Copyright Lawsuit May Reveal Whether Documentary Movie Was Real Or Faked

from the fair-use-comes-down-to-this dept

Remember the situation with David Letterman and Joaquin Phoenix arguing copyright on Letterman's show? While they were joking about it, the issue revolved around whether or not Phoenix's last movie was really a documentary or not. It uses the famous clip of Phoenix acting crazy on Letterman's show in the film, and the producers claimed that it was "fair use," since it was a documentary. However, once Phoenix admitted that the whole thing was faked, Letterman realized it wasn't actually fair use any more. Of course, they were mostly (we think) joking around, but a similar issue may have cropped up in another lawsuit.

THREsq has the details of a lawsuit over the movie Catfish, a little indie documentary that supposedly shows the story of the filmmaker's brother getting involved in an online relationship, where the object of his desire later turns out to be someone entirely different than he thought it was. Apparently, when the film was shown, many people thought the fillmmakers must have setup the story, since it seemed unlikely to be real, but they insisted that it was an actual documentary and what is seen on camera was what actually happened.

Here's where it gets tricky, though. Apparently, one of the key parts of the movie is that the woman that this guy has met over the internet, emailed him some "songs" that she had recorded, and one of the ways he discovers that she's not who she says she is, is that he finds more information about the song on YouTube and realizes the woman who sent it to him did not actually write and record it. The song is actually All Downhill From Here, by Amy Kuney, who is signed to Spin Move Records. Apparently Spin Move and Kuney were happy to be featured in the movie at first -- with Spin Move doing a blog post touting how Kuney's song played a central role in the movie... but then the lawyers showed up and said, "hey, shouldn't we be getting paid...?" So the label removed the post and sued.

The filmmakers response, of course, is that it's a documentary, and it accurately portrays what happened, so it's fair use. So, now, they not only have marketing reasons to claim it's a documentary, but legal reasons as well. The lawyers for Spin Move, on the other hand, have every reason to seek to prove that the movie was planned, rather than just a documentary, because if that's the case, there may not be a fair use defense. Of course, the other possibility is that the filmmakers figure out a way to settle (i.e., pay up) before the case goes anywhere, and they don't have to swear under oath whether or not the movie is real...

Of course, when you think about it, this kind of highlights another rather silly aspect of copyright. Whether or not the use of the song is legal or not depends entirely on whether or not the film is a documentary or not. Note that nothing actually changes about the movie. When a copyright system punishes people based on how people classify a movie, that seems like the system isn't working.

Filed Under: copyright, documentary, fair use

Get Lamp Filmmaker Scolds DVD Rippers... For Doing A Bad Job With The Rip

from the get-it-right dept

I've been meaning to check out the movie Get Lamp (a documentary about text adventure games) for a while now, as I've heard good things about it (and, it should be confessed, I was an avid, potentially obsessive, consumer of text adventure computer games in the 80s). Also, I've always been a fan of the filmmaker, Jason Scott's other project Textfiles.com. While I hadn't had the chance yet, TorrentFreak has the nice story of how Scott reacted to the DVD of his film being ripped and put online. First off, it should be noted that those who ripped it posted a nice ode to Scott with the rip, and urged folks to buy the DVD, even noting that they purposely left off some of the extras to give people incentive.

Scott saw it, thanked them for the "heartwarming" NFO file, and then scolded them for screwing up the rip:

I've just downloaded the torrent, and while the image quality and sound quality is excellent, you've made a mistake.

The DVD, as I've mentioned before, is interactive with a non-interactive version as well. To accomplish this and save space on the DVD (since it's packed with stuff), I have a set of discrete tracks that are either summoned (via the interactive choice) or played as a playlist (via the non-interactive choice). Unintentionally (and I do really mean it, it was unintentional), this has made the movie a tad harder to rip, because the movie is in pieces scattered throughout the DVD, and not in any obvious sequential order.

Playing the AVI that FLAiR has released shows that you have ripped only some of the tracks, and ripped one extra one that shouldn't be in there.

In the end, he notes: "While, again, I am pleased you wrote such kind things about me, this mixed-up version makes it look like I made a flawed DVD with doubled scenes, and takes away the entire puzzle sequence, which I am rather proud of." The rippers quickly fixed it and posted a fixed version. Now, the movie is released under a Creative Commons Share-alike license, so Scott (not surprisingly) is perfectly willing to have the movie spread, but it's still a nice story of a filmmaker responding positively to people ripping his film and sharing it online.

Filed Under: documentary, get lamp, jason scott, movies, ripping

University Of Miami Demanding ESPN Documentary About University Of Miami Football Remove Its Logo

from the trademark-law-gone-mad dept

We've talked a lot recently about how universities greatly abuse trademark law to prevent anyone else from doing things with their logo -- which, in the past, had been considered perfectly legal. The latest such case comes to us from Copycense, who points us to the news that, according to Billy Corben, the director of The U, a documentary about the rise of the University of Miami football team that aired on ESPN, the University is demanding that its logo be removed from the DVD case. It sounds like Corben is complying with the demand, but it's difficult to see how the University has a legitimate complaint here. The move is, literally, about the University of Miami. This seems like a perfect case of trademark "fair use," but fighting that battle is probably too expensive to make it worthwhile. And that's too bad, as it seems like another case of abusing trademark law for reasons that have nothing to do with the law's purpose.

Filed Under: documentary, espn, trademark, university of miami

Richard Dawkins Points Fan To The Pirate Bay To See His Latest Documentary

from the there's-always-a-way dept

TorrentFreak points out that Prof. Richard Dawkins doesn't seem to have a problem with The Pirate Bay. When someone from Australia asked in a comment on his website about viewing his latest documentary, Dawkins responded by pointing to a variety of links, including YouTube and The Pirate Bay, suggesting those as a way to watch the video: Always nice to see rather famous people apparently not having a problem with people viewing their works via technically "unauthorized" means.

Filed Under: documentary, file sharing, richard dawkins
Companies: the pirate bay

Funding To Edit 200 Hours Of Pirate Bay Documentary Footage Raised In Just Three Days

from the but-pirates-want-everything-for-free!!!! dept

A bunch of folks have been sending over the news that filmmaker Simon Klose was attempting to raise $25,000 in order to hire a professional editor to edit down over 200 hours of footage Simon had filmed of The Pirate Bay's founders over the period of the last couple of years. In his intro pitch, he pointed out that some thought it was strange that he was making a movie about an organization that many in the movie industry hated. But, Simon, of course, points out that such a response is silly. The industry and the market have changed, and there are new avenues to raising funds -- such as directly via a platform like Kickstarter. What's really impressive though is that it only took three days to raise the funds, and there are still over three more weeks to go, and the amount raised keeps going up.

In an interview about the fundraising process, Klose points out that it's not at all surprising that people who support things like The Pirate Bay would support his film, because he was offering them something they actually wanted to support:

I think it's natural that you support stuff you believe in. The people who support our movie obviously don't believe in the services that the movie and record industries are offering them. To me it's much more ironic that the corporations are claiming that the system used to be just and beneficial to artists before the internet came around. It never was.

And, of course, Klose fully intends to release the movie via The Pirate Bay (as well as by DVD). When asked about how he feels about people file sharing his movie, he notes:

Filesharing is great marketing, I don't mind people marketing my work.

Filed Under: crowdfunding, documentary, movie, simon klose
Companies: the pirate bay

Documentary Filmmaker, Legal Spy... Or Both?

from the crossing-boundaries dept

We just wrote about a lawsuit involving a documentary filmmaker who was trying (but failed) to protect unused footage from being subpoenaed for a lawsuit involving Chevron's involvement in Ecuadorian pollution. It raised questions about whether or not a documentary filmmaker could be seen as an investigative journalist, and thus could be covered by a shield law. Apparently, documentary filmmakers involved in films in that general part of the world are expanding their job titles all the time. THREsq has the fascinating story of a "documentary filmmaker" who went to Nicaragua to interview people about pesticides used on Dole banana plantations, who recently admitted he was also on the payroll of a law firm that was looking to sue over problems with the pesticide:

"I decided the film wasn't going to change a lot in this world," Glaser said on the witness stand in a case involving six men claiming they were left sterile by pesticide exposure. "I decided to work with the firm and help with the legal process...I decided to use the film for that purpose."

So he was still making the film, it's just that he got financing from the law firm looking to use the evidence collected in a case. It's a neat trick, though the report questions if this will make people more nervous about talking to filmmakers. I'm not sure that's really true. If the film was being made anyway to "expose" problems with the pesticide, then the company was probably already afraid of talking to the guy, and those impacted by the pesticide are probably happy about both the movie and the lawsuit. Still, I find it an interesting type of "business model" for a documentary filmmaker to also be a law firm investigator...

Filed Under: documentary, lawsuits, spy

Appeals Court Reminds Documentary Makers That Facts Are Not Copyrightable

from the and-again dept

Two years ago, we wrote about how a court had ruled against a documentary filmmaker who was upset that the producers of the Hollywood film We Are Marshall hadn't paid them for the story. The documentary filmmakers had made a (what else?) documentary about the story of the football team at Marshall, where a plane crash killed the team, and then the school rebuilt its football program. The Warner Bros. film was about the same story, but as we pointed out at the time, facts aren't copyrightable, and anyone can make a film based on historical facts. It is true that Hollywood studios often will pay for the "rights" to a story from a newspaper or author, even though they don't need to secure the "rights" that way. They do so for a variety of reasons, such as getting more in-depth access to the writers for accuracy purposes or just for general endorsement. But there's no legal requirement to do so.

The district court explained all of this to documentary filmmakers, but they appealed anyway, and now the appeals court has dumped the lawsuit as well, agreeing with the lower court, and explicitly pointing out you can't copyright facts. Simply because you made a documentary about a historical story, it doesn't give you ownership of that story. On top of that, it points out that there really aren't very many similarities between the stories, other than they're both based on the same historical situation, so there's no copyright infringement claim at all. The documentary filmmakers also tried a "breach of contract" claim, because Warner Bros. had talked to them about licensing the "rights" to the documentary (again, even though there's no legal reason to do so). But they never came to an agreement. And that's why the breach of contract argument fails. There was no contract to breach.

It really is quite a statement on the "ownership of culture" ecosystem we've built up when some documentarians act as if making a documentary about a real historical story somehow gives them the rights to stop others from making a film about that story.

Filed Under: copyright, documentary, facts, we are marshall

Documentary Filmmaker Has To Turn Over Some Footage To Chevron

from the not-so-shielded-after-all dept

Back in May, we wrote about a judge ordering a documentary filmmaker to turn over the footage that didn't make the film to Chevron. The documentary was about Chevron's alleged involvement in Ecuadorian rainforest pollution, and Chevron believes that some of the cut footage will help get a case that has been filed against it in Ecuador dismissed. The filmmaker tried to raise press protections, but the district court judge shot that down, saying that the material was not confidential (and, in fact, was filmed knowing it might be made public). The case was appealed, and the appeals court wasted little time in again telling the filmmaker to hand over footage, but the court also appears to have limited the scope somewhat:

• Berlinger has to turn over all footage showing (1) plaintiffs' counsel in Chevron's civil lawsuit in Ecuador, (2) private or court-appointed experts, and (3) current or former Ecuadorian officials;
• Chevron can only use the material produced for litigation, arbitration or submission to official government bodies;
• Chevron must pay for all reasonable costs incurred by Berlinger in turning over the footage; and
• The district court below shall maintain jurisdiction to address any disputes relating to the release of the footage.

Apparently, both sides are claiming victory, but as Itai Maytal at the Citizen Media Law Project notes, the full details of the ruling (not yet issued) will matter a lot, and no matter what, this could be seen as a "weakening" of previous case law about reporter's privileges, which could lead to more lawsuits against reporters.

Filed Under: confidentiality, documentary, footage, privacy
Companies: chevron

Documentary Filmmakers Want DMCA Exemption; But Almost Definitely Won't Get It

from the unlikely dept

Every few years the US Copyright Office is supposed to review requests for exemptions to the DMCA. However, it rarely gives any serious exemptions. In fact, the process is such a joke that some have argued it's not worth participating in at all. None of the exemptions have ever favored consumers. They've always been extremely narrow. So, while it's nice that documentary filmmakers are asking for a DMCA exemption from the anti-circumvention clause so that they can get around the digital locks on movies for legal (non-infringing) uses of clips in their documentaries. As they say: "If you want to use material pursuant to fair use, you have to commit crime despite your constitutional right to do so." However, given the way the US Copyright Office tends to view these things, I find it highly unlikely it will allow this.

Filed Under: circumvention, dmca, documentary, exemption

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