New 'Lupin III' Commentary Track Celebrates The Glories Of Ignoring Copyrights (terrania.us)

In 2004, film critic Roger Ebert "realized that auteurs weren't the only ones who had things to say about movies, and suggested that experts in other fields or even just fans of the movies could create MP3 commentary tracks to discuss their favorite films, which could then be downloaded and played alongside them." This inspired Slashdot reader #14,247 to produce his own commentary on Hayao Miyazaki's first movie, Lupin III: Castle of Cagliostro -- and 13 years later, to release a new commentary track celebrating the film's 35th anniversary. Robotech_Master writes: Among other things, it offers proof that excessive copyright really harms creativity by restricting the uses people are able to make of prior art -- by showing what can happen when people get away with ignoring copyright and creating anyway. Not only were Lupin III and Cagliostro effectively inspired as "fanfic" of characters and works that had come before, many of those characters and works were effectively fanfic themselves -- and Cagliostro in turn inspired parts of a number of other works that came afterward, including a couple by Disney.
Anyone else have a favorite example of a movie that bends the rules of copyright law?

Comments

Deep Throat (1972)

[Anonymous Coward]

Which kicked off a brief Golden Age in American cinema.

How about "The Lion King"?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://kimbawlion.com/kimbawli...

Re:How about "The Lion King"?

[Stormwatch]

aka Hamlet with big cats.

Re:How about "The Lion King"?

[Chris Mattern]

aka "Didn't Tezuka do this first?"

Re:How about "The Lion King"?

[Robotech_Master]

And, for that matter, Disney recycled the climactic fight scene from Cagliostro into the climax of The Great Mouse Detective. :)

Disney

[Anonymous Coward]

Disney makes it's money from redoing fairy tales. Pinocchio, Peter Pan, Snow White, Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, Sleeping Beauty, The Jungle Book. If the current "forever" copyright regime had been in place when those stories were first written Disney would not have been able to take and make them its own.

Re: Disney

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why they had it enacted afterwards, you see.

Re:Disney

[turbidostato]

"Real estate rights are forever, then why not copyright?"

I will answer from a USA point of view (despite me not being USA citizen myself. The argument can be generalized, but I find the USA example makes for a magnificent example, both because of its clarity and high visibility).

Because the USA Constitution doesn't enact real state rights "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

That means:
1) This should be enacted for as long as it secures the goal it was created for: if it doesn't promote the progress of science and useful arts, then it is unconstitutional.
2) If it goes beyond the constitutional mandate, by doing it by other ways than securing to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries, then it is also unconstitutional.
3) If it secures those rights for anything else than limited times, then it is also unconstitutional.

Of course you don't need to agree with those terms and you could call for an amendment for the constitution but, in the meantime, that's it what it is.

Re:Disney

[ATMAvatar]

Real estate rights are forever, then why not copyright?

For one reason: neither the buildings nor the land they rest upon can be duplicated, let alone for zero cost. Another is that society obtains greater benefit when ideas and works are spread more widely.

Intellectual property law exists solely for the purpose of encouraging individuals to share their works by granting a limited monopoly on them so they can gain monetary benefit from doing so. This is done with the understanding that some non-zero fraction of inventors and artists would refrain from doing so in the absence of this protection. The end goal is to maximize the spread of ideas.

The problem is that people do not all agree as to how long various intellectual property protections should last in order to accomplish this goal.

When it comes to discoveries and inventions, larger proportions of them now require teams rather than individuals and large amounts of resources. The entities now predominantly holding ownership of these properties are functionally immortal, hold large influence over the lawmaking process, and arguably care little for the societal benefit of eventually releasing ideas into the public domain. This is further complicated by the growing realization that intellectual property protections can also serve to substantially hinder the birth and spread of new ideas.

Re:Disney

[Applehu Akbar]

"Real estate rights are forever, then why not copyright?"

Because intellectual property should NOT be like real estate!

I would like to see IP be treated as a personal right of the creator of work - inalienable, like free speech, rather than as a detachable right that can be sold off and then traded independently of the creator. It would mean that all arrangements for commercial use of IP would have to include and be by assent of the creator. If you hired someone for her inventions, you would no longer be able to toss that person aside at implementation and replace her with outsourced minions

But IP rights would exist only for the life of the creator. Your lazy-ass children would have to go out and get real jobs of their own.

Re:Disney

[turbidostato]

"Part (b)'s "limited times" is not necessary to achieve part (a)'s "progress of science and useful arts," "

No, it isn't (while it is arguably). Nevertheless that's the Constitution's wording so, unless you change it, as I already said, that's it what it is.

"Both copyright law and patent laws' "limited times" are designed screw the working class creative people"

Maybe, but not the way you seem to imply. The problem is on the legal definition of "authors and inventors" since, as of now, it extends to whomever they sell their copy-rights.

"It's designed to prevent the poor but brilliant creative people from becoming very rich"

An affirmation without substantiation. How is that the case?

"You still have to pay for cost+profit to buy a simple invention like a paperclip, long after its inventor is dead"

No, you don't. You pay cost+profit to *produce* a paperclip, not for its shape and ingeniousness which are, long ago, freely available. And then, you are confusing patents with copyrights. Patents extend just 20 years from description full stop. It is copyrights which go "for as long as the author lives and then more".

And then again, main problem with current copyright laws is not the copy of an item on itself but that it goes against the "promotion of progress" clause as it limits the ability of others of building on top of what's already available. As it's been already told, if Disney were entered the market under the copyright laws Disney itself promotes, it would have been impossible for it to success as no Cinderella, Whitesnow, Pinoccio... would have been possible -and the arts would have suffered as those films are in fact worthy contributions built on top of others'.

Re:Disney

[ewibble]

Because when I take you someone's real estate they no longer have it, and cannot use it.
Because when you own real estate and are the first person to build a house, with an indoor toilet on it it does not prevent everyone else in the world building a house with an indoor toilet.

Ideas are not finite assets that can be used up like real estate, there use and improvement over time leads immense gains to society even the original creator. Imagine if the first person to come up with fire said right nobody else can use it, or any derivative without my permission. All modern inventions would not exist, we would still be living day to day paying the inventor of fire descendants every time we want to rub two sticks together.

Re:Disney

[zedaroca]

Because copyright is not a real right. It is actually a limitation on someone else's right of speech and of movement.
I cannot move my fingers on a piano in a way that reproduces a song protected by copyright., or talk words written by others, or paint an image that is similar to someone else's picture.
This "protection" is actual physical restraint over people's bodies. It is a limitation over natural rights.
Such violence shouldn't be accepted even for a period of time, people that do not want to be copied should keep their stuff in secret, but the claim is that because society will benefit from the sharing (publishing) of said information, it is reasonable to apply such limitation on everyone for "promoting the progress of science and useful arts".

Re:Disney

[modecx]

Real estate rights aren't unlimited and forever. For one, you have to pay property tax; if you don't, the government puts a lien on your title. If you fail to maintain your property and let weeds and shit accumulate, they will mow it down and put a lien on your title. Do any of the above for too long, they sell the lien and you no longer own your property, and *force you off of it*. If your property becomes a blight to the community, the government can use eminent domain to kick you off, and remunerate you market value, which, conveniently, they determine.

Maybe that's the answer? Make registered copyright holders pay taxes proportional to market value, so that copyright...uh...rights are upheld? If you commercially abandon a copyrighted product, it enters the public domain. If you die and your kin find your copyrighted works to be worth less than the copyright tax, it enters the public domain. Seems fair enough.

Re:Disney

[jandersen]

Real estate rights are forever, then why not copyright?

Are real estate right forever? And should they be? In both cases I don't think so, and anyway, 'indefinitely' isn't exactly the same as 'forever': it is possible that you can own the exclusive rights to use a piece of land indefinitely, under present law, but no nation lasts forever, and your rights will disappear over time. But I don't even think land ownership should be indefinite; there should be some limitations, so that one family can't sit on large tracts of land to the exclusion of everybody else.

But even if we accept that land ownership should be indefinite, it doesn't follow that intellectual property right should be - there are vast differences: you can't make many copies of a piece of land, but you can copy a piece of data at almost no cost at all. You can make money from a piece of real estate, if you invest a large amount of work and/or money on an ongoing basis, whereas you can monetise your intellectual work with relatively modest investment. Real estate, whether it is land or buildings, has very clear boundaries, whereas intellectual property doesn't. And so on.

I think it is very reasonable that a creative person can make a living from his work, if it is of any perceived value, but just like you would expect a farmer to keep working on his land to produce new crops, you would expect the creative person to keep working to produce new things; after a while, the old works become part of common culture and it is reasonable that they also go into the public domain after a while.

Re:Disney

[turbidostato]

"And this is why you should never talk about "Intellectual Rights" or "Intellectual Property". The terms were invented for the very purpose of blurring the distinctions"

That, or to make the distinction even among similar things.

It is not that the physical property is a single entity either: you have use leases, you have nuda proprietas, you have limited partnership, you have ownership by usucapione, you have rights of easement...

But I agree with you in that "intellectual Property/Rights" is a misleading expression for what is in fact "privileges on intellectual production". Just by calling it by what it is, privilege instead of right, how the perception changes.

Are subtitles available...

[Harold Halloway]

...because this summary makes almost no sense without them. Someone makes a commentary track for a film and then makes another 13 years later and that's sticking it to the Copyright Man, is that it? ...mmkay...

Re:Are subtitles available...

[Robotech_Master]

It might make a little more sense distilled into this article, which I wrote for another blog afterward to discuss the matter.

Effectively, the original Maurice Leblanc Arsène Lupin stories borrowed Sherlock Holmes, much to Conan Doyle's annoyance. Subsequently, manga writer Monkey Punch based Lupin III on the Leblanc stories without permission, much to the Leblanc estate's later annoyance. (He was able to get away with it because Japan didn't honor trade copyrights at the time, and the Leblanc estate didn't even find out until years later.) Castle of Cagliostro drew on the Leblanc stories and the Lupin III franchise, and a number of other works, and inspired countless other works that borrowed from it in return.

And it never would have happened if the rights holders had been able to shut Leblanc and Monkey Punch down.

Re:Are subtitles available...

[Chris Mattern]

As a results of the disputes with Leblanc estate, the initial releases of Cagliostro in the US censored the Lupin name. The lead character was renamed "The Wolf" (Lupin is french for "wolf"), for example.

Re:Are subtitles available...

[AmiMoJo]

Lupin the Third: Castle of Cagliostro is an animated film directed by the now famous Hayao Miyazaki. The title character, Lupin III, is supposed to be the descendant of French literary character Arsene Lupin, so there is a kind of fanfic/copyright infringement angle there.

In fact the Arsene Lupin series engaged in some copyright infringement as well, ripping off the character of Sherlock Holmes. Lupin was supposed to be the world's greatest thief, and Holmes was only able to figure out how he did it and not catch him.

Back to the film, the fictional southern European nation of Cagliostro is also based on various other movies and novels. Miyazaki's take on the Lupin character is a little different to the conventional one portrayed by his original creator, a guy going by the name of Monkey Punch, in that he is less lecherous and more of a gentleman thief, so the movie itself is almost fanfic of the original books and TV series.

Many years later, a Japanese Princess had a wedding dress matching the one in the film made for her own ceremony.

The movie is a classic by the way, I highly recommend it. There are two English dubs, the latter one much more faithful but I actually like the original better. The Japanese with subtitles is excellent too. Classics like this would not exist if copyright was strictly enforced - it's clear that the creators of this film were free to draw inspiration from many sources without worry.

Re:Are subtitles available...

[Robotech_Master]

Indeed, as I have cause to mention in the commentary track. :) AnimEigo used the alternate English rendering "Rupan."

(That alternate English rendering makes it a little more understandable why there's an album of romantic Lupin III music called "Isn't it Lupintic". In Japanese, the pronunciation of "Lupintic" is similar enough to "Romantic" to make it work as a pun.)

After a few years, when more of the Arsène Lupin works had entered the public domain, the renaming wasn't seen as necessary and subsequent releases went back to his original name.

Oddly enough ...

[DakotaSmith]

I'm not really here to plug this, but when it crossed my RSS feed, the timing made it such that I thought users might be interested.

(No, I'm serious. I wasn't going to post it. It just happens to be topical.)

I have a podcast called Tales From SYL Ranch

that I'm re-launching under my own domain starting July 4. I had previously hosted on //aNONradio// but when I sort of "found my voice," I decided to go pro.

In this case, "my voice" was a feature I developed called The Old Fan's Commentary.

You see, I'm an old man. And not a fake old man like Mr. Plinkett, but a real old man like Abe Vigoda. I make commentaries not so much about the films but about fandom of the period. On the July 4 edition, there's a Commentary on Space: 1999 .

Again, not particularly trying to plug it. I just happen to be doing it. After Space: 1999 I'm doing Star Wars: The Despecialized Edition. The week after that, The Star Wars Holiday Special. I have a bunch of stuff already in the can.

Just thought I'd mention it.

Re:Oddly enough ...

[Robotech_Master]

Sounds like a pretty cool idea. I do hope you'll check out my own commentary track, too. :)

Re:stop calling us readers/audience

[__aaclcg7560]

Not quite. If your account gets deleted, the username is put back into circulation. If a new account gets created with the same username, it gets a new user id number. A username may have many user ids over the years, but user ids are always unique. It makes sense that a story submitter is referred to by their user id.

Re:stop calling us readers/audience

[Robotech_Master]

I think he was complaining that I was called Slashdot reader #14,247 rather than Slashdot member or participant #14,247.

(And now I find myself wanting to sing, "...I'm Jean Valjean!" :) )

Re:stop calling us readers/audience

[__aaclcg7560]

I think he was complaining that I was called Slashdot reader #14,247 rather than Slashdot member or participant #14,247.

I think "reader" would be the most appropriate and historically correct term. Members or participants would imply that management has a marketing plan to add value to the user experience. I don't see that happening.

Pirates of the Caribbean-Monkey Island-And Back

[Cipheron]

It's a fairly well known story, but The Monkey Island series was itself inspired by a Lucasarts game designer's trip to Disneyland and experience of the "Pirates of the Caribbean" exhibit. The twist here is that a film adaptation of Monkey Island was in development, but the project fell through. The original scriptwriting team then ended up pitching the basic plot/premise as the Pirates of the Caribbean film adaptation. And this included incorporating many, many elements and plot devices that were original to Monkey Island into the Pirates of the Caribbean universe.

Now, Understand, I Say This With Respect

[RobotRunAmok]

But that summary is incomprehensible. In part, I suspect, because user #14,257 *IS* user "Robotech_Master," and the editor seemed to want to obfuscate that fact, which, though not critical, does certainly flavor the whole point of this posting.

Re:Such bullshit

[aevan]

Over 35 by many years here, and have created my own content and watched it 'borrowed' by others. Something something flattery.

The only bullshit is what you're spewing. Most famous art in galleries, most famous musical composers and their compositions, the works of Shakespear and others...existed without the benefit of those copyright laws. Street performers, buskers, coffee shop poetry nights and the like. Which is probably how Hollywood managed to even get its feet off the ground, having a wealth of others ideas to 'borrow' upon. Between that and 'cultural appropriation', you'll have a keystone of our entertainment.

Sites like fanfiction.net, deviant.art, pixiv prove people will create without direct cash incentative. Things like Bandcamp, M3 and Comiket prove people can profit without needs to have armies of lawyers and giant corporation backing in the 'digital age'. Things like Patreon show that the 'original ways' artists can be supported still work. All that copyright seems to show (with regards to art) is that people want Formula Movie Part 27, and games with extending copyrights on stuff that should long since fallen back into the Public Domain they were taken from in the first place.

A Fistful of Dollars

[elvesrus]

Kurosawa was not happy.

Re:A Fistful of Dollars

[turbidostato]

Throne of Blood.

Shakespeare was not happy?

Re:A Fistful of Dollars

[McGregorMortis]

Speaking of Kurosawa, I was going to point out that on some of the Criterion editions of Kurosawa's movies, they have very interesting commentary tracks recorded by film historians.

Kurosawa will not be able to record any commentaries in the future either, since he died in 1998.

Re:Such bullshit

[Boronx]

Fucktards like you hate freedom of speech.

"without copyright there will be no films (or songs, or games, or or or)"

Because no one has ever made anything for free, or found ways to capitalize on unprotected works.

Re:The Opposite

[__aaclcg7560]

If you want to claim extensive copyright hurts creativity, you really should be looking at sequalitis.

The two shining film examples would be Sony and Universal.

Sony made more Spiderman movies by rehashing the origin story — seriously, how many times does Uncle Ben have to die? — to prevent the licensing rights from reverting back to Marvel Studios. The new Spiderman movie is the result of a cross licensing deal between Sony and Marvel that will expire in 2019.

Universal got copyrights for their classic monster movies as the monsters were never described in a real great detail in the public domain books, preventing anyone from making a movie that looks identical to the Universal Monsters and forcing them up with different designs (not necessarily a bad thing). They're remaking all their movies to prevent their copyrights from falling into the public domain. Although Tom Cruise may have killed the budding franchise with the newest Mummy movie.

Re:Such bullshit

[__aaclcg7560]

Which is probably how Hollywood managed to even get its feet off the ground, having a wealth of others ideas to 'borrow' upon.

That was brought up a few weeks ago about how Hollywood set up shop on the West Coast to avoid paying licensing fees to Thomas Edison on the East Coast.

https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10707285&cid=54561405

The Great Détournement

[Sam H]

If there is one movie that happily ignores copyright, it’s La Classe Américaine (1993), a.k.a. The Great Détournement.

Re:The Great Détournement

[ckatko]

Except the wikipedia entry clearly states they obtained a license to the content.

Re:Comment tracks kinda evil

[Robotech_Master]

That's why the comment track is released all by itself. People have to get the original content separately and then play them both at the same time. Same way Rifftrax does its thing. That's perfectly legit under copyright law. Even if it's a derivative work, it falls under the review-and-criticism fair use right.

Re:stop calling us readers/audience

[OrangeTide]

I think of it as my inmate number. Or perhaps patient number, if /. were an asylum.

can't think of a movie, but a book

[Quirkz]

Just finished Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality. It's fanfiction, and is basically Harry Potter in an alternate universe. Funny, heavier on science and logic, also written as if Ender's Game was mixed in. I found it fantastic. Thankfully JK Rowling is apparently content to let it be as long as it's not a commercial endeavor, so that it's allowed to exist.

Re:stop calling us readers/audience

[Opportunist]

Well, at least he's almost #14 1/4.

Uhm...every single Romero-style zombie film?

[uCallHimDrJ0NES]

We all know that Romero and O'Bannon created the modern notion of the zombie in "Night of the Living Dead" and failed to copyright it, which is what makes pretty much 25 percent of all fiction today legally possible. Right? RIGHT????!!!!!