Slashdot Mirror


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."

23 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. I will never understand this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I will never understand this. "They love our work, lets alienate the ever-loving shit out of them!" Really, it's always a brilliant move folks.

    1. Re:I will never understand this by kelemvor4 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I will never understand this. "They love our work, lets alienate the ever-loving shit out of them!" Really, it's always a brilliant move folks.

      If they ever open a "walking dead world" section of a theme park, maybe fans will be able to buy their very own copy of a threatening letter from a lawyer!

  2. This series has run its course anyway.. by Ratphace · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If anybody has been watching this series, I think most would agree that it has run its course already. I mean, how many episodes do you want to watch them killing zombies and trying to keep them at bay? Let's face it, the people in the series aren't very bright, because if I was living in the south of the USA when this occurred, then I would say that it's quite logical to head for the coast and get out to an island seeing as how zombies haven't mastered the breaststroke or freestyle techniques. There are many small islands in the gulf coast area. They seemingly have cars and fuel for everything else in the series, so why not go get on an island? I liked this series a lot in the beginning, but as it wore on, I have myself bored with it. Honestly, I never even finished the most recent season simply because it's just repetitive with nothing more innovative and exciting in the last couple seasons. Just my 2 cents.

    1. Re:This series has run its course anyway.. by rwven · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I gave up caring about the characters a couple seasons ago. It's devolved into a constant barrage of idiots making dumb decision after dumb decision. None of these people would be alive at this point after alienating every person they come across. They also haven't come up with a single new or inventive plot device since season 2.

    2. Re:This series has run its course anyway.. by Agripa · · Score: 2

      It's a world filled with shambling, mindless monstrosities, totally incapable of logic, forethought, or fulfilling anything but their most base needs. Also, there are zombies.

  3. Not the same... from TFA by Jonah+Hex · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  4. Maybe stop with the cheap cliffhangers, AMC! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    1. Re:Maybe stop with the cheap cliffhangers, AMC! by liquidsin · · Score: 3, Funny

      Can anyone say "Scheherazade"?

      I certainly can't, and I have no idea if anyone actually can, but I'm intrigued! When should I tune in to find out the answer?

      --
      do not read this line twice.
  5. Yeah, right... by jamescford · · Score: 5, Informative

    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)

    1. Re:Yeah, right... by StinkiePhish · · Score: 4, Informative
      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.

    2. Re:Yeah, right... by Theaetetus · · Score: 2

      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)

      It may be... FTA:

      “AMC is aware that The Spoiling Dead Fans site is promoting your claim that you have received copyright protected, trade secret information about the most critical plot information in the unreleased next season of The Walking Dead,” the letter begins. “You also state that you plan to distribute this purported highly confidential information despite your knowledge that such distribution, if the information is indeed accurate, is unauthorized and will greatly damage AMC, distributors of The Walking Dead as well as Walking Dead fans awaiting the new seasons’ release who wish to watch their favorite show unspoiled.”

      While we can't know for certain without seeing the letter and/or what the Spoiling Dead folks claim to have received, this doesn't appear to be about predictions, as much as stolen copies of scripts or something.

  6. Over-reaching by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    " Court ruled that publishing a work that 'recount[s] for its readers precisely the plot details' of a fictional work constitutes copyright infringement.""

    Saying "Joe Blow died." does not reach the "precisely" level.

  7. Re:Proper use of 'allegedly' by whoozwah · · Score: 2

    would just prefer this whole 'zombie craze' would die off.

    But then wouldn't it just come back?

  8. Cliff Notes by JaneTheIgnorantSlut · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I guess Cliff Notes are off the table, too.

  9. this is stupid, that show is stupid by Thud457 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  10. AMC can go fuck themselves. by mark-t · · Score: 2

    Did they sign an NDA??? No? Then they aren't doing anything wrong by publish plot details that they never agreed to keep private in the first place.

    Although giving the matter the further thought, maybe AMC is just trying to use the publicity of this lawsuit to generate more interest in their show.

  11. Colony is the new replacement by future+assassin · · Score: 2

    Walking Dead got boring three seasons in and don't even enjoy watching it anymore. With Colony, The Expanse, Killjoys and many other sci-fi coming back in full force zombie drama is done.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  12. Glenn dies there I said it by future+assassin · · Score: 2

    now gimme my 15 min of fame.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  13. Techdirt's take on the matter by jenningsthecat · · Score: 2

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160613/01084434693/pure-bullshit-amc-threatens-huge-fan-community-with-copyright-claim-over-spoiler-predictions.shtml

    It would be great if the EFF got involved so The Spoiling Dead could take AMC to court. And IMHO this would be worth the EFF's time and money. Somebody needs to keep (re-)drawing the line between legitimate copyright claims, and spurious ownership claims made by corporations that piss on everything in sight like some not-house-broken dog in their efforts to mark it all as their own. Under the current civil law setup, average citizens simply can't afford to defend their own rights against bullies such as AMC.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  14. Matter of Law by CPIMatt · · Score: 2

    Their argument citing that case is pretty weak. In that case, Publisher's International published a book about the TV show Twin Peaks, after the show came out. A very in-depth book citing plots, actors, dialogue, etc. Although Publisher's International didn't have copies of the script, they did copy basically the TV show after it came out. In this case it would be very hard to prove that the website had any such access, especially since the Walking Dead show has not come out yet. They probably haven't even registered their copyright. Plus it is obviously commentary on the show. However these days the one with the deepest pocket wins in court, sadly.

    -Matt

  15. So what if you knew who's gonna die? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  16. Re:You've got to be kidding me by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    Z-nation is better

  17. Inapplicable by spire3661 · · Score: 2

    It is my understanding that this applies to fair use as a limit on how much you can DIRECTLY COPY of a work. Describing the plot is not the same as quoting the plot's most interesting dialog to the point of spoiling it.

    --
    Good-bye