Universal Studios Sues Over Porn Parody Of '50 Shades Of Grey'; Ignoring 50 Shade's Own History As Fan Fiction

from the fan-fiction-begets-fan-fiction dept

Fri, Nov 30th 2012 9:34am — Mike Masnick

Over the past few years, there's been a lot of porn parody movies created. Porn studios have realized that it's an effective way to differentiate themselves from "everyday porn." While some have wondered about the legality of these things, very few have bothered to take the producers to court, recognizing that parody is generally considered protected under fair use. However, apparently Universal Studios has decided that enough is enough and has sued the maker of a porn parody of the book 50 Shades of Grey, Smash Pictures. 50 Shades, of course, is that insanely (seriously: insanely) popular erotic novel, and Universal is arguing that the flick hits a little too close to home, so to speak, and isn't a "parody" so much as it's just an adaptation of the book, which Universal holds the rights to. Specifically, the lawsuit, filed by Universal and "Fifty Shades Limited," uses the claims from the director that the movie is "very true" to the book to suggest it isn't a parody at all:

box for the First XXX Adaptation promotes the infringing work as "[b]ased upon" the Fifty Shades Trilogy and as "[putting] the kinky fantasies that you only imagined into vivid color." According to a Smash Pictures executive's interview with L.A. Weekly, the First XXX Adaptation is "very true to the book," with the script written "to be as close to the series as (director Jim PowersJ can get." Due to the popularity of the Fifty Shades Trilogy, Smash Pictures expects that the First XXX Adaptation "just might be our biggest film to date."

By lifting exact dialogue, characters, events, story, and style from the Fifty Shades Trilogy, Smash Pictures ensured that the First XXX Adaptation was, in fact, as close as possible to the original works. Beginning with the First XXX Adaptation's opening scene and continuing throughout the next two and a half hours of the film, Smash Pictures copies without reservation from the unique expressive elements of the Fifty Shades Trilogy, progressing through the events of Fifty Shades of Grey and into the second book, Fifty Shades Darker. The First XXX Adaptation is not a parody, and it does not comment on, criticize, or ridicule the originals. It is a rip-off, plain and simple.

Universal also seems pissed off that the studio is selling a "Fifty Shades of Pleasure: Play Kit & Movie" that has not just a DVD of the porn flick, but "various adult novelty items used in the Fifty Shades Trilogy."

Universal may very well have a case here. At the very least, it raises some questions about how one creates a "porn parody" of an already pornographic novel. And, that's especially true when the language in the novel is barely above the level of your typical porn script already. The complaint has over four pages of dialogue comparison between the original book and the porn flick and... well... it's not exactly fine literature.

Still, the thing that strikes me about this -- and which isn't mentioned in the filing at all -- is that Fifty Shades, itself, actually came out of a "pornographic adaptation" of the Twilight series. In fact, while those behind Fifty Shades have sought to erase this history, it does seem like a relevant point. Fifty Shades was pornographic Twilight "fan fiction," which was later rewritten to scrub it of references to Twilight. While Fifty Shades' author, EL James, her agent and publisher all like to claim that the Twilight fan fic James wrote and the eventual Fifty Shades book are really different works, someone compared the two using a plagiarism checker and found them to be 89% similar.

And, of course, out of that form of "infringement," something else came about. Seems pretty hypocritical (but, really, all too typical) to try to stop other adaptations/extensions of the work now that you're profiting off of the same sort of thing.

114947086 Complaint Fifty Shades Limited v Smash Pictures (PDF)114947086 Complaint Fifty Shades Limited v Smash Pictures (Text)

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: adaptation, fan fiction, fifty shades of grey, parody, porn parodies
Companies: fifty shades limited, smash pictures, universal studios

37 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Arsik Vek (profile), 30 Nov 2012 @ 8:16am

Hmm, so if the porno version is a near identical representation of the book, and Universal was doing a movie version of the book, does that mean Universal is getting into the porn industry?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Scote, 30 Nov 2012 @ 11:06am
  
  Market Harm?
  And if Universal isn't going to do a hard core version, then there is no market harm to Universal.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Dec 2012 @ 2:55pm
    
    Re: Market Harm?
    If Universal isn't going to do a hard core version, why bother?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vidiot (profile), 30 Nov 2012 @ 9:44am

Punish those infringers
Looks like someone needs a very special spanking.

Hey! New plot line! Infringers receive punishment at the hands of oversexed rights holders.

And there's a cameo role for OOTB.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 30 Nov 2012 @ 10:41am
  
  Re: Punish those infringers
  And there's a cameo role for OOTB.
  In a porn film??? Suddenly I've lost all appetite...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lirodon, 30 Nov 2012 @ 9:45am

But you know what I love? Whenever a film company gets the rights to make a film based off a book, it always seems like that they pretty much take over property rights related to it so they can sue others over it like they own the entire franchise (see for instance, Summit going crazy over any mentioning of a word associated with a novel involving vampires)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2012 @ 9:49am

Pretty sure Mike Masnick loves infringement more than sex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Yakko Warner (profile), 30 Nov 2012 @ 10:04am
  
  Re:
  You leave his private life out of this. If Mike wants to dress up like an MPAA lobbyist and role-play with his partner dressed as a pirate, moaning "Infringe my IP, baby" in ecstasy in the privacy of his own bedroom, that's none of your business.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2012 @ 10:45am
    
    Re: Re:
    *FAP FAP FAP*
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2012 @ 10:49am
  
  Re:
  My self I only enjoy infringing sex.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2012 @ 12:44pm
  
  Re:
  If I make a copy of a prostitute and have sex with her did I commit theft?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 30 Nov 2012 @ 12:49pm
  
  Re:
  I like it infrequently.
  
  I mean in frequently.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Brand (profile), 30 Nov 2012 @ 10:03am

Where's the infringement ?
Sure sounds like they used ideas from the book, and even dialogue, but they didn't copy the book, or distribute it, and I don't think a movie counts as a translation. Obviously, lawyers can argue anything, but I really don't think that copyright was intended to stop people making movie adaptations of books that they don't own the rights to - seems to me that the movie and the book are two very different expressions of the same ideas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 30 Nov 2012 @ 10:24am
  
  Re: Where's the infringement ?
  Unfortunately it's well established that copyright includes the right to adapt, or even use the characters, in another medium, unless it is a parody. It's difficult though, when what you're adapting is already a parody.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2012 @ 3:15pm
  
  Re: Where's the infringement ?
  "I really don't think that copyright was intended to stop people making movie adaptations of books that they don't own the rights to "
  
  In fact, that is precisely what the copyright act is intended to cover. It's the right to prepare derivative works. I'm wondering what your beliefs to the contrary are based on.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Christoph Wagner (profile), 30 Nov 2012 @ 10:08am

So to recap: 50 shades of grey was a porn parody of Twilight. It became something else. Now the movie "50 Shades of Grey" is a movie adaption of "50 Shades of Grey". And one so close that they actually use the book as script as far as it's possible.

If I understood this right so far I wouldn't say they forgot the origins of 50 shades. You can agree or disagree with the rules as they are, but IMO this is pretty clear cut in favour of Universal (never thought I'd write that or even defend them, I feel dirty now).

If they did an actual parody of 50 Shades things would be different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 30 Nov 2012 @ 10:26am

Thrust that double-edged sword.
I thought it was mostly unclear whether porn was even really covered by copyright. Maybe now we can find out?

Plot twist: Universal is the porn company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TheLastCzarnian (profile), 30 Nov 2012 @ 10:53am
  
  Re: Thrust that double-edged sword.
  Exactly. Now we get to see if porn is part of the arts.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2012 @ 11:43am
  
  Re: Thrust that double-edged sword.
  Not really. Only images (including videos) can be legally pornographic.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btrussell (profile), 30 Nov 2012 @ 12:53pm
    
    Re: Re: Thrust that double-edged sword.
    "Pornography (often abbreviated as "porn" in informal usage) is the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter. Pornography may use a variety of media, including books, magazines, postcards, photos, sculpture, drawing, painting, animation, sound recording, film, video, and video games.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornographic
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - BentFranklin (profile), 30 Nov 2012 @ 12:58pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Thrust that double-edged sword.
      Postcards! Reminds me of Tom Lehrer:
      
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzmtYkPCQgg
      
      I guess my age is showing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cory of PC (profile), 30 Nov 2012 @ 10:30am

I don't know... I remember seeing a different porn parody of Twilight out there... and that was parodying Twilight directly. And I do remember it was part of a joke: "It's a better love story than Twilight."

So if I were to find either the actual Twilight porn parody or the 50 Shades movie, I'll probably take Twilight. Either way, it's going to be a lonely night...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Desco (profile), 30 Nov 2012 @ 10:38am

Title??
One of the hallmarks of "porn parody movies" is they change the name to a 3rd-grade-clever rhyming pun like "Schindler's Fist", "Bonin' the Barbarian", "Ate Men Out", "Cockodile Dundee", "Hairy Peter Made the Philosopher Moan", etc, etc. Universal might have an argument since they called it "Fifty Shades of Grey" and acknowledged it is "A XXX Adaptation" of the books.

But seriously... How difficult could this be:
Filthy Shades of Grey?
Fifty Shades of Gay?
Fifty Shags a Day?
Fisty sh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Baldaur Regis (profile), 30 Nov 2012 @ 10:45am

By lifting exact dialogue, characters, events, story, and style from the Fifty Shades Trilogy...
So. Lawyers for Universal Studios are asserting that porn directors actually read their source material. They assert that a porn movie - a porn movie - runs over two and a half hours. They further put forth the baffling idea that a porno can contain scripted dialogue.

This goes way beyond the typical snorting-coke-off-a-stripper's-ass legalese and into the murky twilight world of tinfoil underwear and submitting legal documents written on bar napkins. Intervention is called for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MahaliaShere (profile), 30 Nov 2012 @ 11:12am

It's all right for one entity to remix already existing ideas, package and resell them, but anyone else doing the same? Copyright. Infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Watchit (profile), 30 Nov 2012 @ 11:25am

It's not like they're competing with Universal directly... unless Universal studios has been making porn and no one told me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 30 Nov 2012 @ 12:48pm

Universal is just mad that someone else made the kind of adaption that they wouldn't have the guts to do themselves.

Their adaption will probably have watered down bondage scenes and a murder mystery thrown in to distract from the sexual material.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2012 @ 1:25pm

Man, this is excellent news! I can't wait to take a trip to Universal Studios Florida. That 50 Shades ride... Wow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2012 @ 3:12pm

Mike, why are you referring to the porn movie as a parody?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 30 Nov 2012 @ 3:19pm
  
  Re:
  DD
  Parody
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2012 @ 3:57pm
    
    Re: Re:
    ?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btrussell (profile), 30 Nov 2012 @ 6:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      DD
      
      Pair-O-DDs'
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2012 @ 11:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That didn't really clear things up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Dec 2012 @ 9:15am

Would be funny if Smash claimed they actually came across the *original* fanfic several years ago and had been working on adapting it for a movie loong before 50 Shades came out... lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dina, 3 Dec 2012 @ 9:08am

Lol. The porn parody's dialogue is actually better than the original! haha.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Forsyth, 18 Dec 2012 @ 12:10am

teal-deer version--Universal gets mad because someone else makes a better film adaptation of fanfic porn than they did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
erotica novels, 17 Jan 2015 @ 8:33am

erotica novels
Forty five Hues involving Off white is often a best-selling enchantment new authored by Electronic. T John. Find out more on the idea and also other textbooks comparable to Forty five Hues involving Off white in each of our site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]