It is possible to make designs that don't violate their copyright: Chris2x's Firefly/Serenity designs