Washington Post Notes Summit Entertainment's Twisted View Of IP Laws On Twilight

from the nice-work dept

We've been following how ridiculously aggressive Summit Entertainment has been when it comes to IP issues, and the Washington Post has an excellent article highlighting all of the same points we've raised. It almost reads like someone went down the list of our Twilight posts and wrote an article about all those vignettes. I doubt that's how the article came about, but it is pretty cool how neatly the stories in the article line up with what we've written about, concerning Twilight and copyright and trademarks. But the key point made underlines exactly what we've been trying to say for a while now (though does so more succinctly and eloquently):

Its lawsuits go far beyond curbing piracy and end up limiting how we can talk about pop culture.

The law may be on Summit's side in some cases, but the spirit of what the company is doing -- shutting down almost anyone referencing Twilight without its permission -- shows the shortcomings in how we understand and interpret copyright law.

In its lawsuits, Summit essentially argues that it should control almost any expressive activity related to the Twilight franchise because it has copyrighted the material and acquired trademarks associated with the movies. The studio might win its cases, but it fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of intellectual property law. Trademarks exist to prevent customer confusion about the source of a product, not to prevent discussion of the product or the trademark itself.

The piece was written by Christina Mulligan, who recently got plenty of attention for her thoughtful piece on the mixed messages on copyright found in the TV show Glee. It's great that a paper like the Washington Post is giving her a platform to write about these concerns. Hopefully it will finally reach some of our more stubborn and misguided DC-based politicians that intellectual property is being widely abused in troubling ways.

Filed Under: abuse, copyright, free speech, intellectual property, trademark, twilight
Companies: summit entertainment

Twilight Producers Aggressive IP Enforcement Strikes Again: Temporarily Shut Down Silly 8-Bit YouTube Game

from the oh-come-on dept

It seems that some creative folks put together an 8-bit Twilight YouTube video game. Yes, it's exactly what it sounds like. Using YouTube as their platform, they put together what looks like a classic 8-bit video game to the plot of Twilight. It's actually kind of neat that they used YouTube to make what's effectively a "choose-your-own-adventure" type game. But, of course, when it comes to any and all things Twilight, you have to deal with producers Summit Entertainment who are notoriously over aggressive in sending out the lawyers over pretty much any ridiculous thing they feel violates their rights.

So... it didn't take long for Summit to issue a DMCA takedown on the game, which caused the game to disappear. Thankfully, however, after a conversation between Summit and the game makers, the game has been put back up. But, again, it does seem problematic when we need to live in such a permission culture, where doing something creative like this leads to takedowns and legal threats.

Filed Under: 8-bit, copyright, games, twilight, youtube
Companies: summit entertainment

Twilight Producers Sue To Stop Fashion Design Firm From Pointing Out That 'Bella' Wore Its Jacket

from the factual? dept

As recently mentioned, we've been seeing more and more "publicity rights" type claims, that seem pretty problematic from a basic free speech standpoint. Take, for example, this new lawsuit, filed by Summit Entertainment, the studio that produces the Twilight movies, against fashion designer B.B. Dakota. The backstory here is that, apparently, the character of "Bella" in the Twilight movies was supposed to wear a brown hoodie, but it didn't look right:

'I was planning to use the brown hoodie for that sequence, but the director of photography hated the fact that her hair and the jacket were both brown and felt she got lost in it,'' says Chuck, who then made a last-minute run to outlet store Nordstrom Rack to hunt for a replacement. ''I literally brought that blue one on set just before they rolled cameras. Then Catherine said, 'Wendy saved the day!' That made me a hero.''

Sensing an opportunity, B.B. Dakota reissued the jacket with an advertising campaign around the fact that it was worn by Bella in the movie. That's a factual statement. But, of course, Summit doesn't want anyone profiting from what it's done without paying them first, so it's suing. This isn't new for Summit, of course. It's sued to stop a documentary about the town where the Twilight movies take place, as well as shut down a Twilight fanzine. Now, to be fair, B.B. Dakota did rename the jacket the "Twilight Jacket." So, yes, it's clearly trying to capitalize on the association. But, it's a factual association. Why should that be illegal?

Filed Under: bella, branding, facts, jackets, twilight
Companies: b.b. dakota, summit entertainment

Juliet vs. Juliet: Did Someone Forget To Tell Hollywood You Can't Copyright An Idea?

from the romeo-vs.-romeo dept

A few years back, we wrote about the oddity of Hollywood studios often paying newspapers or others for "the rights" to a particular news story. But, there's no legal reason why you need to do so (with -- potentially -- a few exceptions for the more modern concept of publicity rights) in most cases. That's because a news story is based on facts, and you can't copyright facts. You also can't copyright an idea. Now, there are plenty of good reasons why movie studios do pay for such "rights" even if they don't need to. For example, by licensing the rights, they also get access to certain people who know the story better than others. It also can lend an air of legitimacy to the movie. However, perhaps one reason why studios license the rights to an idea or a news story is because they don't even realize they don't have to.

That's the only explanation I can come up with for the ongoing lawsuit between two movie studios over who can make and/or release a movie about people seeking advice in love by leaving letters at the supposed gravestone of Juliet Capulet (of "Romeo &" fame). Apparently, two separate studios made movies on the topic, and one is suing to stop the other from releasing the movie.

There's Summit Entertainment, who is releasing a movie called Letters to Juliet, which they made after licensing a book by the same name, that told the story of the letters left at the gravestone and of a girl who responds to one of them. But then there's EPV Enterprises, who is asking for Summit's movie to be blocked, noting that it's working on a "Juliet" movie itself, called Dear Juliet -- which it licensed from a group called Club di Giulietta, who has (in real life) been responding to those letters.

While the two movies may be based on the same premise, it sounds like they're very different in terms of the actual story. And we've certainly seen similar movies come from multiple studios around the same time (Antz/Bugs Life, Dante's Peak/Volcano, Deep Impact/Armageddon, The Illusionist/The Prestige, etc...). While Summit says it's working to settle the lawsuit before a ruling is reached, it seems likely that it should prevail in any lawsuit as well. You can't copyright facts or basic ideas -- and it doesn't look like these two movies are the same -- just built off the same idea.

Filed Under: copyright, hollywood, juliet capulet, movie rights, movies
Companies: epv enterprises, summit entertainment

Summit Entertainment Sues, Saying Only It Can Make A Documentary About How 'Twilight' Impacted Forks, WA

from the once-bitten dept

Summit Entertainment, the studio behind the massively successful Twilight series of films, is suing another company that made a documentary. Apparently the Twilight books and movies take place in the town of Forks, Washington. In this case, a company called Heckelsville Media wanted to make a documentary about how the books and movies impacted Forks. It pitched the documentary to a few companies, including Summit Entertainment, who agreed to release the documentary in conjunction with the most recent film's DVD release. But one of the other companies that Heckelsville pitched liked the idea so much that it produced its own documentary on the same subject, which it's releasing a few days earlier.

So, the question is whether or not this is legal. It seems pretty bizarre to suggest that only Summit could ever make a documentary about the impact a book and movie had on a town. Summit, who has a history of being ridiculously over-aggressive in trying to stop anyone from doing anything Twilight related, is claiming both trademark and copyright infringement (among a few other things). There may be an argument for trademark infringement, though it seems like a weak one, since this movie is about Twilight, not a competitor to Twilight. If it's considered trademark infringement to make a documentary about a trademarked brand, then you could never make a whole bunch of documentaries. For example, can you imagine if GM had tried to stop Michael Moore's Roger & Me by claiming trademark infringement?

As for the copyright claim, again, that seems rather weak, as it seems to focus on still images. There may be an issue with the unauthorized documentary makers originally using a cover that was similar to the original cover pitched by Heckelsville, but even then, the makers of the unauthorized documentary have already agreed to change the cover to make it different.

All in all, it seems like Summit is overreacting. If, as it claims, this other documentary was put together in a rush and isn't very good, then why not compete in the marketplace to see which documentary people prefer?

Filed Under: copyright, documentary, forks, trademark, twilight
Companies: summit entertainment

Summit Entertainment Shuts Down Twilight Fanzine For Infringement

from the journalism-or-business dept

Rose M. Welch points us to the news that Summit Entertainment has won an injunction against the makers of a Twilight fanzine, claiming that the zine was not for journalistic purposes. A journalist would have a strong free speech claim on the right to make use of these photos (which were found on the "press" page for the movie itself), but Summit claims that the zine is not journalism, but a business. To be fair, it is true that the creators of the zine is a company that sells trading cards, but does that mean that a fanzine is suddenly no longer protected by the First Amendment? In an age when who is and who is not a journalist has become a lot more complicated, it seems like a pretty questionable decision to put an injunction on a publisher just because they have a good business model. Separately, it's worth pointing out that Summit is being pretty ridiculous here in shutting down a zine for fans. Stop trying to punish fans and focus on giving them what they want.

Filed Under: copyright, fanzine, free speech, journalism, twilight
Companies: summit entertainment

Director Of New Moon Says Jailing Of Girl For Snippets Of Video Of His Movie Is 'Terribly Unfair'

from the it-is,-isn't-it? dept

While he has no official say in the matter, it is still worth noting that Chris Weitz, the director of the movie New Moon has said that he thinks it's "terribly unfair" that a 22-year-old girl was jailed and now faces felony charges because her attempt to film some of her sister's birthday celebration caught less than four minutes of New Moon on her video camera (found via Copycense). Weitz is not the copyright holder and has no real say in what happens, but he does note that he's talking to Summit Entertainment, the studio who made the film, to let them know of his concerns, to see if there's anything that can be done.

Of course, what should be done is that the law should be changed so we don't have these ridiculous situations at all. And hopefully he would stand behind such a proposal. In the meantime, it's just yet another in a long line of examples of the law creating punishment that is way out of proportion with the "crime" when it comes to copyright and copying of content.

Filed Under: camcording, chris weitz, copyright, felony, jailing, new moon
Companies: summit entertainment

Science Fiction Movie Accused Of Patent Infringement

from the we've-reached-a-new-level-of-insanity dept

Famed author Arthur C. Clarke once explained that he never patented the the concept of geostationary communications satellites, which many say he invented, because a lawyer told him the concept was "too far-fetched to be taken seriously." But what about things going in the other direction. If, in a book or a movie, you describe or display a technology that has already been patented, is it infringement? Most people would dismiss such a concept as flat-out ridiculous. But a company called Global Findability apparently disagrees. It has sued Summit Entertainment, the producers of the sci-fi film, Knowing, an apparently otherwise dreadful flick that includes -- as a central plot point -- an "encoded message [that] predicts with pinpoint accuracy the dates, death tolls and coordinates of every major disaster of the past 50 years."

Yes, Global Findability is claiming that its patent on "Integrated information processing system for geospatial media" (Patent 7107286) was infringed by this fictional device. Eriq Gardner, at THREsq, sums it up nicely:

We're familiar with patent troll lawsuits. We're also aware that Hollywood is prone to allegations of idea theft. But what we seem to have here is a strange new genre-bending legal claim where one can infringe technology in fiction similar to the way one can defame a person in fiction.

Filed Under: knowing, movies, patents, science fiction
Companies: global findability, summit entertainment