How Copyright Infringement Turned Vampires Into Big Business
from the damn-helpful-thieving-'creatives' dept
If you've spent any time in the comment threads here at Techdirt, you've probably run into someone decrying derivative works as uncreative and useless, arguing that art should be created in a vacuum, preferably a vacuum composed of extensive copyright protection. The impression is given that anyone who builds off another's works is some sort of leech who could never create anything of value.However, it has been shown over and over again that this simply isn't the truth. Jonathan Bailey of the Plagarism Today blog has written up a fascinating piece on the early copyright battle between Bram Stoker's estate and Albin Grau, the producer of the 1922 film "Nosferatu."
Film producer Albin Grau originally got the idea to shoot a vampire movie in 1916. Serving in Serbia during WWI, Grau was inspired to make a film about vampires after speaking with local farmers about the lore.As
Grau, however, hit a major snag. He had wanted to do a expressionistic retelling of the story of Dracula but the estate of Bram Stoker, spearheaded by his widow, Florence Stoker, would not sell him the rights. Though the book was already in the public domain in the U.S. due to an error in copyright notice (similar to the one that caused Night of the Living Dead to lapse 45 years later), in Grau's native Germany, which was already a signatory to the Berne Convention (The U.S. would not sign until 1988), the work would not lapse until 1962, fifty years after Bram Stoker's death.
Instead of giving up, Grau got (wait for it...) creative:
Undaunted, Grau pressed forward with the film and it started production in 1921. However, several changes were made in the movie in a bid to duck a copyright lawsuit. The name of the movie was changed to Nosferatu, the main character's name was changed to Count Orlok and the plot itself received many tweaks and modifications.Unfortunately, these changes weren't enough and Stoker's estate filed suit. Since early prints still contained the name "Dracula," the court ordered that all prints of the film be destroyed. Grau was forced to file for bankruptcy and his film studio was shuttered. "Nosferatu" would have been nothing more than a tiny footnote in film and copyright history, but one copy had already made its way to the U.S., where Stoker's work was public domain.
The film slowly began to gather an audience in the U.S. and, by the 1960s, had earned a place as a horror classic. By then, Dracula was in the public domain worldwide and Nosferatu could be shown freely (though the film itself was protected by copyright in many locations, once again though, not the U.S.).
More importantly though, Nosferatu is the first vampire film that is known to have survived into the modern age. As such, it set many of the templates and rules for the films that would follow, including changing some of vampire lore forever.
The biggest change was the ending of the movie. In Nosferatu, Count Orlok is burned up by the sunlight. However, in Bram Stoker's version, sunlight was harmless to vampires, it just weakened them slightly.And here we arrive at the crux of the continued argument against derivative works. Statements are made to the effect that "x should have licensed y" or "make original art only," but these detractors overlook the positive impact that derivative works can have. Like, say, increasing interest in a certain subject:
Another difference is that a bite from Orlok does not create a new vampire. Rather, Orlok merely kills his victims. This theme too would be adopted by later films, which focused less on the "curse" element of vampirism and often gave vampires a choice as to whether or not a victim would live as a vampire or perish (IE: Interview with a Vampire).
Vampire lore would have been very different without Nosferatu. However, the biggest change might be that there would have been almost no vampire movies at all... After all, without Nosferatu proving the interest and potential profit from vampire movies, it's debatable whether Universal and/or Hammer Films would have taken up the Dracula name.
In the end, though it's the later Draculas that would become better known, it's likely none of them would have ever done so if it hadn't been for this copyright infringing film that managed to stay alive with a stake through its heart.I can't argue with that, although I bet some of the commenters can. But before you broadbrush
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: culture, dracula, infringement, nosferatu, vampires
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Mistakes?" You mean the misspelling? Or did you find some factual errors you wished to discuss? You seem to be indicating that there's more than one error (as opposed to one error repeating).
To answer your question (in the third person): Tim isn't correcting there mistakes because he's at work. Now that he is no longer at work, he will correct the misspelling.
As for your irony, if take another read of the post, you'll find that I spelled his last name correctly in the second paragraph. For whatever reason (distraction via pets/children/pets & children, lack of sleep, good old fashioned fuck up), I decided to swap a b for a d.
Fortunately for me, you and your AC compatriot were able to get here immediately and point that out. Repeatedly. I certainly would have corrected it sooner, but I don't have the kind of job where I can dick around on the internet all day. (Not that I'm disparaging that. I have had those jobs from time to time and I really enjoyed them.)
I see the OP has been flagged by the community. I'm sorry that happened as it pains me to see a flawless individual such as AC being shut down by others with presumably less-than-perfect lives.
Now, if I'm reading the snowflakes right, both you and the OP has absolutely fuck-all else to contribute to this thread. I assume you've moved on to the Youtube comments where misspellings are nearly as common as the "infringing" videos they're attached to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The other, funnier Tim is Dark Helmet. (Sorry, CLT)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm surprisingly OK with this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In the real world, which wins yet again despite your attempts, the article was fixed as soon as the author was notified and available. He even kept the original mistake visible rather than pretend it didn't happen.
Another fail for knowledge, honesty and logic in your comments, and win for "AC is an idiot and a gigantic douchebag".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"In the end, though it's the later Draculas that would become better known, it's likely none of them would have ever done so if it hadn't been for this copyright infringing film that managed to stay alive with a stake through its heart."
He suggests that nobody else would have noticed the work of Bram Stoker existed? That would sort of be ignoring the 1924 stage play, which was adapted to become the 1931 film Dracula, starring Bela Lagosi.
Trying to pin the popularity of Dracula films on a little known movie, and ignoring the popular stage plays and classical movie of the same name is just revisionist history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's LUgosi, son, not "LAgosi".
Would the play have been produced if not for the controversy behind Nosferatu the year before?
Not likely.
Dracula rode the coattails (or cape tails) of Nosferatu, which garnered positive reviews from almost all film critics at the time.
In addition, it's unlikely Stoker's widow would have been as incensed as she was if the movie had been a box office flop!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nobody is discounting the work of Stoker here. The point is that the derivative is important as well and stifling that work is silly....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
ITA. It's also worth pointing out that Stoker's Dracula 'borrowed' (or should I say 'freetarded'? Is that a word yet?) from Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu's short story Carmilla. Le Fanu's work was first published in 1872, and Stoker's in 1897, 25 years later.
Le Fanu also built on earlier vampire lore, but was the first to take it out of the 'monster' category and build the dark subculture more commonly associated with vampire lore. He was also developed the romance and seduction that is a common trait to more modern vampire stories, including Stoker's.
To reiterate DH, this is not to discount Bram Stoker's work - his brought in some original elements of his own, and was certainly more widely circulated than Le Fanu's. But he definitely built on prior art, rather than creating it "out of a vacuum", as it were.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, if you read the article, he makes specific mention of how certain aspects of vampire lore were invented for Nosferatu that weren't present in the original book. Fatal reaction to sunlight, for example.
Tell you what, take a quick tally. Tell me how many vampire movies in the last century have used Stoker/Lugosi's death by staking, and how many used Nosferatu's sunlight death in their climaxes. I suspect Murnau's film wins hands down.
"Trying to pin the popularity of Dracula films on a little known movie,"
You're an incredibly ignorant person if you think that Nosferatu is "little known".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yeah, I didn't even respond to that little bit of retardation. Calling Nosferatu "little known" is like calling the Rolling Stones a garage band....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's not fight.
Rolling Stones was a garage band at one point, and Nosferatu was little known at one point...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's not fight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's not fight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's not fight.
He was training Charlie Sheen in the art of bi-WINNING.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's not fight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's not fight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That is the definition of "little known".
What "lore" has been pulled from this movie and applied over time is much more likely attributable to film students and micro-niche fans seeing the film and figuring they can make off with the ideas without risk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Kinda like saying that Buster Keaton or Fatty Arbuckle are 'little known'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No. No it isn't. The definition of "little known" in a global economy is not what 100 people outside my front door recognize. I mean....did you really just fucking type that out, look it over, and STILL decide to hit the submit button? What the hell, man? It's probably best, if you wish to make a point in an argument, not to say something so fundementally stupid that everyone points and laughs at you like a kid wearing his underwear on the outside of his jeans....
"What "lore" has been pulled from this movie and applied over time is much more likely attributable to film students and micro-niche fans seeing the film and figuring they can make off with the ideas without risk."
Uh, no. It's attributable to the person who developed the idea originally, which was in Nosferatu. Unless you're suggesting that the vampire shows on HBO and the CW were created by little "film students and micro-niche fans" as opposed to big studio producers? Or Supernatural, who also incorporated Nosferatu lore into their show?
Seriously, you sound really, hopelessly stupid on this one. I previously thought nothing could be dumber than just simply yelling "Pirate Mike" and "Freetard" and "All you raporists are destroying X industry".
Thanks for proving me wrong....I guess....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
" It's attributable to the person who developed the idea originally, which was in Nosferatu. Unless you're suggesting that the vampire shows on HBO and the CW were created by little "film students and micro-niche fans" as opposed to big studio producers? "
I suspect this is why many who are here support "remix" music, because they can't manage to think very originally. Have you considered that the people who created the HBO and CW shows were in face once film students? Could they also be micro-niche fans?
Moreover, could they be fans of movies and TV shows that were influenced by other shows before them, other movies, other stage plays, and such that were conceived by people who were once film students?
Your attitude is as if the period from 1924 to 1995 never existed. You don't think that the HBO shows might be using ideas from books and movies from, say, the 50s or 60s? Heck, they could have been influenced by George Hamilton for all you know.
Please try to come up with arguments that actually mean something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, dolt, the point is that all of that time included works that continued to build on both what Stoker and Nosferatu BOTH DID. And yes, there were other influences as well. And the vampire culture is BETTER FOR IT. Thank you for making my point for me. More culture through derivative works breeds more culture. Rinse and repeat.
Blocking derivatives means less growth of culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Neither the original novel nor the play, nor Tod Browning's version nor the Spanish language version shot at the same time contained the death by sunlight.
The next "official" adaptation of the novel was in 1958 by Hammer. Here, Christopher Lee memorably disintegrates when hit by sunlight.
Now, it could be that they came up with this independently. It may be that they got the idea from some other work independent of Nosferatu. Certainly I don't have time to research all the books, comic books, etc. that may have been produced in the time (many of them possibly influenced by Nosferatu themselves of course).
Or, they could simply have been influenced, directly or indirectly, by Nosferatu. Director Terence Fisher would have been in his early 20s when that film came out, so may well have seen it when it first came out. there's a long history of genre directors being influence by the German impressionist style of the time.
So, barring some direct influence I've missed, what's more likely? That Fisher or screenwriter Jimmy Sangster came up with a climax that just happened to resemble that of a film that's still considered one of the best adaptations of the novel?
There's plenty of answers and arguments either way, but we can't possibly know for sure. Occam's Razor suggests that the fact that whatever Nosferatu's current fame among the general population, it was enough to have influenced one of the other most famous works based on the novel with something otherwise not present.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't have to look that hard. The Bela Lugosi movie was directly influenced by Nosferatu, and in fact lifted entire scenes from the movie (which were neither in Stoker's book nor the play):
The screenwriters carefully studied the silent, unauthorized version, Nosferatu for inspiration. One bit of business lifted directly from a nearly identical scene in Nosferatu that does not appear in Stoker's novel was the early scene at the Count's castle when Renfield accidentally pricks his finger on a paper clip and it starts to bleed, and Dracula creeps toward him with glee, only to be repelled when the crucifix falls in front of the bleeding finger.
- Dracula (1931 Film) (Wikipedia)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So your argument is current vampire media is not inspired by Nosferatu so much as work that was inspired by Nosferatu? Vampires today are more like Nosferatu than Dracula. That is factual. The cultural mythos comes from the derivative, suck it up and deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We addressed every point, some of which were already answered in the article you're responding to.
"You don't think that the HBO shows might be using ideas from books and movies from, say, the 50s or 60s?"
Maybe they would. However, without Murnau's version having so famously used the death-by-sunlight sequence, would any of those have had the same themes to crib from, however indirectly? perhaps the makers of those shows think that they're cribbing from The Lost Boys, but that film may have been cribbing from Hammer's Dracula, which borrow the point from Nosferatu.
90+ years is a hell of a lot of lineage, and the lines can be murky, but vampire history would have been very different without Murnau's film.
"Please try to come up with arguments that actually mean something."
Yet again, you first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Techdirt is the place that claims over and over again "independent invention" and pushes the idea that more than one person can have the same idea. Yet here, Tim is effectively trying to push a history re-write that suggests that NOBODY ELSE could have come up with any of these variations on Dracula or the "blood sucker" myth.
So which one are you going with? Mike's independent creation, or Tim's "one source for everything" history re-write?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(snicker....)
"Techdirt is the place that claims over and over again "independent invention" and pushes the idea that more than one person can have the same idea."
Because that's true. It's also a place that pushes the idea that culture begets culture. What's your point?
"Yet here, Tim is effectively trying to push a history re-write that suggests that NOBODY ELSE could have come up with any of these variations on Dracula or the "blood sucker" myth."
Ah, so you're suggesting that someone else DID come up with it independently? That it wasn't an influence of culture, a concept promoted by Techdirt? Where are you getting this from? Do you have even a SHRED of evidentiary indication that this was done independently? An example perhaps? No?
"So which one are you going with? Mike's independent creation, or Tim's "one source for everything" history re-write?"
To pretend that those two things are mutually exclusive is to have an absence of nuance, a character flaw in you that surprises me not. Things can be independently created. Things can also be derived from influence. Seriously, what is your point here, other than proving to everyone how mind-numbingly simple you are?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, the reason the 1st one can happen with any frequency is because both/all creators are influenced by the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can start by keeping your insults to yourself. I haven't called you a wanker, so why attack me?
Second, the two methods are exclusive of each other. Either it's all influence based, or it's all "independent". Any mix of the two would kill the indepenent concept, because there would clearly be influence. If you think the independent is the way to go, it cannot happen honestly if there is influence.
Here's the idea: Is Nosferatu truly independent, or is it just a variation on Dracula, influenced by the original work? Clearly they used Dracula in the earlier takes, so it isn't an independent thing, it's "influenced from" and almost a "copy plus some things" of Dracula.
So now, claiming that Nosferatu is somehow responsible for the Vampire thing and Dracula is not is misleading, because there was no independent invention here. Nosferatu is at best a branch of Dracula, and one that grew pretty darn close to the trunk.
It is on par with pointing at the latest Snoop Dogg missive and claiming it to the "start of rap music". It's just not that. It's just another variation on a theme that goes back 30 years.
So, independent invention, or influenced based replication and extention - pick which one is right, and then explain why the other guy gets it all wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ok... Then how do you explain this?
Here's the idea: Is Nosferatu truly independent, or is it just a variation on Dracula, influenced by the original work? Clearly they used Dracula in the earlier takes, so it isn't an independent thing, it's "influenced from" and almost a "copy plus some things" of Dracula.
Culture works by taking something from another time, figuring out what works and doesn't work, then making it your own. This concept is not new at all. It's been in movies such as Finding Forrester as well as folktales such as those of aquamen, werewolves, vampires, zombies, swamp things, or even Steamboat Willie... Er, Mickey Mouse. The point is, you still can't create from a vacuum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's how independent invention & influence can exist in the same world:
You see a commercial that has, say a kid pretending to darth vader be startled by his dad activating the lights with his remote.
I see the same commercial.
Then, for the sake of this argument, we're both thrown in solitary confinement at the same time both our studios have two different producers who want us to write a script each for two different movies, both of which involve a little kid playing make believe, only to be granted the powers he was pretending to have, but otherwise completely diverge.
Now, what is the likelihood, I wonder, that both of us will write almost the same scene about the kid discovering his powers? I'd rank it pretty highly; maybe 10%, 20%, maybe even 30-35% if the commercial was the last thing both of us watched before we were thrown in solitary.
Can you agree, at least, that we could possibly write the same scene?
Now, assuming we could, we were both influenced by that Mini Vader commercial, right? Were we influenced by each other at all? No, we were in solitary.
TL;DR: To have a world with both is not only perfectly consistent, but the only world in which we would see independent invention happen with any frequency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who claimed otherwise? Where did anyone say Nosferatu was entirely original? What the Hell are you on about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm attacking you because when I see someone acting like a disingenous fuckhead I'm compelled to label them as such. Debate is one thing. Just making up false terms in the argument is another and it pisses me off to think that some unsuspecting person would read what you're writing and recognize it as anything other than the sanctimonious thought-poop that it is.
"Second, the two methods are exclusive of each other."
Jesus Christ, no they're not. If you are some how forced to see everything at the macro level, perhaps you could convince yourself of that, but when you actually look into details, such an assertion just becomes assanine.
"Either it's all influence based, or it's all "independent". Any mix of the two would kill the indepenent concept, because there would clearly be influence."
Are you pretending that anyone said Nosferatu WASN'T influenced by Dracula? Because no one said that. YOU'RE the one that brought up independent innovation as some kind of a pretend argument that modern dracula lore has nothing to do with Nosferatu. That's the disengenious part. Particularly since you're now trying to turn this into an all or nothing argument on whether independent innovation exists. In other words, your an obfuscating cretin who can't mount an actual competitive argument for whatever the fuck point you're trying to prove here, which is equally obfuscated because I've yet to read a single thing you've written that has an ounce of actual substance to it. Seriously, did your parents get a receipt with you? Because they should get their money back....
"Here's the idea: Is Nosferatu truly independent, or is it just a variation on Dracula, influenced by the original work? Clearly they used Dracula in the earlier takes, so it isn't an independent thing, it's "influenced from" and almost a "copy plus some things" of Dracula."
Sigh. Retarded. It's clearly a dirivative work, based on Dracula in part, which was based on the legend of a Romanian lord, if memory serves. That's crucial to the point EVERYONE HERE IS FUCKING TRYING TO MAKE, which is dirivative works can be valuable to culture, as exemplified by the way Nosferatu influenced today's vampire lore. NO ONE IS ARGUING THIS! That you then go on to state that it's dracula plus some other stuff only proves that you're a hairy-palmed liar, or you're not familiar with Nosferatu, or both.
"So now, claiming that Nosferatu is somehow responsible for the Vampire thing and Dracula is not is misleading, because there was no independent invention here."
I like this sentence best, because you've packed so much wrong into it. First, no one is claiming Nosferatu is "responsible for this vampire thing and Dracula is not", so that's strike one. We're saying have influenced current vampire culture. Your false dichotomy is a swing and a miss and attributing it to us when YOU'RE the only one making judgements about who is or is not doing the influencing is strike two. Finally, oh Adam Dunn of arguments, you then draw some wild conclusion that if there's no independent innovation that somehow negates ability to influence future works, which may just be the dumbest thing I've ever seen typed out in words. Strike three. Go back to the bench scratch your nuts or something.
"It is on par with pointing at the latest Snoop Dogg missive and claiming it to the "start of rap music". It's just not that. It's just another variation on a theme that goes back 30 years."
I have even less of an idea of what the fuck this means than the rest of your nonsense, which is REALLY saying something....
"So, independent invention, or influenced based replication and extention - pick which one is right, and then explain why the other guy gets it all wrong."
No, because you're a cock sandwich and I don't argue using your false and wholly made up rules. I actually understand nuance and the ability for things to be different in different situations. Is there a microwave near you? Can you fit your head in it? Is there an on button?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am not impressed that you know naughty words. Do you think it is impressive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If your brain stops because someone somewhere said a "poopy word", get over it and state an actual case.
Otherwise go engage someone without the ability to think. I've got no time for your bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I learned long ago that any block of text that starts out with a variation of "hey asshole!" usually gets ignored by the recipient. I got to "disingenous fuckhead" and figured you weren't going to be serious, and gave up even trying to real the rest of your angry post.
You may or may not have said useful things. But they are lost in your angry bluster and foul language.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So... insulting you is tantamount to logging in anonymously and attacking the owner of the site (like you do) in an attempt to mock the trolls? A strange deduction.
"It seems to be about your seemingly childish level."
Hey stick around. If it's not you, then another of your AC brethren usually loses his shit and start swearing at people some time at the weekend. At least there's a point within DH's profanity, and it's somewhat deserved.
I mean, seriously, the article is about how "copyright infringement" led to a lasting legacy that's still influencing profit-making ventures 90 years later. Instead of admitting that, you seem to spending the entire thread arguing that because you're ignorant of film history, it didn't happen... Why would profanity not be deserved by such ignorance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So now, claiming that Nosferatu is somehow responsible for the Vampire thing and Dracula is not is misleading, because there was no independent invention here. Nosferatu is at best a branch of Dracula, and one that grew pretty darn close to the trunk.
Your first paragraph is right. Your second paragraph is a misreading of the post. Nosferatu was responsible for a resurgence of interest in Stoker's original, turning Dracula into a "hot property" again, if you will. Dracula returns to popularity. Stage plays and movies get made, etc.
I'm not saying that Nosferatu is responsible for the "Vampire thing" and Dracula isn't. Dracula likely has more to do with the "vampire thing" (as it is today) than Nosferatu does. The point being made is that Nosferatu's popularity brought Stoker's book back into the public eye.
As I see it, your argument is increasingly circular. In one comment, you want "independent" to mean that some other filmmaker could have thought of the "Dracula burns in sunlight" idea without being aware of Nosferatu's imagery. In this comment, you want "independent" to mean that Grau thought of Nosferatu all by himself while being completely unaware of Stoker's book.
You can't have it both ways. You want to have it both ways because it squares with your opinion on derivative works. You want Nosferatu to be a ripoff of Dracula with no worthwhile ideas. You want everything that appears to have been taken from Nosferatu to be an "independent" idea. You want to have it both ways for yourself and refuse to accept the idea that it can work both ways coming from the other direction.
It's not "either/or" and you know it. You're just hitting "reset" on the argument every time you hit a dead end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The whole "dying in the sun" concept is just like that. Would there even be such a thing without Dracula first existing? It isn't any great independent invention, it's a derivative of the original work.
What it shows is that, even back in the day, there was no real independent invention at work here, rather that Nosferatu is just Dracula is drag, as it were, and that whatever influence it had on the vampire gendre is directly as a result of it's straight lift from the Dracula story it was based on to start with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...and Dracula would not have existed but for the various Eastern European myths he appropriated, and possibly The Vampyre, written by John William Polidori.
"Would there even be such a thing without Dracula first existing?"
No, you bleeding moron, and nobody other than you is even suggesting such a thing. Nosferatu is clearly an adaptation of Dracula, for which reason it was nearly destroyed. It did, however, contain a number of completely original elements, one of which was the death by sunlight. Without that film, a large number of movies (and books, and comics, and TV shows) would be very different, if they existed at all.
Is this really so difficult to understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If somebody had claimed this, you might have a point. Sadly...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're going to have to point me in the direction of where I made that claim or insinuated anything like that. The point I made was that art isn't created in a vacuum and that derivative works can yield positive results. Grau had to make some changes to get around Stoker's estate and his resulting film had enough of an impact that some of his ideas became part of the overall vampire mythology.
I never suggest that his ideas were exclusive or that no one else could have come up with them independently. And I'm truly baffled by your "history re-write" assertion. Explain that. Tell us what really happened, then. Try to include other sources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, first of all I don't know where Mike comes into this since he didn't write the article nor has taken part in the conversation!
Either way, you're a fool if you think this is a binary choice. The nature of art is that you take influences from everything around you. As has already been mentioned, those who came after Nosferatu will have taken influences from that film, Universal's film AND the original novel. However, Nosferatu did various unique things that have been directly referenced over the years.
Therefore, while vampire movies would have existed, their very nature would have been very, very different if Nosferatu had never been made. Probably for the poorer. That's the point. Yes, people COULD have come up with these variations independently. But they didn't. And the film that did only exists because of "piracy".
Next up for discussion: did Stoker owe Romanians royalties for the local myths he repackaged as the basis for his novel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is pretty much the opposite of what Techdirt claims.
The "independent invention" stuff is patent law, and it means - specifically - that two people can come up with the same solution to the same problem, without ever hearing of each other at all. That is not because people are "independent," so much as that some solutions are obvious.
It would be akin to Stoker's widow claiming that Bram came up with the idea of "people drinking blood." That idea has been expressed (and, in some cultures, practiced) for centuries before Bram was ever born.
And a complete examination of vampire lore reveals how little Bram Stoker actually contributed. He got the idea of vampires from Emily Gerard. She, in turn, got her ideas from Transylvanian peasant folklore. Stoker's vampire was named after, and based upon, the historical figure of Vlad the Implaer (a.k.a. Vlad Dracula).
Nosferatu was inspired in part by Stoker, but equally by those same Eastern European peasants that Stoker had "stolen" from. (The name Nosferatu, for example, was common in vampire lore, but is absent from Stoker's novel.) But Murnau personally added many things that were not in either (in fact, Nosferatu's appearance may have been inspired by then-popular German antisemitic cartoons in Der Sturmer). Both films heavily influenced the 1932 film Dracula. Many of the characteristics from the 1932 film (e.g. Dracula's accent) were not in any other version, and are just as much a part of vampire folklore as anything that came before it.
Future versions of vampire lore - from Anne Rice novels, to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, to Twilight - took, loosely, from all of those sources, yet added slight twists that were unique to the genre (but were, in turn, taken from other sources outside the genre).
This is the way culture works. None of it is entirely "independent," in that it all is inspired by the culture that came before it.
And copyright locks all of that culture behind a paywall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, that's the definition of "AC lives in a town full of ignorant rednecks and assumes everyone else does as well".
besides, what does whether or not the average person has heard of it have to do with its historical legacy? I could possibly also ask who's heard of Homer's The Ilyad and get a similar response. That doesn't diminish the amount of historical influence it's had.
"What "lore" has been pulled from this movie and applied over time is much more likely attributable to film students and micro-niche fans seeing the film and figuring they can make off with the ideas without risk."
You assume that if you want, you're free to do so. It makes you look amazingly ignorant both of history and the subject at hand, but you're free to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hammer Films' Dracula series starring Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing (and used as many elements from Nosferatu and Stoker's novel) was done by film students and micro-niche fans?
Really?
They must've been in film school a helluva long time, since most of the writers and directors of that series had a number of films to their credits before doing the Dracula series!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Plagiarism Today (PT) is a site targeted at Webmasters and copyright holders regarding the issue of plagiarism online. Though it deals with many legal issues, in particular the DMCA and copyright law, it is not a legal blog and is, instead, a blog regarding a societal ill the effects may never be fully understood or comprehended.
The goals of this site are as follow:
To increase awareness, both among copyright holders and the media, regarding the prevalence of plagiarism on the Web,
To inform copyright holders of their rights on line and encourage them to protect those rights in a responsible manner,
To aid Webmasters and others who wish to reuse other works in doing so without fear of being dubbed a plagiarist,
To create a community where copyright holders can work together and support one another in dealing with this issue,
To give tools to copyright holders that enable them to more efficiently and more easily protect their rights,
To reduce the overall rate of plagiarism by shining a very bright light on what previously has been the Web�s very dark secret,
To bring about legal reforms that benefit all copyright holders, not just those with deep pockets, and create a fair balance between the rights of ownership for the copyright holder and society�s need to have a free and open culture.
You're totally right, his intention is very very clear. You're just not getting his intention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And this is why we need a time machine to kill Stoker and Grau...
Won't anyone think of the children?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A classic example
By circumventing the law and ignoring copyright restrictions on his ambition, Grau allowed F.W. Murnau to create one of the enduring classics of cinema. Its influence is everywhere, from the look being borrowed for Salem's Lot's head vampire to the Werner Herzog remake to the excellent, Oscar-nominated Shadow Of The Vampire (a fictionalised dramatisation of the making of the film). Even Tim Burton used the name of the actor Max Shreck for a character in Batman Begins as a tribute. You want a long list? Look at the number of films its reference in on the IMDB connections page.
It's an incredible film, brilliantly shot and containing innovations and language used to this day. Yet, had the copyright maximalists been allowed to destroy or even prevent this work on behalf of a man already a decade in his grave, we may never have seen this. We would all be poorer for it, possibly including Stoker's estate (who knows how many copies of Dracula were sold on the back of this and the other movies it inspired?).
This is one reason why I'm opposed to the IP maximalists here. Who knows what we're missing out on because they want corporations to collect the pensions of past successes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A classic example
Burton did "Batman RETURNS" with Christopher Walken as Max Shreck, not "Batman BEGINS".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A classic example
Damn multitasking :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great moments in uncreative derivative works
James Joyce: Ulysses
Josquin des Prez: Missa Malheur me bat, Missa Mater Patris, and Missa Fortuna desperata
Thomas Malory: Le Morte d'Arthur
William Shakespeare: Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, Coriolanus, Macbeth, King Lear, Othello, Antony and Cleopatra, Cymbeline, All's Well That Ends Well, As You Like It, The Comedy of Errors, Measure for Measure, Twelfth Night, Two Gentlemen of Verona, The Winter's Tale, King John, Richard II, Henry Iv, Henry V, Henry VI, Henry VIII
Johannes Brahms: Variations on a Theme from Haydn
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: Concertos opus 297
Rachmaninoff: Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini
Dmitri Shostakovich: Symphony 15
Franz Schubert: C Minor Sonata, A Major Sonata and B flat Sonata
I'm bored at this point. Someone else pick it up from here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Great moments in uncreative derivative works
I'll just mention Forbidden Planet and Theatre Of Blood.
As for other works, I'd hate to think how many movies, plays and other things were directly or indirectly inspired by just 5 books:
Mary Shelley - Frankenstein
Gaston Leroux - The Phantom of The Opera
Arthur Conan Doyle - The Adventures Of Sherlock Holmes
Robert Louis Stevenson - The Strange Case Of Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde
Aleandre Dumas - The Three Musketeers
Remember, according to the trolls, every work based even tangentially on these books without paying a fee should not exist because they were made by "freetards"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Great moments in uncreative derivative works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Great moments in uncreative derivative works
Anyway, I'm thinking more inspired by than directly adapted in that case of that story. You can trace a lot of themes and story arcs back to that, even if they're not direct adaptations. But, I'll happily substitute it for the Grimm's works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Great moments in uncreative derivative works
There have definitely been many, many movies based on the book, and it's kinda giggle-worthy that any of us think any one particular movie is *the* Three Musketeers when in fact, the book is.
Although, if any movie is *the* Three Musketeers movie, it's Richard Lesters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Great moments in uncreative derivative works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Great moments in uncreative derivative works
There have been two dozen Three Musketeers movies (including the current one)
A movie serial and series of b-movies resetting the characters in the Old West. (A young John Wayne starred in the earliest ones)
Several live action tv series.
American AND Japanese animated tv series.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Great moments in uncreative derivative works
Lester's Musketeers, as it happens, had nods & homages to quite a few of the 3M's that came before it as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Great moments in uncreative derivative works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Great moments in uncreative derivative works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Great moments in uncreative derivative works
Walt Disney ripped so much crap out of Neuschwanstein Castle. There are scenes from Bambi (and surely others) that are ripped off completely from decor there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Great moments in uncreative derivative works
What I don't like his how is company won't let anyone else touch those sorts of things. Intellectually and morally bankrupt are some terms I might use to describe that behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Great moments in uncreative derivative works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Great moments in uncreative derivative works
However, Theater of Blood took elements (death scenes) from a number of plays and built a new story around them.
Instead, how about West Side Story (Romeo & Juliet)? ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Great moments in uncreative derivative works
I'll accept your further suggestion though, although as I said we could probably be here all week listing more films :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Great moments in uncreative derivative works
Paul, all I can say is playing the bizarre absolute game makes you look bad. But keep it up, it's amusing to watch you spew.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Great moments in uncreative derivative works
So... what "game" am I playing? Be specific.
The sentence you quoted was mocking the usual response you ACs give me. If I was wrong, please detail how you actually believe that works based on other works should not be subject to royalty and/or licence payments no matter how old they are...
Oh, and yet again I have to note that you extracted a single sentence and attacked that rather than address the many points I raised. Typical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Great moments in uncreative derivative works
- Timothy Findley's Headhunter
- The Grey Album by Dangermouse
- Pictures at an Exhibition by Emerson, Lake & Palmer
- Apocalypse Now
- Reservoir Dogs
- The Lion King
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Great moments in uncreative derivative works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Great moments in uncreative derivative works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Great moments in uncreative derivative works
Then again, I was also the person going "yawn... seen this before" during Crouching Tiger. Maybe I just saw too many Eastern films as a kid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Great moments in uncreative derivative works
Wagner : Ring of the Nibelung - Shameless rip of V�lsunga saga which provided absolutly nothing original or inspired.
Brother's Grimm: Thier entire book is a shamless retelling of stories, which holds absolutly no value since all the stories were told before.
Disney's Peter Pan, Pinoccio, Cinderella, Snow White, Tangled, Jungle Book (EXPECIALLY Jungle Book since they were denied the use of the stories until it lapsed into the Public Domain, in which they struck with an evil viper like jaw), and so on: Completely unoriginal hack jobs. They add NOTHING of value, they are purely boring, horrible dirivitive stories with no soul or creativity. Disney STOLE ideas, and provided of no value! Pinoccio's consiouse as a cricket? NEVER SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED! Compelete load that that image is in the public mind, the story should never have been stolen and infringed upon. Disney's animated movies are not works of arts, they are grandscale theft... Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Great moments in uncreative derivative works
correct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE who's more popular.........
(sorry just hadda do it)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One might also note that the true vampires of this time are the legacy media companies, the megacorporations, and the government that supports them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But I do give you 10/10 for trolling techdirt trolls. Good job!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't forget the mascot...
Without that crazy mouse it's likely copyright might still be only a few years in length!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, I would argue that social mores and expectations did more to drive innovation than copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where'd you get that idea?
This is a tribute to how movies infiltrate our thoughts. If I remember correctly, Orlok doesn't burn in the sunlight at all, he just dies an verminous, undignified death. Now (thanks to Hammer's films, I guess) the idea of a vampire burning in sunlight has soaked so deeply into our mental carpet that Orlok's death scene is surprising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where'd you get that idea?
In the original 1922 flick, Orloc burns up in a double-exposed fade-out with some superimposed smoke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where'd you get that idea?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where'd you get that idea?
Not exactly. The famous sequence has him about to feed, but he looks up into the window as the sun starts to appear over the horizon. He arches back, and disappears as the sunlight hits him.
It's not the protracted sequence that Hammer made with us seeing him slowly fall apart, but it's definitely the sunlight that kills him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2ZJxCghKDk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where'd you get that idea?
It's actually even more creepy than that.
It was not the sunlight that killed him. Roger Ebert phrases it best: "Ellen Hutter learns that the only way to stop a vampire is for a good woman to distract him so that he stays out past the first cock's crow." It wasn't sunlight that destroyed him, it was spending the night with a "pure" woman.
I would also like to point out that Bram Stoker "ripped off" his vampire ideas from Emily Gerard... who in turn "ripped off" Transylvanian peasant folklore. (You didn't think the word "Nosferatu" was pulled out of thin air, do you?)
Bram Stoker no more "owns" vampire lore than Murnau... which is to say, neither owns it. If anyone does, it's the European peasantry.
Funny how nobody in history ever suggested they should get royalties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You mentioned J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit as an example of an original work i.e. in your worldview, it wasn't influenced by anybody else.
Well, it became clear to me upon reading that comment that you have never read classical literature. Specifically, Beowulf. He fought a dragon, who rested on top of a pile of treasure, who immediately knew that a single cup had been stolen. This dragon then went on a rampage, burning everything in revenge.
Sound familiar? It should, because Smaug the Dragon in The Hobbit is a carbon copy of Beowulf's dragon.
What about the Elves? Tolkien wasn't the first person to write about Elves, as woodland people. Or Hobbits i.e. if I may use the term, midgets or short people. Ditto for dwarves. Gandalf was based on Merlin i.e. the aged magician.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Whereas I pointed out how you can call Hobbit an improvement over Beowulf, because both feature the exact same dragon, which is a major plot point in both stories. Did Tolkien have to reach an agreement with the heirs of whoever wrote Beowulf? No! So why should I have to reach an agreement with Tolkien's heirs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a splendidly typical Techdirt thread, discussing "vampires".
Most stupid phrase: "the vampire culture".
Most vulgar comments: Tim Geigner, aka Dark Helmet. Knew he wouldn't be able to restrain himself for long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a splendidly typical Techdirt thread, discussing "vampires".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a splendidly typical Techdirt thread, discussing "vampires".
That's not the premise at all. The premise is that derivative works are not necessarily blatant ripoffs and that they can have their own merits. In this case, a derivative work added new aspects to the Dracula/vampire legacy (culture? mythology? stuff?) and brought interest back to the original material, which counters many of the claims made in TD comment threads that derivative works are inherently imaginationless cesspools that leech off the original artists without adding anything of value and that art is only art if it's completely "original."
You can do better than this. Say something about tofu or whatever. The most "typical" aspect of this thread is your appearance, with its attendant dismissal of everything in the post. That's not to say you don't occasionally add something to the mix, but for the most part, this is classic ootb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a splendidly typical Techdirt thread, discussing "vampires".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a splendidly typical Techdirt thread, discussing "vampires".
You could either need glasses, or you could just, well, suck. A lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a splendidly typical Techdirt thread, discussing "vampires".
...which went on to become one of the most influential horror movies of all time and is still reference directly or indirectly to this day by other money-making ventures.
Funny how you would think this is a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What a splendidly typical Techdirt thread, discussing "vampires".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Few creatures of the night have captured our imagination like Vampires
What explains our induring fasination with Vampires?
What is it about the vampire myth that explains our interest?
Is it the overtones of sexual lust, power, control?
Or is it a fasination with the immortality of the undead?
And what dark and hidden part of our Psyche are aroused and captivated by the legends of the undead?
The mystery of the undead will continue to fasinate the living
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funniest
If you haven't read it - you should. You will not miss the striking similarities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]