Slashdot Mirror


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."

25 of 294 comments (clear)

  1. Missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.
    1. Re:Missing the point by free+space · · Score: 5, Interesting
      "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.

  2. Serenity by 56ker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Serenity by Zarniwoop_Editor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      - F1 NEWS
    2. Re:Serenity by Maestro4k · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

    3. Re:Serenity by Udo+Schmitz · · Score: 4, Informative
      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.

    4. Re:Serenity by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 5, Funny

      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...

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    5. Re:Serenity by Gossi · · Score: 4, Informative
      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.

    6. Re:Serenity by Original+Replica · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      --
      We are all just people.
  3. Rule number one: by Zadaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. Well, the thing is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Well, the thing is... by Warlokk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  5. Boycott by ronanbear · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

    --
    the more they over-think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the pipe
  6. you gotta be kidding me by fontkick · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:you gotta be kidding me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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)

  7. Re:Money Money Money / Must be funny... by garylian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  8. I've never seen firefly by fmwap · · Score: 4, Funny

    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?

  9. Main point by TrisexualPuppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Wrong interpretation! by Wylfing · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
  11. Re:Some people are just ... stupid. by Triskele · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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...

    --

    --
    USA: home of the world's largest terrorist training camp.

  12. I am a lawyer on the wind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Watch how I sue.

  13. This just in... by blue+l0g1c · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  14. Oh bullshit by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    1. Re:Oh bullshit by Belial6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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)

  15. One word: estoppel by DrJimbo · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.

    --
    We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
    -- Anais Nin