Judge Rules Fox Has Copyright Claim To Watchmen

fermion writes "According to the NYT, a judge has decided that Fox owns the copyright to Watchmen, not Warner. Is this an example of copyright law becoming so complex that companies can abuse the court system to prevent competition, or just extreme incompetence by Warner? In the current business environment, either explanation is believable. Yet it is unbelievable that seasoned producers would spend hundreds of millions of dollars to create a movie that they can't even release. It seems the judge didn't want to bring this to a jury, and maybe daring Warner to appeal, or Fox to settle." The article says that Fox acquired movie rights to the Watchmen story in the late 1980s, but budget disputes and personnel changes have muddied the waters; Wikipedia has a bit more on the "development hell" which has plagued the film project.

Comments

Too Bad

[deathtopaulw]

Too bad there are no directors still living that are capable of capturing what actually makes this work a masterpiece. I look forward to not even watching this movie.

Re:Too Bad

[HiVizDiver]

Ditto. I think the format alone (feature film vs. miniseries with a good budget) is going to make it suck, let alone your point about capable directors (or writers, for that matter). I don't know how you can cram that entire graphic novel into a 2-hour movie.

Re:Too Bad

[grumbel]

I don't know how you can cram that entire graphic novel into a 2-hour movie.

By cutting a lot and releasing an extended version later that is 220 minutes long.

Re:Too Bad

[jonr]

It's meta-humor.

Re:Too Bad

[Silvrmane]

I guess you know more than the artist who drew the graphic novel, and has, you know, SEEN the movie:
Gibbons: I am feeling very optimistic about the film. I have been pleased with everything I have seen, and every successive thing I see makes me feel better. I've seen parts of it now three or four times, and I can still watch them again very happily. Like a graphic novel, there are depths of detail and meaning in film that give themselves up on a first viewing, and I am really looking forward to getting the director's cut of the DVD so I can go through it frame by frame. Which itself is a similar experience some have the first time they read Watchmen, and which the film is cruelly denying me! [Laughs]
http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/12/archaeologizing.html

Re:Too Bad

[philspear]

there are no directors still living that are capable of capturing what actually makes this work a masterpiece.

How convenient: Your hypothesis cannot be tested because of copyright law.

Re:Too Bad

[philspear]

I don't know how you can cram that entire graphic novel into a 2-hour movie.

Theres no way to keep 100% of it unchanged and uncut, but that's true of any media conversion. Many people seem to consider the original comic book form to be perfect, many of those people are going to be disappointed with the result no matter how good the movie is of it's own right. Some because they read the comics first, some because of a warped sense of elitism. That doesn't mean the movie is doomed to be worse than the comic books to an unbiased judge. It could be changed for the better.

Re:Too Bad

[Joce640k]

That's what they said about the Lord Of The Rings but it didn't turn out too bad, even though anal types still go on and on about how "unfaithful" it is.

Re:Too Bad

[timothy]

Those types will always be around; in the future, video rental stores (if they exist) will have entire wings devoted to various incarnations of "Batman," into which they can be shoved.

The Lord of the Rings movies went way past anything I expected, into the same class of story -- for me, tastes vary -- as L.A. Confidential, where the book and movie have some major disjoint but each is masterful within its realm.

timothy

"But what about Tom Bomba--" CRUNCH. SMACK. CRUNCH.

"I said, what about--" SMACKASMACKASMACKASMACKA!

"Honestly, if only--" RATTATTTAATATATATATAA!!

Re:Too Bad

[insllvn]

Moore hasn't seen it and has said he will assume it to be trash regardless of public reception, critical acclaim or the decent of the almighty to induct the work into some sort of cosmic hall of cinematic excellence. Moore has been burned so badly in the past, he fears the flame to much to come into the light. He is hardly unbiased. Neither is Gibbons, who, as others have noted, has financial interest in the success of the film. Shit, I guess the only fair thing to do would be to see it and pass your own judgment.

Re:Too Bad

[lysergic.acid]

I don't know how you can cram that entire graphic novel into a 2-hour movie.

you don't need to. you can always make as many sequels as you need. just look at LotR.

as i understand it, Watchmen consists of only 12 standard comic books. and the hardcover release is listed on Amazon as having only 436 pages. it's not inconceivable that they could adapt the comic into a trilogy or quadrilogy/tetralogy. an adaptation doesn't have to be a word-for-word screen translation of the original work. otherwise, how would you ever adapt a comic book series like Ghost in the Shell, which spans across 3 volumes and totaling 834 pages? or how about Akira, which spans 6 volumes, each of which being anywhere from 288 pages to 440 pages?

full-length films generally have higher production values than TV series. you just don't get the same budget or writing & acting quality on TV. frankly, a well-produced film adaptation stands a much better chance of being good (and doing justice to its source material) than a TV series.

personally, i don't even think there's anything worth watching on TV outside of documentary shows (Horizon, Air Crash Investigations, Seconds to Disaster, Nova, Mythbusters, etc.). comedy is about the only fiction genre with decent quality programming on TV, and most of those are animated series like Futurama, American Dad, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, South Park, etc. the last truly great non-animated TV series i saw was Arrested Development, but that canceled after only 2 seasons.

Re:Too Bad

[HiVizDiver]

I don't know that "elitist" is necessarily the right word to use when describing people unhappy with a cinematic remake that in no way resembles the original material, but your point is still valid. I would argue based on that, however, that when a book has 1,000 pages and is well-received, then I'd posit that those 1,000 pages are there for a reason. There just isn't a way to do that justice in 120 minutes worth of film - even if a picture IS worth 1,000 words. There's simply too much content to convey. That's why I argue a mini-series with a good budget might be more appropriate for something like Watchmen. Yes, I know that Watchmen doesn't have 1,000 pages, but it's a pretty dense book nonetheless.

All this arguing about it amounts to precisely nothing, however, as no one asked us to make the movie. We'll just have to wait and see what they can or can't do with it. ;)

Re:Too Bad

[PCM2]

as i understand it, Watchmen consists of only 12 standard comic books. and the hardcover release is listed on Amazon as having only 436 pages. it's not inconceivable that they could adapt the comic into a trilogy or quadrilogy/tetralogy.

It's pretty inconceivable, though. Watchmen isn't an adventure story like LotR. It's really an exploration of characters and ideas set in the form of a murder mystery within the milieu of American comic-book superheroes. Breaking it into two or more movies would be highly unsatisfying. It might be possible to break it at the point at which [characters] decide to help [character] escape from [place], but most of the "action" up until that point takes place in flashbacks! The audience would be left looking forward to the big climax, sure -- but they'd mostly feel puzzled and ripped off, because the entire setup of the movie was the mystery of who killed [character] and they never found out who. In fact, they would barely have even been offered a suspect by that point.

Re:Too Bad

[The Rizz]

[...] where the book and movie have some major disjoint but each is masterful within its realm.

Probably the greatest example of a book changing when made into a movie, yet both being fantastic in their own ways, would be Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and Blade Runner.

Re:Too Bad

[Kjella]

Some films take their source material seriously and change what they think is necessary in order to improve it as a film. Others seems to just want to change it all around for no good reason at all. Having listened to what Peter Jackson said in the extras, there no doubt in my mind that he knows how a good film should be. And then there's the plot of LotR, which doesn't fit that format at all. He shrank it, stretched it, tweaked it and rearranged it and I think the biggest testament of it all is how you most of the time don't notice it. Obviously bits and pieces were lost (Tom Bombadil) but in the hands of a lesser director LotR would easily become a mashup of incoherent scenes.

That said, some of the things are entirely Jackson's doing like Sam turning back which was never and would never have been a part of Tolkien's story. It heightens the drama but isn't true to the book at all, Sam is the unwavering cliff that carries Frodo through it all. Other movies, well sometimes I suspect the director has barely read a slashdot summary's worth of the content. A successful movie that you want to make a movie of has a good plot. Sometimes you have to make hard choices on what's vital and not but you don't just scrap the basics and make a completely different story set in the same universe. Jackson strayed a few times but most of the time he made it fit.

In movies you can say a lot with a few scenes, like the one with Arwen's future as there's burials and statues while she lingers on. Other times nothing is said at all like with the Elven struggles against the evil. If he hadn't put them at Helm's Deep, the Elves would be nothing more than the guys running away. At the best of times, you manage to give something to both - like in the scene with the soup where the LotR-fans gets to hear that he's a decendant of Numenor blessed with long life, while the regulars have a have a silly romantic scene as he avoids eating the yucky soup. A movie that's only great if you've read the book isn't a very good movie at all.

Re:Too Bad

[Malevolyn]

Until you view it as NTSC, then it's 29,970 words per second. Unfortunately it's worth less in Europe, only 25,000 words per second.

Re:Too Bad

[Cowmonaut]

Actually, its very accurate considering the parent poster put people who were fans of Watchmen before it was being made into a movie in a separate category. I've noticed some people, even if they have NEVER EVER read the original book/novel/graphic novel/comic book or what have you instantly rag on a movie version of the story. The only thing I too can think of is a "warped sense of elitism" in which their point of view is correct at all times and everyone else is a moron.

The previews, from someone who has never seen/read Watchmen, looked promising. It may be a live action "cliff notes" version of the novel, but I go to the theater to be entertained and out of the house, usually with friends. It could be a crappy conversion, but still a good movie.

Re:Too Bad

[SanityInAnarchy]

In fact, I would argue that most Phillip K. Dick books are better as movies, once Hollywood has a chance to make some kind of sense with them.

Re:Too Bad

[timeOday]

I'm more of an anti-comic-book-literalist - I wonder why studios are willing to pay big bucks for rights to comic books when it's just as easy to make up another superhero, since they're all pretty much the same. Two of my favorite movies this year were Batman and James Bond. But how much of that is due to the authors of the original series? Zilch, IMHO. The Bond movie could have been altered very slightly and passed for Mission Impossible or Bourne Identity. Batman is close enough to Spider Man, Superman, Iron Man, or random new made-up -Man. The Incredibles made up half a dozen new superheroes and they all seemed familiar even so. Batman, Superman - anything that has enough iterations has been good sometimes and sucked sometimes, so it's certainly no intrinsic value of the character or original comic book plotline that matters. I can see a producer shelling out for brand familiarity, but Watchmen doesn't offer much of that.

Re:Too Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason 'I-just-made-him-up-man' doesn't generally show up in the box office is simply because there's no anticipated built in audience.

Even though Hancock was somewhat of a Zzzz movie for me, it managed to make $600m worldwide.. So it's not unprecedented.

Although, really what it comes down to is that good film ideas don't make it to the surface often in Hollywood. Regardless of the great ideas that may get bandied about on a daily basis, all you have to do is consider that they made _3_ movies in the http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107438/ 'Look who's talking' series.

_3_

Sit and think about that for a second.

_3_.

__ 3 __

And yet, we still have yet to see Goonies _2_.

fuck Hollywood.

fuck them up their 'Lets bring Michael Knight back' asses.

They did the Watchmen movie for the simple reason that 'gritty' comic book movies were proven hot by Sin City and 300. Look on IMDB, Sin City 2 is in pre-production and Sin City 3 is in planning. They're already planning "300-2" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1253863/.. Are you kidding me?

Hollywood finds one single good idea and then spreads it as thin as possible until we are revolted by the idea of _another_ film in the series coming out. Then they find a new idea. Then in 10-20 years it becomes retro and cool again and a new generation of dummies will line up for the rehashed garbage that the latest generation of sub-retarded writers belch out in-between the projects they _really_ care about..

Re:Too Bad

[Nick Ives]

If it's being shot on film then it's 24,000 words per second. PAL and NTSC just duplicate some of those words and then mix them back in to give the appearance of more words per second.

Re:Too Bad

[Alsee]

Spider Man, Superman, Iron Man, or random new made-up -Man.

Made-Up-Man, dashing valiantly from cosmetic counter to cosmetic counter, rescuing tragic make-up victims such as Drew Barrymore, Beyoncé, and Christina Aguilera.

-

Re:Too Bad

[HiVizDiver]

As I've said in another post, I'm not a comic fan. That said, the appeal for me in any comic-based narrative (the comics themselves, a movie, a TV show), is the character's personal story and circumstance as to how they got to where they are, and how it affects what they do in the here and now. I would suspect that for most comic fans, that's probably true as well. Maybe I should become one. :)

That's precisely what attracted me to The Watchmen... Each of the characters has a pretty interesting backstory, and the pleasure is in watching it unfold to get you to the point where they become a "team". I am honestly not interested in the "BIF POW SOCK BAM OOF!" part of comics. I like me some action like the next person, but without the good narrative to back it up, then they ARE precisely as you describe - interchangeable. I find myself FAR more interested in the NON-power superheros - Batman, Iron Man, etc. The regular Joe who decides to take on evil with his own bare hands. I can honestly say I don't give a shit about Spiderman, Superman, etc. I think it's because I feel that it's forced the creators to, well, be creative in how they adapt themselves to become more than your average man, more than "TEH GAMMA RAYS GAEV HIM SUPARPOWERS LULZ!1!11!"

I'm going to stop talking about superheroes now, because not being a comic fan, and I'm on the border of really starting to show my ignorance. ;-)

Re:Too Bad

[grahamd0]

Actually, Alan Moore does write comic books and is frankly incensed about adapting his work to any other medium. He disavowed any connection to both V for Vendetta and Watchmen. It's not really Alan Moore you need to tell off.

irony - noun
1. That Alan Moore, author of "The League of Extraordinay Gentlemen", believes that it is wrong for another artist to re-interpret his work in a different medium.

Re:Too Bad

[Blimey85]

Yea yea, blah blah. Make your own god damn films if you feel so strongly! No seriously. Make some films so we have something better to watch then the current batch of horse shit. You can't. Neither can I. Nor can anyone else. That is why we get the same shit recycled over and over. That's not always a bad thing. For example, I thought Rob Zombie did a good job with Halloween. To me he proved himself with his first couple of films and then he took on the remaking of a masterpiece. As far as slasher films go, you've gotta give props to the original Halloween. It paved the way for Jason and Freddie and everyone else. That's not to say it's one of the greatest films of all time, but in the horror genre, I think you've gotta put it in the top 10 or 20.

That said, if you could find the funding to make a really great non-recycled-horse-shit movie, how many people would ever get the chance to see it? There are a lot of great indie films but they don't get shown on every screen everywhere like the shit Hollywood churns out month after month and until society wises up and says fuck this, I want quality or I'm not going to spend my money anymore, nothing will change.

Then again, I like a lot of what Hollywood has been putting out lately. Vantage Point, Strangers, and Alphabet Murders are three movies I watched last night that I thought were decent.

Re:Too Bad

[LateArthurDent]

Too bad there are no directors still living that are capable of capturing what actually makes this work a masterpiece. I look forward to not even watching this movie.

Eh...The best directors that have ever existed are living right now with the exception of hitchcock and kubrick neither of whom had a style appropriate for watchmen. If you say welles should be on that list of great dead directors, you suck...Citizen Kane is way overrated.

See how ridiculous that sounds? Yes, the directors above are great (even welles. Citizen Kane seems overrated if you watch it now because all the shots that were revolutionary in that movie are now used in every movie you've ever seen, so we completely miss out). I also ignored a whole bunch of great past directors, some of whom you probably enjoy quite a bit. That's what you're doing to today's talented directors.

Zack Snider isn't quite there yet, but he has proven that he can do something most good directors absolutely FAIL at: perform a straight adaptation from a different medium without inserting his own "vision" into it and changing it into something else. 300 captured everything that was good about the comic book, up to and including the artwork. If somebody is going to capture what made watchmen a masterpiece, I think he has the qualifications to do it...and lucky us, he's the one at the helm.

Try not to be that elitist...this is the best age of film, RIGHT NOW and we have plenty of great writers and directors. Yes, we have tons of crap, but we're putting out so many movies that we also have fantastic stuff coming out. You just need to learn to filter the noise from the signal.

Re:Too Bad

[SlowMovingTarget]

They're already planning "300-2" ...

It will be called "301 Spartans" where the lovable gaggle of Spartans must win out against the evil Persian Queen Cruella Divan.

Well...

[ultramk]

I guess we have the answer to the question "who watches the Watchmen?"

Nobody.

Perfect tagline from movie poster

[actionbastard]

"Justice is coming to all of us no matter what we do."

Serves them all right.

Another Alan Moore IP...

[Brad_McBad]

... another film that ignores the meaning of the source work in favour of appeasing popcorn fifteen year olds.

Alan Moore goes about it the wrong way, but he's right. Hollywood needs to start coming up with its own ideas again.

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[chrisG23]

I know, like the whole time I was watching it I was like wtf? this isnt at all like the graphic nov@#(&$# Wait. I have not seen it. It has not been released. It may not be released now.

When did Hollywood come up with its own ideas in the past? They were just ripping off fresher ideas (with notable exceptions of course, but the exceptions didn't come from Hollywood, it came from certain individual filmmakers/writers/directors working for Hollywood)

Hypothetical question. If some artsy filmmaker made a low budget Watchmen movie that was really low budget, Im talking about uses visual symbolism instead of special effects, less than half a million budget, etc etc, that was absolutely in keeping with the spirit and meaning of the source work would you go watch it? Would you watch it over a Hollywooded version that was visually cool?

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[The Faywood Assassin]

I would have to say that a decent level of special effects are required. This does not mean that enough SE will over ride a crappy or non-existent story, but we have achieved a level of sophistication that we want to see superpowers that are "conceivably realistic" (if that isn't an oxymoronic request).

I want to see webbing come right out of Spider-man's wrist, not Spider-man making a hand gesture and a net flying at the villain from off screen

A great storyline will not be able to support sub-par special effects, and vice versa.

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[east coast]

Hypothetical question. If some artsy filmmaker made a low budget Watchmen movie that was really low budget, Im talking about uses visual symbolism instead of special effects, less than half a million budget, etc etc, that was absolutely in keeping with the spirit and meaning of the source work would you go watch it? Would you watch it over a Hollywood version that was visually cool?

I can't speak for the entire Watchmen thing as I'm not into the whole comic book deal but I will tell you that I found the ultra-low budget Call of Cthulhu was just the thing to helping me get my Lovecraft groove back on after a long time away from the old gents works.

And it's not that I've ever seen Lovecraft as low budget but I guess most people do simply by his association with the word "pulp."

Now, would I rather see a high rent version of the same thing? Only if it was spent on actors who can act. Eye candy doesn't mean anything if I can't get into the story. Eye candy is only good if it goes unnoticed instead of being the focus of a film.

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[nEoN nOoDlE]

Hypothetical question. If some artsy filmmaker made a low budget Watchmen movie that was really low budget, Im talking about uses visual symbolism instead of special effects, less than half a million budget, etc etc, that was absolutely in keeping with the spirit and meaning of the source work would you go watch it? Would you watch it over a Hollywooded version that was visually cool?

The important question is not whether it keeps the spirit and meaning of the source work, but whether it's a good movie or not. Converting any source work to another medium is difficult because you have to keep the spirit of the original, but still maintain the best qualities of the medium you're transporting it to. Keeping the spirit and meaning of the original will already ruin a movie adaptation because the original source material is more than a 2 hour movie will provide. This means it will probably be upwards of a 6 hour movie and nobody would watch that.

Another thing about your hypothetical question is whether less than half a mil is enough to make such a movie and keep the spirit. The Watchmen was made by 2 very talented people, and that's about how many it takes to make a great graphic novel. To put in the same amount of production value that the graphic novel had into the movie would be a large undertaking. You need actors, a director, producer, camera crew, etc. Something like Watchmen made for less than half a million will look like an Ed Wood film. Terrible acting, terrible set design, terrible costumes, etc. How can a movie like that ever do the original Watchmen justice - even if the script is the best Watchmen script ever written? If you're making that movie, you're throwing away the best parts of filmmaking so why make it?

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[tm2b]

A great storyline will not be able to support sub-par special effects, and vice versa.

Not a Doctor Who fan, I see.

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[DerekLyons]

Hollywood needs to start coming up with its own ideas again.

Huh? Where have you been for last century plus? Hollywood has never been about coming up with it's own ideas - it's been all about adapting since Day One.

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[bigstrat2003]

No, he's wrong. I will grant you that I haven't read V for Vendetta, so I can't speak to its faithfulness as an adaptation. However, it is an excellent movie on its own merits. Even if it does leave something to be desired as an adaptation of the book, well, it's in good company, many adaptations have that flaw. Something's faithfulness as an adaptation of the original material and its worth on its own are completely separate concepts. LOTR has some serious problems as an adaptation of Tolkien's work, but is an excellent movie nonetheless.

Alan Moore is pretty much whining about nothing with V for Vendetta. It's not like they took his work, ripped it up, and made a mindless action movie of it. Whatever was changed from the original material, the end result is still a moving and thought provoking movie. That's hardly a failure.

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[Leafheart]

Alan Moore is pretty much whining about nothing with V for Vendetta. It's not like they took his work, ripped it up, and made a mindless action movie of it. Whatever was changed from the original material, the end result is still a moving and thought provoking movie. That's hardly a failure.

One thing that was masterfully done on V, was the "update" to the story so the message would get to the new audience. Alan's work is a fierce critic to the Iron Lady, has a lot of jabs at the mechanization and computer domination of society. Those things would get to anyone that didn't live on those times. And like it or not, you have to make money. Those small changes on the story, were worth on it own, and did just to the message, while delivering it slightly different (and the new High Chancelor was awesome.)

Re:Another Alan Moore IP...

[TRex1993]

A great storyline will not be able to support sub-par special effects, and vice versa.

As a visual effects professional I respectfully disagree, even though my livelihood depends on Hollywood wanting to put more and better effects in every blockbuster. The role of effects is to enhance the story. If the effect suck, well, they suck, but a great story will shine through no matter what...it doesn't need a visual orgy to endure.

This reminds me of the gameplay vs. graphics arguments in gaming. Crysis looks stunningly beautiful for a real-time engine...but I can sit down with many "ancient" games and enjoy a much better experience, visuals be damned.

Great effects with a sub-par story? You get Michael Bay...

Luckily this is just a movie

[pembo13]

I can easily imagine such an issue forming around something more important, such as a medicine or piece of life saving technology.

Fox owns the copyright to Watchmen , not Warner

[pleasechooseanother2]

Warner still can release the movie via The Pirate Bay.

I, for one, am disappointed

[blue l0g1c]

When the hype started for this movie, I downloaded all of the comics and read them in two sittings. That's how good it is. Unlike many, I was reserving judgement until I had actually seen the movie.

Sorry to flame you but...

[Jabbrwokk]

I downloaded all of the comics

And that's why your opinion is irrelevant. Please purchase a trade paperback version, support the creators of the original content, then try again.

Sorry to be harsh. I did the same thing. But after reading the electronic versions, I understood what all the fuss was about and went and got a paperback version so I could enjoy the writing and admire the artwork without sitting in front of a computer, and also so Moore and Gibbons received whatever royalties they still get from the sales of their original work. They deserve it.

I imagine someone will release this movie, eventually. Warner will pay off Fox, or hold their nose and come up with some kind of royalties deal. But the funny thing is, after reading the graphic novel three times now, I don't really care if I see the movie or not. I know it will look cool, and the story might even be OK crammed into two-and-a-half hours, but the graphic novel will always be superior because it was never about plot.

SPOILERS FOLLOW!!!!!!

The ridiculous ending makes that clear. Even the characters can't believe it actually happens. The book, at its core, is about different kinds of characters and how they cope with the ugly world around them. The character development which happens in the book will never translate well to movie format.

So, sorry to flame you, but please, if you haven't already, go buy a copy of Watchmen and support the original creators. Otherwise it's like not voting and then complaining about the government. You know, like half of North America does.

Re:Sorry to flame you but...

[Ender Wiggin 77]

I downloaded all of the comics

Sorry to be harsh. I did the same thing. But after reading the electronic versions, I understood what all the fuss was about and went and got a paperback version so I could enjoy the writing and admire the artwork without sitting in front of a computer, and also so Moore and Gibbons received whatever royalties they still get from the sales of their original work. They deserve it.

To be clear, you're saying people should only pay to read a book, see a movie, etc, if they end up liking it?

Adaptation rights != copyrights

[tverbeek]

The notion that Fox owns the copyright to Watchmen is utterly absurd (and presumably just incompetent reporting). The comics series was produced by Moore and Gibbons under contract with DC Comics, a subsidiary of Time Warner, and (rightly or wrongly) that company owns the copyright. Fox might hold an exclusive license to the movie rights to the material, but that's a very different question.

Re:Adaptation rights != copyrights

[tverbeek]

You've missed the point. Fox has no copyright claim to the original work, and it has no copyright claim to the movie currently in production. This whole dispute is a contract dispute, not an ownership dispute. Everyone who knows anything about copyright law can confirm this.

As they pointed out...

[Landshark17]

As Quint pointed out on Ain't It Cool News, Fox waited till Warner Brother's practically had the film released before they bothered to excercise their copyright on the film, suggesting it might be an attempt to scoop up the cash on a blockbuster they wouldn't have to pay for.

Full article here: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39578

copyright interest != copyright

[SuperBanana]

Fox might hold an exclusive license to the movie rights to the material, but that's a very different question.

If you actually bothered to RTFA carefully, you'd see that they have been ruled to have a copyright interest.

Since you're clearly ignorant on the matter and think "copyright interest" means "copyright" or "exclusive movie rights", try educating yourself instead.

I know it comes as a shock to all you fifteen year olds, but IP law is simpler than "Cory Doctorow says I can give my stuff away and copyright is bad!"

Re:copyright interest != copyright

[tverbeek]

If you can supress that knee-jerking reflex a moment, you might figure out that I was pointing out that the headline (which simply says "copyright") was misleading, and the statement in the summary that "Fox owns the copyright" is simply false. They don't. The judge didn't say they did. Neither did the Times.

Oh, and try not to make ASSumptions about the people's background or opinions based on such a quick, emotional reading; I happen to be a staunch defender of copyright. And I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that despite your ludicrous statement that "IP law is simpler than..." that you meant to say the opposite, which is certainly true.

Re:horray!

[DrEldarion]

You have to be joking.

The only thing Hollywood does is create material that can be incredibly easily copied, and copyright and the laws that surround it are all that allows them to earn anything whatsoever.

Without copyright, film releases would look like this:

1) Film company pours tons of money and time into creating a movie.
2) Movie gets leaked before it's even released.
3) Everyone can grab a perfect copy of it from anywhere they want to.

Or, alternatively:

1) Film companies stop making movies because there's no way for them to make their investment back, an incredibly large amount of people lose their jobs, and one of the major exports from the US disappears.

If films weren't copyrightable, the entire industry would come crashing down, along with a decent chunk of the US economy.

Copyright laws are abused a lot, but they do not, as you say, hurt everyone. The situation without them would be much worse.

Re:Enter paranoia mode (or not)

[jjohnson]

When OJ Simpson was arrested for Nicole Simpson's murder, some believed that he was being framed by the government for his part in the movie Capricorn One, which was about a faked Mars landing--they thought it was revenge for obliquely revealing that the moon landing was a hoax.

If the Bush Administration wanted to suppress the movie, why wait until it's already filmed, gotten a lot of pre-release publicity, and has a lot of people excited about it? Why do it when the movie has sparked renewed interest in the comic book? Why not just tie it up in the development hell it's been in since the comic was first released?

Re:horray!

[meringuoid]

Please explain to me how this isn't a perfect description of what the situation is ALREADY LIKE RIGHT NOW.

Because suddenly the 'everyone' that pirates films includes the cinemas, who can charge the public to watch the film on the big screen, but don't have to pay the studio for it. Beats having to gouge on popcorn and Pepsi to turn a profit, doesn't it?

To which I say "FUCK OFF!"

[denzacar]

I downloaded all of the comics

And that's why your opinion is irrelevant. Please purchase a trade paperback version, support the creators of the original content, then try again.

Sorry to be harsh. I did the same thing. But after reading the electronic versions, I understood what all the fuss was about and went and got a paperback version so I could enjoy the writing and admire the artwork without sitting in front of a computer, and also so Moore and Gibbons received whatever royalties they still get from the sales of their original work. They deserve it.

No.. seriously.. Fuck off.

One's opinion is irrelevant since one has not payed for something? Then there is a shitload of stuff out there about which our opinions don't count.
From online comics to pop music on the radio to motherfuckin Bible and Qur'an. Free stuff all... But you can't have an opinion on it.
Unless you buy the printed/recorded version of it.

Or is the idea that one's opinion is irrelevant unless you pay the author of the work?
Well fuck... guess we should just stop talking about Shakespeare, Mark Twain, Byron, Da Vinci, Van Gogh and every single dead artist and their work cause as much as we try it ain't likely that they will ever see a dime from us.

And since I too have read Watchmen first in scanned form, only later getting my own printed copy, I guess that makes our opinions about on the same level.
BUT... Since I bought the more expensive Absolute Edition AAAAND a regular paperback edition for a friend of mine - my opinion counts more.

Now... had there not been that scanned version, I probably would never have heard about it until this summer.
And even then - I'd probably just watch the movie. Downloaded, naturally, since my town still lacks the cinema.
And it would remain at that.
Moore and Gibbons wouldn't get a dime.

Scanned comics and free online versions of comics (see Warren Ellis' and Paul Duffield's FreakAngels) are a great way for an audience other than the members of hardcore comic book geek society who practically live inside the comic book shops - to get introduced to the story.
Same goes for the fansubs of various anime series.
Get the stuff to the people. If they like it - they will buy it.
If it is good - they might buy it (eventually) even if they don't like it.

Let me end the rant with another Moore's work that illustrates this last point.
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: The Black Dossier.
I liked the first two volumes of "The League". In fact I found them to be great.
And I loved the start of the "Black Dossier", with it's 1984 references and all (actually it is done practically as a sequel to 1984)...

But the more you read, the more you see that there is no real story. Only obscure cultural reference, upon reference, upon reference...
The main characters just go from location A, to location B, to C with any real plot actually being in the stories in the dossier.
Its great work - but in the end you realize that nothing really happened. Moore practically tells you - "Forget it kid, its only a comic.".
And I could bet that he is laughing his ass off for making people wear those silly 3D glasses that come with the book.

Now don't get me wrong.
I love the obscure cultural references and seeing artists just letting loose their creative vibe - but in the end, I liked the original League stories more. Much more.
Did I like it? Sorta... In the beginning... less later.
Was it good? Undoubtedly.
Will I get it in printed form? Yes.
Would I ever have read it or the first two volumes after that terrible movie, had they not been around for free? Highly unlikely.