Paramount Worried It Can't Compete With A Bunch Of Amateurs
from the learning-to-let-go dept
Back at the last Techdirt Greenhouse event, one of the presenting startups was Jumpcut, makers of online tools to edit videos, as well as share clips and results so that others can benefit from it as well (the NY Times just had a nice article discussing Jumpcut and its competitors). The question Jumpcut brought up for discussion is one we talk about often here on Techdirt. Noting the rise of "amateur to amateur" content, where people could create, mix, distribute and promote their own content, the company wanted to know where the traditional content industries were going to fit into the mix. As an example of one possibility, the company showed a contest they ran with Warner Independent Pictures, where they let anyone remix the trailer for the new film A Scanner Darkly, and provided plenty of content for users to experiment with. It was a fascinating experiment, that got a lot of interest. However, what happens when people do this sort of "remix" on their own?Take, for example, this new story about Paramount Pictures, who is suing a young, amateur filmmaker, who found the script to the new Oliver Stone movie, World Trade Center online, and decided to see if he could film his own version (condensed down to twelve minutes) using Yale student actors. The twelve minute version has actually received some good reviews, but Paramount claims that people might somehow confuse an amateur 12 minute video with their version starring Nicholas Cage and Maria Bello -- and backed up with hundreds of millions of dollars (including a $40 million marketing campaign). Considering that the movie industry has been complaining that you can't replicate $200 million films with cheaper production methods, this seems like a very odd position for them to take. However, more importantly, they're falling back on their view that they somehow control every aspect of the product these days, rather than recognizing that there's more to it than the content. Why not embrace these efforts as evidence of fan interest in the film, and use it to generate even more interest? Even if the amateur work isn't good or flattering, just the fact that people would bother to try to recreate it suggests an interest in the film. Encouraging more people to do so gets the idea out there that the original is a film worth seeing. After all, no one spends time making their own versions of films no one cares about.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Being that I have not seen either, I can't say it isn't a derivative. However their premise that a rational person may confuse that 12 minute movie, with a 2 hour movie is at best tenuous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.jumpcut.com/view?id=6A8E194AFC8911DA83C8FEAF976EA1AD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ok, Mike...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ok, Mike...
What was "stolen"? Who is missing anything? What's lost?
How does Paramount lose *anything* in this situation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm so confused
No, that can't be right. Surely this must fall under parody in some manner. If not, where is the balance point? How long can a fan reproduction be before it infringes? Is Titanic in 30 Seconds, as performed by bunnies under or over the threshold?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm so confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, and for the record, there are many medium budget "fan films" that are allowed to slip under the radar of copyright holders because THEY AREN'T MAKING ANY MONEY ON THEIR WORK. The guy who made the Batman Vs. Predator "fanfilm" wasn't sued despite the fact that he used existing characters and situations, existing designs, and even existing music.
Fear makes the weak do funny things, but sometimes those things seriously hurt the marketplace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The guy who made the Batman Vs. Predator "fanfilm" wasn't sued despite the fact that he used existing characters and situations, existing designs, and even existing music.
But Batman: Dead End, while using existing characters and themes was an original work, with an original script and plot.
Profit motive isn't the sole arbiter of whether it's fair use. For it to qualify as parody it has to comment on the original work. To qualify as fair use it has to be evaluated against "...(1) purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is commercially motivated or instead is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) nature of the copyrighted work; (3) amount and substantiality of the portion used in the newly created work in relation to the copyrighted work; and (4) effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. A court when evaluating a fair-use defense takes into consideration each of the four factors as no single factor by itself is sufficient to prove or disprove fair use."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's obvious to me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I like amatuer movies!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And as for someone being scared that moviegoers would get the names confused, get over it. With a proper name like The World Trade Center they have no right to cry about it. Now if it was something specific like, "The Day the Towers Fell." then yes maybe name confusion would be a valid argument.
Films could be made for less than the millions it costs today cuz a big chunk of that money goes to the actor/actresses in the movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
quote
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about the $6 bucks for everyone who, having seen the Cliff's Notes version, decides to skip it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How about the $6 bucks for everyone who, having seen the Cliff's Notes version, decides to skip it?
And this is different from a critic writing a review on a screener how?
If your movie is crap, and nobody wants to see it, its because its crap. Not because somebody warned you.
Your argument is officially the dumbest ever. Nazi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Um. No. Sorry.
First off, how many people are actually going to skip the actual, professional version because of some amateur production of it?
Second, how many more people will then go see the movie, because of the publicity generated by this copied version?
Next, "potential for lost revenue" is a bogus number. It's impossible to calculate. However, if it were a true "loss" then I could sue you for visiting any other website than this one because you chose to visit them instead of me. That's ridiculous of course, but gives you the extreme case of why "potential for lost revenue" is a meaningless number.
So, sorry, nothing was lost here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paramount will make this guy famous and hurt their
With that said, pretty sad how paramount wants to cash in on the tragedy of others. If they were so concerned about rights, they would give every cent to victims of the WTC tragedy. They won't. They will get fat off of this and probably hope for another tragedy so they can make a movie about it for profits. If you ask me, it's sick and they are the criminals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sampling without Compensation is the issue
Do you not think Paramount had to pay the people whose likeness they used in this movie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what if it was the reverse?
Everyone gets the same protection, little guy or big company. However I will concede that the big guy has better lawyers.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what if it was the reverse?
Here's the important question, though. Even if it is copyright infringement, which it most likely is, who is harmed? If it's copyright infringement, but actually helps Paramount, what good does it do to sue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what's sad about all of this...
instead of something more interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The same, only different?
Original script --> "condensed" --> 12 minutes that are derivative.
They didn't shoot twelve pages of the script. They rewrote 120 pages down to 12 pages. You condense that much, it's extremely condensed, it's derivative, and shot on a $0 budget makes it a parody, whether they intended a parody or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paramount sues amateur filmmaker
Good Lord, the very 1st thing an aspiring filmmaker should learn is the fairness doctrine to using someone else's intellectual property for their own purposes.
Sorry, but I gotta go with Paramount on this one.
Woody Volcano Viagra (a legitimate, legally changed name)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wait a minute..
let's get this straight, the end product, that which they created, was created entirely by them.. let's take a parallel:
for arguments sake let's say neiman marcus did have chocolate chip cookies. If you sold the chocolate-chip cookies you made with their copyrighted recipe, that's a violation of copyright? you're selling cookies, not the recipe?!? Even if this student was selling his 12 minute short, all the footage is entirely his, this is illegal???
Maybe using the original movie's name could be illegal, which makes sense (at least in a trade-mark kind of way) .. but if the movie had a different name and original footage, the fact that the script is the same means it's liable via copyright? the audience never sees the script...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You people are morons!
And to say it is parody? You must be completely stupid. Here is the definition of parody. He didn't do this as a comedy or to make fun of the original. NOT A PARODY.
Now get educated and quit sounding like a bunch of left wing whiney cry-babies, for God's sake!
par·o·dy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-d)
n. pl. par·o·dies
A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule. See Synonyms at caricature.
The genre of literature comprising such works.
Something so bad as to be equivalent to intentional mockery; a travesty: The trial was a parody of justice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because the critic is creating an original work (the critique itself) that comments on the orginal work. So in other words, it's completely different. Not even vaguely similiar. Original work versus wholesale copy. Get it?
Your argument is officially the dumbest ever. Nazi.
Yeah, I'm guessing nuance and reading comprehension are going to allude you.
First off, how many people are actually going to skip the actual, professional version because of some amateur production of it?
Second, how many more people will then go see the movie, because of the publicity generated by this copied version?Well, I'm sure his lawyer is going to argue that point. Unfortunately, for your point to be valid he'd need to demonstrate with hard numbers that more business was driven to the movie than was lost by his actions. If, as you say in the latter part of your comment, real revenue projections are impossible, there's no real way to do that, is there? Even then, that still doesn't prove fair use, it would merely take one of the 4 tests off the table.
Next, "potential for lost revenue" is a bogus number. It's impossible to calculate. However, if it were a true "loss" then I could sue you for visiting any other website than this one because you chose to visit them instead of me. That's ridiculous of course, but gives you the extreme case of why "potential for lost revenue" is a meaningless number. Your example doesn't really make sense. You've got no builtin right to have people visit your website over any other. If however I diverted traffic from yours by copying the design and content of your website, then yes, you could sue me for the IP violation, and allege that you lost potential customers/revenue by misappropriating your work. And you'd be right. That's what Paramount is doing.
All of the so called reasoning here is wishful fanboy thinking. You can't simply take someone else's script (copywritten dialog) appropriate it for your own ends and not expect the owner to be pissed. You can argue the wisdom of such tight control of one's property, but end the end it's their property, to treat as they please. And someone shouldn't be able to deprive them of their property just because the mob disagrees with how they chose to use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I guess it's going to elude you, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A parody need not be comical
"Parody, n.
1. a. A literary composition modelled on and imitating another work, esp. a composition in which the characteristic style and themes of a particular author or genre are satirized by being applied to inappropriate or unlikely subjects, or are otherwise exaggerated for comic effect. In later use extended to similar imitations in other artistic fields, as music, painting, film, etc. "
So, humorous intent is not critical. Parody covers satire, and satire can be quite serious, if only for ironic purposes. However, I do not know if humor is part of the legal definition of parody. But then, what is the legal definition of humor?
If a 12-minute low-budget condensed version of their movie is seen as threatening Paramount's big-budget Nicholas Cage movie, then that is ironic and qualifies as satire IMHO.
In any case, how do you argue copyright infringement by a 12-minute script derived from a 2-hour script? The script cannot be exactly the same. Perhaps it is composed entirely of excerpts from the original script. Then that would make the film a commentary on the film in production. Commentary is protected by the first amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2 wrongs make an argument
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They don't even need to change the law.
They could do that right now, without even changing the law. Just grant explicit, written permission to the fans to do so (make a noncommercial net film or something) if they ask for it. This obviously requires a good change in the psychology of the people running studios.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]