Judge Reminds Documentary Makers You Can't Copyright Facts
from the once-again...-with-feeling dept
In the past, we've discussed the oddity that moviemakers often purchase the rights to true stories before making movies about them. There's really no legal reason for them to do so -- as you can't copyright factual information. Anyone can make a movie based on a true story without purchasing any kinds of rights. Now, there may be some business reasons for doing so. Licensing the story from either those who were involved or who initially reported on it may allow you to have those people more involved in making the movie itself (though, that could just be handled by hiring them to advise, rather than "licensing" the story). Still, it did seem odd that it was so common for true stories to be "sold" this way.Now a judge is reminding people that true stories aren't copyrightable. Rose M. Welch points out a ruling from a lawsuit filed by two filmmakers who had made a documentary called Ashes to Glory: The Tragedy and Triumph of Marshall Football, about the 1970 plane crash that killed the Marshall University football team, and the aftermath where the school tried to rebuild its football program. A few years ago, Warner Bros. made a (non-documentary) movie called We Are Marshall starring Matthew McConaughey about the same story. No one denies that Warner approached the documentary filmmakers about licensing their work -- but no agreement was reached.
The documentary makers then sued Warner for copyright infringement when their movie came out. However, a judge has dismissed the lawsuit, noting that you can't copyright facts, and most of the material in the film could easily have been gleaned from public news stories concerning the events. The judge also pointed out that We Are Marshall was heavily fictionalized and contains plenty that is unrelated to the documentary. As the judge noted: "Even though the two works have the same story as their subject, they are not substantially similar as the phrase is used in copyright jurisprudence."
It will be interesting to see if this leads studios to be less willing to license stories before making movies. This ruling also could mean bad news for the woman who claims to own the rights to the play Jersey Boys, as the situation there is pretty similar. Warner Bros. put out a statement saying how wonderful this decision was, though the company has its own history of overly aggressively trying to enforce its copyrights.
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
Filed Under: copyright, documentary, facts, marshall, movies
Companies: warner bros.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What Can Be Said
Who in their right mind ever thought they could copyright history?
*sigh*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What Can Be Said
Lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What Can Be Said
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just a thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Based On
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What can be copyrighted.
Anyone who thought there could be a buck made by holding that it could be. Oh yeah, lawyers. Right mind? Not demonstrated.
and, @Jazz
I think studios (and newspapers, novelists, columnists, essay writers, editorialists and the writing staff of every freaking comedy show) have the right to portray anybody more or less as they please...unless they are making a movie that also purports to be a news report or sth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the contract makes you stipulate that
the story is yours alone, which means
that anyone who wants to bring a suit
must file it against you, not the studio.
so they're purchasing lawsuit protection,
invariably at a price that's much cheaper
than having to defend against such a suit,
because the proceeds from their product
are outside the sphere that can be claimed.
-bowerbird
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
errr ok so your saying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: errr ok so your saying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Reasons to License
Jazz mentioned the non-copyright reasons of avoiding potential suites for various forms of invasion of privacy (including "casting in false light"), defamation, libel, etc. This is especially true in the case of dramatic works of "true" events. Bowerbird is correct that they are purchasing lawsuit protection.
There's also the benefit of being able to market an "authorized" edition.
Ultimately this is not a copyright issue, unless the subject of the "true" story has previously published a work about the story and another dramatic presentation (movie, TV show) cribs too closely from that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BASED on a true story
They pretty clearly state, BASED on a true story.
They never say that This IS the story and is 100% factual.
Unless perhaps they are making a documentary and that is how they intend it.
But the big studios only make movies based on true stories, and could really change anything in the movie they wanted to.
I will point out the movie Fargo. It says it is based on a true story. However, looking at the special features on the film, the guys who made the film just tossed it in there. It was in no way based on a true story.
So, how much do the words based on a true story mean? They mean absolutely nothing.
They can change anything, and unless they are claiming them to be the precise facts, I think the line "Based on a true story" is lawsuit protection enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]