Slashdot Mirror
Watchmen Delayed, Or Worse
whisper_jeff writes "Due to some potential copyright issues, The Watchmen might be delayed, or worse. It seems that Fox claims it still owns copyrights which would prevent Warner Bros from releasing the movie. US District Court Judge Gary Feess decided that Fox had enough of a case that he's willing to hear things out. The geek in me hopes that it will be resolved quickly and the movie will hit theaters on time."
this really isn't a big deal... worst case scenario, they'll just have to throw a lot of money at fox to get 'em off their case.
-- derby
Why the hell didn't Fox realise this before?
They behave like that guy who says "if she won't love me, then she won't love anyone" when it comes to their copyrights. They won't even license them to someone who thinks they can do a better job, such as was the case with Firefly. Now they are threatening to do the same to this movie.
So in this case, a piece of work written by a couple of guys who are still alive, which was released not too long ago, and someone paid a lot of money for the rights to make and distribute a movie version of, you feel that this is a poor example of copyright law? I actually think this is an excellent example of the system working properly. If this was a work from 100 years ago, yeah, you'd have a legitimate beef. But copyright law needs to exist in some way. And even under the old system which gave copyright for 35 years, which most /.ers agree with that system, this work would still be covered under those conditions.
No wonder Alan Moore gets so annoyed over what's done to his old works...
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
So in this case, a piece of work written by a couple of guys who are still alive, which was released not too long ago, and someone paid a lot of money for the rights to make and distribute a movie version of, you feel that this is a poor example of copyright law? I actually think this is an excellent example of the system working properly. If this was a work from 100 years ago, yeah, you'd have a legitimate beef. But copyright law needs to exist in some way.
Put into another way, it is a company A (in this case Fox) trying to prevent company B (in this case Warner) from releasing a piece of work (in this case a movie), on the ground that company A still has some rights secured for the corresponding IP.
I actually think this is a wonderful example of how the system is broken. If this was a company releasing a movie without paying the authors, yeah, you'd have a legitimate beef.
But in this case, the authors will get paid anyway from company B. Its just an infight between company A and B with company A trying to get a piece of the lucrative cake, even if it's B who put the biggest part of the effort into producing the movie.
Copyright law exist to protect the original author from abuses, so that the result of their hard working and sweating aren't used without proper compensation.
This isn't the case.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Stories like this blow me away. I have no idea what the budget on this picture is, can't be arsed to look it up, but Dark Knight was $150 mil before marketing so I would not be surprised if Watchmen is in the same ballpark. That's a shitload of money, people. I know if I had to answer for it, I'd be paying lawyers up one side and down the other to make sure that there were no surprises. "Who's optioned this property in the past? We bought the rights now but are we sure we're free and clear on this, now encumbrances, no crazy surprises?" Funny thing, Ghostbusters the name was free and for the taking when it came to shooting a movie but there was a shitty live-action show with a similar name, Ghost Busters. So when they cut the licensing deal for toys and the cartoon, suddenly there's this other Ghost Busters product coming out with toys, a cartoon, and there was nothing they could do about that. So that's when they changed the name and branding of their product to the Real Ghostbusters.
But back to the original story. WTF? I seriously, seriously doubt that Fox's goal is to stop distribution. No, this is like patent squatting. The squatter does not want the target company to stop selling the product, that means the parent stops making money. No, no, no! The successful parasite does not kill the host! No, the squatter wants the mark to make lots and lots of money because that makes the squatter's take all the bigger. Fox will let this studio do all the work of putting the movie together and then get a juicy cut off the take.
It amazes me how such an elementary mistake could be made with such big dollars at stake. I see similar mistakes on a smaller scale all the time. The most common one is zoning screw-ups. Some poor schlub invests a lot of time and money in putting up a sports bar or some other business and later finds out that the area isn't zoned for it. What the hell? Shouldn't this have come out at some point during the process? Shouldn't his lawyer have seen it, shouldn't it have come up during permitting, applying for an alcohol license, something? And with this guy putting up so much money, you'd think he'd have done his homework. But no, so sorry, business goes buh-bye. Holy shit.
I saw another one of these where a builder didn't do the proper soil testing that was supposed to be done before beginning construction of a sub-division. The long and the short of it was that the lots needed massive preparation to support the weight of a house because a lot of infill was used. Was that prep done? Nope. So the slabs were cracking shortly after construction. WTF? Apparently it's a successful tactic to do fraudulently incompetent work under a corporation, then bankrupt it before the lawsuits are filed. I don't see how people can get away with it but they do.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
How the h... can Fox claim copyright on a movie they didn't make?
Okay, they may have purchased the rights to make a movie, about two decades ago. But that's not a copyright.
And why are those rights valid for so long anyway?
If they don't use the rights for already two decades, it should be expired and let someone else make the movie. Fox had it's chance and didn't use it.
I think a reasonable timeframe for movie making rights (and the like) should not exceed 10 years or so. Then at least someone else gets a chance of doing it. That would be better in general public's interest.
I don't understand how Warner Bros can presumably spend millions of dollars producing a movie without first securing the rights to the work the movie is based on. Do they not have a legal department?
"Do not believe?" These guys kill me. Do you have a legal document with the copyright holder's signature on it saying you are entitled to make a movie based on their character? If you don't, it's probably not a good idea to green-light the project. I guess they're just used to doing as they please and letting their lawyers fight with anyone who gets in their way.
Unbelievable.
I don't care why you're posting AC
(which almost all judges aren't)
he'd throw this out without delay.
It's not as if we haven't seen this many times. A rival studio will come up with any excuse, mostly to try to stick their hand in the pot. Remember the frivolous last-minute lawsuit by MGM against "Goldmember" merely for its title? Especially considering the OBVIOUS parody going on.
Score this down as just one more abuse of the legal system. The proper response from the Judge ought to have been a good belly laugh, followed by "now get the fuck out of my courtroom before I hold you in contempt."
You wouldn't get sued over copyright. Just like Fox isn't suing over trademark. See how this works?
I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.