Why Should Hollywood Buy The Wrong Guy's Movie Rights?

from the just-wondering dept

Wed, Aug 23rd 2006 4:53pm — Mike Masnick

While the movie industry is notorious for viciously going after anything that might take away from an existing revenue stream, they seem to have no problem at all paying out all sorts of money for totally unnecessary things. And, we're not just talking about lavish perks for Hollywood stars or overspending on special effects. A few months ago, we wondered why the movie industry paid newspapers for the rights to stories for the sake of making a movie about the story. Newspaper don't "own" the stories they cover. They own the copyright to their specific writeup, but the actual news is factual, and you can't copyright facts. There's no good reason to pay for the story. Yet, now a movie producer has signed a deal with Guy Goma for the right to his story for a movie. Guy Goma, you may recall, was the accidental talking head on the BBC a few months ago. Visiting the BBC offices for an IT job interview, there was some confusion and he was put on the air as the producer of a show believed he was Guy Kewney, well-known tech writer and commentator. Now, if there were some special knowledge Goma had that would be useful in making the movie that might make sense. But, he was just some guy who in a bit of confusion was dumped on stage and made some funny faces as he realized the situation. To make matters even more ridiculous, this isn't even a movie about Guy Goma's experience -- but a fictional story that will just take some element of the story. In other words, it will probably be a movie about a guy who accidentally ends up on the air, but then goes on to become a TV star or something equally Hollywoodish in its ending. It's certainly very nice of the industry to pay Goma for the rights to a story that has some similarities to what happened to him -- but it's still not clear why they would do so. In the meantime, if I were Guy Kewney (the guy who was supposed to be on the show), I might be asking where my cut is of the movie deal.

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

10 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

hoeppner, 23 Aug 2006 @ 6:41pm

setting precedence perhaps?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2006 @ 7:09pm

Viscously going after anything
I guess that means the movie industry oozes glutinously after its prey. I like it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 23 Aug 2006 @ 7:14pm
  
  Re: Viscously going after anything
  Heh. Good point. Spell check mistake. :) Fixed now... thanks.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
duh, 23 Aug 2006 @ 7:45pm

they buy the story on the cheap to prevent pricey lawsuits later
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
socrates3001, 23 Aug 2006 @ 9:49pm

I do not know why Hollywood would pay someone for that idea either. They did a similar plot starring Dolly Parton years ago. As a fictional element, there is already a story line to steal from. There is also the Hollywood favorite of reusing old stories that have become public domain, like Shakespeare. I am sure there is something in the public domain they could have used. Don't Hollywood people peruse project Gutenberg for story ideas?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
johnparadox, 24 Aug 2006 @ 12:15am

Old movies
Sounds a lot like BEING THERE.

J/P=?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BlueBearr, 24 Aug 2006 @ 4:29am

One reason
Pre-emptive avoidance of possible future lawsuits. Even if they paid the wrong guy, they can claim no malicious intent because, look, they tried to pay *someone*.

IANAL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 24 Aug 2006 @ 8:37am
  
  Re: One reason
  It's not just avoidance. It's often accompanied by a contract saying "You can't sue us for profits of this movie because you took this money from us already." They'd rather pay a bit of money now before they even get the idea on film rather than pay a LOT of money later when the screwed up courts system sides with someone who was "slighted" by their story being told without permission.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Philip, 24 Aug 2006 @ 3:08pm
  
  Re: One reason
  I was about to say the exact same thing. It's purely to protect their butts in case Guy tries to sue them for "using his likeness without permission." And lord knows there's been plenty of them lawsuits.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2006 @ 8:36am

Or maybe they pay him so they can capitalize on his "fame"?

Think they paid Frank Abagnale for Catch Me If You Can? They could have just made up something, but the fact that is was based on a true story made it all the more compelling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]