AMC Threatens Copyright Lawsuit Over Walking Dead Spoiler (torrentfreak.com)

AMC has threatened the people behind The Spoiling Dead community with a lawsuit, asking them to not reveal who gets killed in the last episode of The Walking Dead's ongoing series. The Spoiling Dead community, which has over 350,000 followers on Facebook, obtains all the latest information about the hit show -- some of which are not public, and discusses it within their community. "After two years, AMC finally reached out to us! But it wasn't a request not to post any info about the Lucille Victim or any type of friendly attempt at compromise, it was a cease and desist and a threat of a lawsuit by AMC Holdings, LLC's attorney, Dennis Wilson. They say we can't make any type of prediction about the Lucille Victim," Spoiling Dead team wrote. TorrentFreak reports: AMC's claim that any spoilers will amount to copyright infringement are somewhat eyebrow raising but according to the company this ground has been covered before. "The release of plot summaries and particularly the types of crucial plot elements that you have stated you intend to release, have been found to constitute copyright infringement. Specifically, in Twin Peaks Productions vs. Publications International, the Court ruled that publishing a work that 'recount[s] for its readers precisely the plot details' of a fictional work constitutes copyright infringement."

Comments

Not the same... from TFA

[Jonah Hex]

By citing a specific case one might conclude that AMC’s attorney is confident that the cases are similar, but reading the details casts more than just a little doubt on his claims.

The historical case in question involved the publication of a book by Publications International which covered in detail the first eight episodes of the 1990/91 TV series Twin Peaks. The big question was whether this use of copyright works was protected under fair use but in the end the court decided the publisher had gone too far.

The court found that the defendant’s “detailed recounting of the show’s plotlines went far beyond merely identifying their basic outline for the transformative purposes of comment or criticism” adding:

Because the plot synopses were so detailed, and in fact lifted many sections verbatim from the original scripts, the court found that defendant copied a substantial amount of plaintiff’s original works.

This hardly seems to mirror the situation playing out alongside a potential spoiler of an unaired episode of The Walking Dead. Presumably that spoiler can be achieved by saying a single name too, which by no stretch of the imagination amounts to a substantial part of any show.

I'm ambivalent about spoilers myself, just knowing who it is doesn't equal seeing it play out with the acting, effects, etc. Sometimes I'm glad not to know, sometimes I wish I didn't know a spoiler, sometimes I love knowing.

Maybe stop with the cheap cliffhangers, AMC!

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously. Stop with the cheap fakeout and cliffhangers. Quality writing over cheap gimmicks.

Yeah, right...

[jamescford]

According to Stanford's Copyright and Fair Use summary (http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/cases/) that Twin Peaks case might not be the precedent they say it is.

Not a fair use. A company published a book entitled Welcome to Twin Peaks: A Complete Guide to Who’s Who and What’s What, containing direct quotations and paraphrases from the television show Twin Peaks, as well as detailed descriptions of plots, characters, and setting. Important factors: The amount of the material taken was substantial and the publication adversely affected the potential market for authorized books about the program. (Twin Peaks v. Publications Int’l, Ltd., 996 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1993).)

(emphasis added)

Re:Yeah, right...

[StinkiePhish]

The language in the case couldn't be more clear that it was not "crucial plot elements" that the case was about, but pure copying:

Defendants have directly copied or paraphrased substantial portions of TPP's teleplays. Much of the book consists of detailed description of the plot, setting, and character development of the first eight episodes of "Twin Peaks." Excerpts from episodes are quoted verbatim. A work that is literally similar may be found to be an infringement of copyright.

This Court further finds that because "Welcome to Twin Peaks" is based on the teleplay and employs direct quotations and paraphrases, it is a derivative work.

this is stupid, that show is stupid

[Thud457]

No matter how many Japanese soldiers, headhunters, astronauts and Harlem Globetrotters land on that island, Gilligan, the Skipper too, the millionaire and his wife, the movie star, and the rest are never getting off that fucking island.

PS it's Glenn
Somebody had to take one for the team, and he's damn sure going to make sure it's not Maggie and their babby.

So what if you knew who's gonna die?

[Opportunist]

Remember Colombo? You saw exactly, in the first few minutes, who's killing whom, with what motivation and in what way, no doubt about who killed whom, how, why and where.

And still people watched. Why? Because it's interesting how the whole thing unfolds.