Was An Advertisement In Vogue The Inspiration For The Star Wars Opening Crawls?
from the oh,-george dept
A long time ago, in a magazine far, far too female-oriented for me to read...It is a period of intellectual property wars. Rebellious forces, striking from the internet, have pointed out several times in the past the hypocrisy of people like George Lucas, who at times jealously guard aspects of their creation despite evidence of his own work being a mixture of borrowed culture.
During these wars, spies managed to link to one possible example of George Lucas borrowing culture for his ultimate movie opening, THE TEXT CRAWL, possibly borrowed from an advertisement that appeared in Vogue magazine several years before the first Star Wars film premiered.
Pursued by the copyright Empires, Prince Geigner raced to post the picture of the Vogue ad, uncertain evidence that even those that embrace intellectual property know deep down the way culture works throughout the galaxy....
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: advertisement, copying, star wars
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flash Gordon?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Flash Gordon?
Skip forward to 1:30
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Flash Gordon?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Flash Gordon?
http://youtu.be/VGbSOEWRgu0?t=1m30s
Tim's point still stands, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Flash Gordon?
#t=90s
#t=1m30s
&t=90s
&t=1m30s
Any of the formats will work :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGbSOEWRgu0#t=90s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGbSOEWRgu0 &t=90s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGbSOEWRgu0#t=1m30s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGb SOEWRgu0&t=1m30s
ps: The difference between "#" and "&" appears to be how it is loaded, using the "#" your video loads from the begning and using the "&" it only loads from that point on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Flash Gordon?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Flash Gordon?
When the public borrows an idea from Hollywood, it's branded as a violation of their property rights, whereas whenever Hollywood *borrows* an idea, it's always a parody, tribute or the lame old "I've never seen this before in my life" excuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Flash Gordon?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Flash Gordon?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lucas stole everything
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In Vogue The Inspiration For The Star Wars Opening Crawls
I think we blame the artists way to much its the lawyers whom always seem to win any copyright dispute and its them lawyers whom help construct the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In Vogue The Inspiration For The Star Wars Opening Crawls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hypocrisy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only novelty is the current Government stated monopoly that tries to subvert this natural order. How old is it, 300 years? Hopefully it won't be around to stifle evolution of human culture much longer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It does?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I believe it has too. Sure, a lot of it is rehashed over and over again, but in many ways stories that were made famous by the bard have been expanded to the point that we've seen a number of different possibilities for endings of Hamlet.
Of course, on its base level, every movie is built off of ideas that came before, so I don't have a problem with this, except when someone comes along and claims that because they wrongly believe they came up with the idea first, they are owed payment for that idea from those who follow and use that idea forever. Lucas borrowed from culture and he's held-on tightly to the results. However, for the most part, he's been pretty good about sharing his work with others, and he's been pretty good about recognizing those who borrow from him in novel and fun ways (see the "George Lucas Select Awards", where Lucas picks the fan videos he and the public enjoyed,) and for the most part, he hasn't sued them or forced them to stop producing their work.
While I disagree with most directors who say that the public needs the super-dooper special effects in order to pack the theater, I do agree that we the public tend to need more drawn out stories and more advanced plots than what flew in the early days of movies and TV. Back then a guy with no story or plot and no dialog could pack the theaters with a couple pratfalls and goofy facial expressions. Do that now and you're not likely to get the first level of funding needed to make the movie, and if you manage to do that, you aren't going to make it back when you release it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He did. Ironically, he said he did so in order to allow others to build on his work.
They're definitely not very good about sharing with the public (which is ironic considering how many of their ideas come from literature in the public domain).
Which is what I am really concerned about. Lucas has been cool with Pink Five and with other Star Wars fanfilms, many of which have been far more creative. Disney hasn't. Time will tell, but I am expecting more of a Heinlein reaction than a Lucas reaction to playing in their playground.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is and isn't copyrighted
IDEAS can't be copyrighted. Literary THEMES and TROPES can't be copyrighted.
It's what you do with them that is copyrighted. So the expression of the words or story on film/media is what is copyrighted.
Lucas did not steal anyone's copyright. He used common ideas and tropes from popular culture as well as an archetypical plot to create the first movie.
When the original STAR WARS hit the theaters, he freely admitted that the first movie was his homage to movie serials like FLASH GORDEN.
And, it was freaking awesome for us SF geeks who saw it in the theaters because it was so dang innovative with its use of technology, etc.
If someone uses chunks of the film, it's within his/Disney's rights to go after them.
So you may can him names for protecting what is his, but hypocrite isn't one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is and isn't copyrighted
IDEAS can't be copyrighted. Literary THEMES and TROPES can't be copyrighted.
I don't think Tim disagrees with this, nor do I. The problem is that authors DO tend to believe that their ideas CAN be copyrighted. See...
Sci-fi author sues Ubisoft over Assassin's Creed copyright infringement
Harry Potter Author Sued For Copyright Infringement!
You Can�t Copyright an Idea. I Know from Experience
Where do you draw the line? There are a number of fan films devoted to Star Wars which "live" in the Star Wars Universe, but yet draw very little if anything from the Star Wars movies themselves. Lucas has allowed them to live, but others have not. If I make a movie with a couple of ewoks (not that I have a habit of doing such a dreadful things,) I'm probably safe. But if I make a movie about a neo-fascist society building an army to take out an evil rodent race on another planet that attacks them with telephone poles, I suspect Heinlein's estate will be all over me in a heartbeat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What is and isn't copyrighted
That's why I've chosen to educate authors and readers about copyright issues so they can make informed choices.
That's why I read sites like this and TeleRead to correct all the misinformation out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What is and isn't copyrighted
Understood, and thanks. I think that is a noble goal that most of us try to live by.
Still, I wish there was an easier way to do all of this instead of building off an antiquated and entirely non-human approach to making sure those who create get paid for their effort. The fact that copyright is so confusing in regards to borrowing ideas, and that trying to clear things like fan-films and derivative works is harder than just posting it online anonymously and hoping that nobody figures out, is as much of a problem as people believing that they can copyright ideas.
As I said, where is the line drawn between borrowing ideas and derivative works, since a great deal of these works are based on ideas, and maybe even references to Star Wars, but aren't based on copying from the original story in any of the movies or even on any of the material from the various books of the Star Wars Universe. Take Chad Vader, obvious copying of "Darth Vader", but nothing from the original work other than concepts and ideas. Is it derivative, or is it just copying the ideas? Can they legally make money off of it? As someone who has written derivative works and had publishers or others get really upset, it seems to me that there has got to be a better way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is and isn't copyrighted
I've read a science fiction romance series that was obviously Klingons in love with the names and some changes in political elements.
I've also read a novel that billed itself as "Harry Potter for grownups." The world and the magic was very close to Rowling's, but the characters were adults with some of them obviously based on Rowling's characters. I had to laugh when Dumbledor showed up with a name change.
I won't even go into the number of TWILIGHT clones in the Young Adult market and now all the THIRTY SHADES novels which started as fanfic.
None of these books had the original authors' or creators' lawyers after them for copyright violations.
The real problem isn't copyright theft, but that readers are much more harsh about a work being so derivative.
If you want to do well in fiction, it's best to avoid derivative unless it can be used as a marketing tool, and in most cases that means going the public domain route. For example, lots of people will happily buy a new Sherlock Holmes novel but won't even notice a mystery about a Victorian inquiry agent based in London.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What is and isn't copyrighted
It isn't hard, but why should it even be necessary. Where does "living in the world" become stealing someone elses work? Can it be done? Sure. This becomes even more shady when people are writing about fiction in this world.
If you want to do well in fiction, it's best to avoid derivative unless it can be used as a marketing tool, and in most cases that means going the public domain route. For example, lots of people will happily buy a new Sherlock Holmes novel but won't even notice a mystery about a Victorian inquiry agent based in London.
I have no intention on doing well in fiction, and quite frankly, I don't care if it immediately flops and no one reads it (I doubt that would happen.) I already have a career. I merely wish to share my love of a particular work with fans of the work.
I have no intention on making any money off my work (as are most fanfic authors.) The particular author I have written fanfic for has been dead for 50 years, there is no incentive for him to write any more. Yet he left much of his world empty, and there are many of us out here who would like to add to his world (realizing that it is his world and only his world is canon.) Yet if I even put what I've written online anonymously, I risk the publisher (who bought the rights from his estate,) coming after me, even if I don't expect any money from it.
I have my own stories too, but why should I stick with my own stories when I have as much fun living in someone elses' world. If the author is still alive, sure, it might be respectful to remain out of their world. But they've been dead for a while now and there isn't much likelihood they will be adding to it themselves any time soon.
And while those books you mentioned haven't had problems, this isn't the norm (and given that the lawyers are now going after Fifty Shades porn-derivatives, we have meta-copyright issues since Fifty Shades was a derivative and the lawyers involved weren't for the original work.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What is and isn't copyrighted
Here's a tutorial I wrote on the subject if you're interested.
http://mbyerly.blogspot.com/2008/03/fanfic-and-copyright.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What is and isn't copyrighted
Thanks. I seem to remember reading this before, and I believe Mike had an article on it at one time.
I was talking about fanfic, fanfilms, and everything else fan*. I agree with you that it is very risky, given today's climate, to do without the author's permission, but I disagree that this is the way it should be (for the reasons above.)
If anything, fanfic doesn't hurt the author, and in many cases it helps when done right. George Lucas isn't dumb and he knew that fanfilms such as pink five, Troopers, and I.M.P.S. didn't steal from him, but got folks interested in what he was selling. He even gave awards out each year to those fanfilms that he enjoyed. I only hope Disney, who now owns the franchise is as open to fanfilms as he was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]