Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

• 

  Brian Clark, 14 Apr 2004 @ 5:51am

  
  

  define derivative works

  Mike, love the site, but you're playing a little loosey-goosey with this one. A derivative work is one that uses parts of a previous work, not one that was inspired by the idea. Ideas aren't copyrightable, which is why one summer you might see two different movies about the earth being saved from asteroids.
  
  Not that Hollywood doesn't have a disturbing habit of eating their own dead in a creative sense, mind you -- that's a lack of creativity and fear of real creative risks. But it's hardly derivative work in the legal definition.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    aNonMooseCowherd, 14 Apr 2004 @ 7:18am

    
    

    Re: define derivative works

    In some cases ideas are protected. Remember Art Buchwald's suit against Paramount for using his ideas in the movie "Coming to America"?

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      Brian Clark, 20 Apr 2004 @ 11:49am

      
      

      Re: define derivative works

      Actually, the Art Buchwald case was different because the claim was that a treatment Buchwald submitted to the studio was plagerized into that movie
      
      
      

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Mikester, 14 Apr 2004 @ 10:39am

  
  

  Interesting

  You bring up an interesting point. The lack of real creativity from Hollywood is appalling. How many movies in a given year are true originial screenplays, i.e. not based on a short story, novel, comic book, TV show/series, sequel, remake of an old movie, etc? I'm guessing the number is in the single digits. Of course, what we see in the theaters is largely drive by what Hollywood deems as 'marketable', but surely that's no excuse for a constant stream of regurgitation.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]