Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
I guess we have the answer to the question "who watches the Watchmen?"
Nobody.
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
"Justice is coming to all of us no matter what we do."
Serves them all right.
Sig this!
... 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.
I can easily imagine such an issue forming around something more important, such as a medicine or piece of life saving technology.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
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.
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.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
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
This sig is false.
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!"
Please help metamoderate.
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.