Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by EditorDavid on from the famous-fanfic dept.

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?

12 of 71 comments (clear)

  1. Deep Throat (1972) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Which kicked off a brief Golden Age in American cinema.

  2. How about "The Lion King"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    1. Re:How about "The Lion King"? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      aka "Didn't Tezuka do this first?"

  3. Disney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Disney by turbidostato · · Score: 3, Informative

      "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.

    2. Re:Disney by ATMAvatar · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    3. Re:Disney by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      "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.

    4. Re:Disney by turbidostato · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "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'.

  4. Are subtitles available... by Harold+Halloway · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...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...

    1. Re:Are subtitles available... by Robotech_Master · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
    2. Re:Are subtitles available... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  5. Pirates of the Caribbean-Monkey Island-And Back by Cipheron · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.