Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Star Wars Prequels Media Movies Government The Almighty Buck The Courts News

Lucasfilms Nixes Star Wars Live Screening 298

Posted by michael from the mst3k dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The Seattle PI has an article about Lucasfilms sending a cease and desist letter to a local Seattle-based theater company. The company had been planning to do a live parody of Star Wars in which they would turn off the sound and redub it live. This brings up the question are parodies fair use? And if so, should copyright holders be allowed to order people not to parody their work?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lucasfilms Nixes Star Wars Live Screening More

Lucasfilms Nixes Star Wars Live Screening

Comments Filter:

  • No surprises here.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Sunday September 26, 2004 @01:23PM (#10355500)
    Lucas Films is overly obsessive over the conditions in the theaters in which Star Wars movies played... they spun of THX as a certification body to make sure visual and sound equipment is upto code for everything from theaters to the recording studio used for a video game.

    It shouldn't be surprising that a group like this is going to get legal nastygrams for what they're trying to do here when you put that in context. Lucas Films isn't going to release any part of their movie to people who want to do parodies, if they want to do a real parody the right way they'd have to use their own video content. These people got used to using the real movie's video when they were only doing public domain movies, but they fail to understand that anything that came out after the introduction of Mickey Mouse won't be public domain until at least the 2010s, assuming the law isn't revised agian. Until that happens, copyright holders will have the power to shut down this type of "parody" as being not far enough removed from the original work to count.

    • Re:No surprises here.. (Score:5, Funny)

      by miu ( 626917 ) on Sunday September 26, 2004 @01:27PM (#10355529) Homepage Journal
      assuming the law isn't revised agian

      You go ahead and assume that, I'll play the lottery - I think I have better odds on that.

    • Re:No surprises here.. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by sgant ( 178166 )
      Lucas Films is overly obsessive over the conditions in the theaters in which Star Wars movies played...

      They should have been paying more attention on the quality of the movies themselves! As in story and acting and DIRECTING! Honestly people, Lucas is a hell of a producer, but he REALLY is bad as a director.

      Just stick to producing there George...and also, don't worry about what others are parodying around with your movies. It's called "fair use". Also, it was a LIVE performance.

      George is worried about h

      • Re:No surprises here.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by The Snowman ( 116231 ) * on Sunday September 26, 2004 @01:59PM (#10355758)

        ...and also, don't worry about what others are parodying around with your movies. It's called "fair use".

        It may be, but at first glance it is a gray area. Not all parodies are fair use, live or not. Without knowing what the theater group has planned for his copyright work, he is justifiably skeptical. Granted it probably is fair use, but Lucas does not have the time to go around checking what every person with a parody is doing. Corporate lawyers have nothing to lose by being overly zealous. Win or lose, the individual lawyers will laugh all the way to the bank.

        Unfortunately, once the attack dogs (a.k.a. lawyers) are on the scent, the situation turns ugly and expensive. Hopefully when the dust settles Lucas will get enough $100 bills to burn in his fireplace to keep him warm on his large estate, and the theater group will be free to perform their act under fair use provisions. Time will tell, probably once the new DVDs sell enough and Episode III is through with its theater run.

        George is worried about his legacy...well, he's killed his legacy himself.

        George needs to learn that money is not everything. Piss off your hardcore fans and suddenly you find yourself in a world of shit. With the Internet to unite fanboys worldwide, he could face organized boycotts, negative reviews, and negative word of mouth advertising. I, for one, hate the man. He had some great visions and great films, but he shows his true colors over and over: greed unfettered with respect for his loyal fans.

        • Re:No surprises here.. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by tomhudson ( 43916 ) <barbara,hudson&barbara-hudson,com> on Sunday September 26, 2004 @02:26PM (#10355909) Journal
          Here's the relevant law, http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/110.html [cornell.edu] with how they can charge and still be okay hilighted:
          Sec. 110. - Limitations on exclusive rights:

          Exemption of certain performances and displays

          Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not infringements of copyright:

          (1)

          performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction, unless, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, the performance, or the display of individual images, is given by means of a copy that was not lawfully made under this title, and that the person responsible for the performance knew or had reason to believe was not lawfully made;

          So, as long as there are both instructors and pupils taking part in the production (getting "hands-on experience" would count), and it's done under the guise of education (as in learning how to act, etc), by a non-profit, it's okay to charge the public to see it.

          As for the venue, any place where instruction is taking place is, at that point, a "similar place devoted to instruction".

          The pupils and instructors are engaged in a face-to-face learning/training experience, the public gets to see the parody, and all profits go to furthering the experience.

          So, as long as they have a legitimate copy, and adhere to the guidelines above, they can say to Lucas "My schwartz is more powerful than your schwartz."

          • Re:No surprises here.. (Score:4)

            by badasscat ( 563442 ) <basscadet75@@@yahoo...com> on Sunday September 26, 2004 @04:29PM (#10356626)
            So, as long as there are both instructors and pupils taking part in the production (getting "hands-on experience" would count), and it's done under the guise of education (as in learning how to act, etc), by a non-profit, it's okay to charge the public to see it.

            Well, no, I think a) you're misinterpreting that law a bit, and b) I don't see how it applies in this case to begin with.

            Now, IANAL, but one thing I know is if it specifically says something in a law, then that's part of the law. You yourself bolded the words "nonprofit educational institution" in the law you cited - it can't just be a non-profit "organization" like the Red Cross or a public theater company, it has to specifically be an educational institution, in other words a public school. (Private schools are for-profit.)

            Second, I don't see that there's any education going on here. This is a company called Jet City Improv, which seems to specifically do this for entertainment. Look at their web site [twistedflicks.com], there seems to be nothing educational about it. It's for entertainment.

            So the law as you cited it is not relevant here.

            Now, parody is generally protected under fair use laws. But part of what determines fair use is the extent of reproduction of the original copyrighted work. Simply showing a copyrighted work in its entirety and then making fun of it is not protected under fair use. Showing a copyrighted work in its entirety but replacing the soundtrack is a grey area to say the least - I couldn't predict how the legal chips would fall but it's probably not something I'd want to risk going to court over if I was Jet City Improv. There'd be a good chance they'd lose this one.

            Woody Allen did the equivalent of what these guys are doing when he released What's Up Tiger Lily? He bought the rights to do that to that movie, even though it was a Japanese film, and even though the environment was much different in the 1960's. So that should tell you something. I don't think LucasFilm is really wrong in this case.

        • Not all parodies are fair use, live or not.

          The only problem is that it's either legal to parody, and you can do it, and you can slap down Lucas for trying to stop this, or you agree with them, and all parodies have to stop, because they aren't fair use.

          You can't exactly say all parodies have to be reviewed prior to, especially live parodies.

          I'll go back to dreaming my country actually reinforces fair use to slap down the RIAA. Right now fair use is coming under attacks from basically all big-media cont

        • "ith the Internet to unite fanboys worldwide, he could face organized boycotts, negative reviews, and negative word of mouth advertising."

          Yeah! That's how we took down Microsoft!

      • Re:No surprises here.. (Score:5, Funny)

        by h4rm0ny ( 722443 ) * on Sunday September 26, 2004 @02:05PM (#10355787) Journal

        don't worry about what others are parodying around with your movies.

        No no no, Lucas owns copyright on parodies too. And the parodies in question are called "The Phantom Menace" and "Attack of the Clones." ;)

    • Re:No surprises here.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by h4rm0ny ( 722443 ) * on Sunday September 26, 2004 @01:31PM (#10355564) Journal

      When I was a kid, some mates and I refilmed the entire orginal trilogy in about two hours. It was tricky as I was both Vader and Skywalker and we only had one Storm Trooper so we kept stopping and starting the camcorder so that this one Storm Trooper could run in and get shot repeatedly. It also led to the immortal line, "That's not a moon, that's a football."

      All of this utterly irrelevant however, unless any of my mates are reading. For me, the issue is not the legality or not, but the actual effects of the performance. First - does this harm the film company? Well, it's unlikely that people will go to see the theatre company's version instead of the original and I don't see how else it would harm their profits. And I doubt that it will be grossly defamatory to the people involved with Star Wars.

      So why should anyone have the right to stop them? Yes they are profiting through it, the article says $10 a head. But it doe sn't cost Lucas anything. It's money out of nothing and it's creative. Everything new evolves from something that came befor e. To put a lock on anything that grows out of your work is to kill the whole line of it's artistic descendants.
      • It was tricky as I was both Vader and Skywalker and we only had one Storm Trooper

        The true (and most frightening) question is "you did you dress up in the Leia slave costime?"


    • Lucas Films is overly obsessive over the conditions in the theaters in which Star Wars movies played... they spun of THX as a certification body to make sure visual and sound equipment is upto code for everything from theaters to the recording studio used for a video game.

      I watched AToC the night it came out at a theater. During the first half-hour of the film, the dialog was unintelligible.
      So I went to a second theater the next day. Again, the sound was distorted.
      I filled out a complaint form on the

    • Parody. (Score:5, Informative)

      by SatanicPuppy ( 611928 ) <SatanicpuppyNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday September 26, 2004 @01:47PM (#10355683) Journal
      Parody IS fair use, and, more than that, constitutionally protected freedom of expression, but using actual Star Wars in the background is a violation of their IP.

      It's a bummer, but there it is. They could make a parody movie of it (a la "Spaceballs") but they can't reproduce the content exactly, while over-dubbing, without getting permission.
      • Yeah. Basically, they need to parody all of the movie, or parody none of it. So they need to remake it for their parody.

      • Re:Parody. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by NetSettler ( 460623 ) <kent-slashdot@nhplace.com> on Sunday September 26, 2004 @06:18PM (#10357200) Homepage Journal

        Parody IS fair use, and, more than that, constitutionally protected freedom of expression, but using actual Star Wars in the background is a violation of their IP.

        [Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer; these are just my personal understandings as a member of the public. I am an advocate of existing strong controls by copyright owners. I am also, however, a strong advocate of the existing special protections for the work of parody authors. I myself am an author of works of parody [anotherwayout.com] that would not be possible absent such protection.]

        As I understand it, the "fair use" criteria are not hard and fast. Substantial resources [stanford.edu] are available on the web for helping to understand this complex issue.

        There are four criteria [cornell.edu] used in judging fair use. Among them, the principal one in controversy here seems to be "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole". The law doesn't say how the court is to address the amount and substantiality, just that it is to pay heed to it. What follows here is my own analysis of these issues.

        First, and most obviously, by omitting the soundtrack, they are plainly taking only part of the work. This, it seems to me, is an acknowledgment of their need to not just rely on the power of the original piece in making their new work. (Note: I think there could exist situations where using the whole work might still be necessary to a proper public dialog through parody, but the case is easier to make when some parts have been omitted.)

        Personally, I think the case for "fair use" in this case hinges on these issues: Are they using parody as a mere dodge for paying royalties on a movie they would just like to show for free? That is, are they negatively impacting the commercial stake of the movie? And secondarily, are they adding content which legitimately justifies the price they are charging on its own,or are they merely riding on the coat-tails of the movie to make money without adding any legitimate content of their own.

        It seems to me very unlikely that a person who had never seen the movie would endure a parody session as a dodge for seeing it. It would be cheaper for them to just rent the DVD. Notwithstanding Lucas' desire that they not charge money, it seems to me that the fact that money is being willingly paid by attendees is a kind of proof that there is legitimate new content here. For far less, people could rent the DVD.

        Additionally, and importantly, the work is not likely to appeal to anyone not having seen the movie. The movie would barely be intelligible to them. I'd bet that (to round numbers) everyone attending has seen (and paid for seeing) the movie several times. So I find it hard to imagine Lucas can make a case of losing money on this. If anything, the movie might create a desire on the part of attendees to go back and watch again to check on something, and that might generate new revenue for Lucas. So that seems a win/win, not an injury to Lucas.

        Ironically, I further think that if Lucas made the materials routinely available for parody situations at an affordable cost, I might think they had more of a claim. It's the hard-line "you absolutely must not" stand that leads me to believe the courts should defend the individual rights of parody creators. Probably Lucas should just have a "parody-maker's price" for partial viewings,and then they'd have a new revenue source that people could tap into.

        Further, if the work were not so ubiquitous as to make it likely that nearly everyone in the audience had paid at least once and probably many times to see the movie in some form already, one might be able to more easily make the claim that this was a dodge of the money-making version. But since the entire point rests upon the recognizability (presumably due to mu

        • Twisted Flicks (Score:3, Informative)

          by steveha ( 103154 )
          They didn't perform Star Wars but they have done other movies, and my wife and I attended a showing.

          http://www.jetcityimprov.com/twistedflicks/ [jetcityimprov.com]

          are they adding content which legitimately justifies the price they are charging on its own

          They are. That's the whole idea of "Twisted Flicks".

          They show the movie without sound, and they take suggestions from the audience. "Okay, I need the name of a place. Sedro Wooley. Okay, now I need a profession. Dressmaker." And so on.

          Then improv comedy guys then

          • Re:Twisted Flicks (Score:3, Interesting)

            by NetSettler ( 460623 )

            I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think these guys can hide behind the parody protection laws. They aren't really looking to specifically make fun of the movie, they just need a starting place to hang their improv humor.

            Ah, well, I'm just working with the limited info from the article.

            I do agree that there is a fine but important line between "parody" and "fan fiction".

            "Parody" is commentary on a particular story, and the latter is merely taking the stage of a particular item as a jump-off. "Fan fiction",

    • Lucas Films is overly obsessive over the conditions in the theaters in which Star Wars movies played... they spun of THX as a certification body to make sure visual and sound equipment is upto code for everything from theaters to the recording studio used for a video game.

      So what? If something is advertised as being shown in full THX sound wouldn't you want to know that it actually was? That has nothing to do with a group showing a parody of Star Wars. Your example is a red herring.

  • Not parody (Score:5, Insightful)

    by anotherone ( 132088 ) * on Sunday September 26, 2004 @01:24PM (#10355504)
    Parody is alright, but these people are just showing the movie with no sound. That isn't parody, that's Showing The Movie With No Sound.

    The vast number of Star Wars parodies that exist show that parodies are protected. What isn't protected is charging people $10 to see the movie and then talking over the whole thing.

    From the article:

    "In order to protect our copyright, anyone who plans to commercially exhibit our films has to go through the appropriate channels," said Lucasfilm spokeswoman Lynne Hale.
    That is not an unreasonable demand.

    If you ask me it sounds like Lucas was protecting Seattle. If anyone should be suing, it's Best Brain.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • More specifically, what they are doing would fall under public exhibition - which is prohibited (a la the FBI warning at the beginning of every single DVD and VHS tape). When you pay for a movie, you aren't purchasing the film as much as you are purchasing a license allowing you to view it. If you want to shwo the movie to a couple of hundred people, then you'd have to talk to the owner of the copyright about acquiring a different license.

      • Re:Not parody (Score:5, Informative)

        by atrus ( 73476 ) <atrus.atrustrivalie@org> on Sunday September 26, 2004 @02:14PM (#10355839) Homepage
        All the films for MST3K were licensed to be shown on TV. Which is also why a lot of the DVDs are so late: its expensive or hard to relicense some of the movies for DVD release. Simply showing it and making fun of it isn't exactly paraody.
    • The vast number of Star Wars parodies that exist show that parodies are protected. What isn't protected is charging people $10 to see the movie and then talking over the whole thing.

      What about charging people $10 to see the movie with you talking over the whole thing and then talking over the whole thing?

      Why isn't that protected?

    • Re:Not parody (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 1u3hr ( 530656 )
      Parody is alright, but these people are just showing the movie with no sound. That isn't parody, that's Showing The Movie With No Sound.

      Right. This is a derivative work. Spaceballs is a parody. Given that though, as long as Lucasfilm is being paid the normal screening fees, I don't see what their problem is.

    • It's a damn shame that the "Dysfuncional Family Circus" case never went to trial. For those who are unfamiliar, the guy who ran the site would scan and post the picture of that sappy cartoon, then visitor would submit alternative captions, which would be sorted by a panel of moderators (all of whom had consistantly submitted funny captions before). In almost every case, the new captions were a lot more funny than Bil Keene's lame original.

      What isn't protected is charging people $10 to see the movie and t

    • Re:Not parody (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gad_zuki! ( 70830 ) on Sunday September 26, 2004 @02:06PM (#10355795)
      Exactly. From the article:
      The main issue seems to be this: That Jet City charges $10 a head for the show. If the show were free, there's a chance that the legal department of Lucasfilm would not have responded. After all, the anonymous fellow who created "The Phantom Edit" (a version of "Star Wars: Episode 1 -- The Phantom Menace" sans Jar Jar Binks) never really got in trouble with Lucasfilm.


      "It wasn't commercially exhibited -- they weren't doing it for profit," said Hale.
      Copyright holders look the other way unless money is being exchanged. Of course, there's the larger issue of what fair use is, but they werent just parodying SWs they were projecting the footage and "adding on" their own product (their dialogue) and charging for it. Thats a lot like, say, translating the movie into another language, selling it, and not paying lucasfilm. Sure, that analogy isn't perfect but legally I think that's how its going to be seen.

      The real downside of this is that you can't really "sample parody" anything anymore without permission and the dollars to back it up. Either you create a whole new work with no samples like "Spaceballs" or you're kinda out of luck.

      I saw the Star Wars one man show here in Chicago last year or so and he charged money, but he didnt use anything other than his body to do his act. So he was completely free to charge. In fact a lawsuit by lucas would have (all things being equal) been lost.

      ALso, what does this mean for all the movieoke people out there? [movieoke.net] Sure, I doubt they'll crack down on it, but venue owners may not like them anymore after this.

      • Re:Not parody (Score:3, Insightful)

        by antiMStroll ( 664213 )
        "Thats a lot like, say, translating the movie into another language, selling it, and not paying lucasfilm. Sure, that analogy isn't perfect..."

        Not at all the same thing. Translation means converting to a different expression of the same content. This theatre company is replacing the content with parody audio. Unless you have in mind some of the 'translations' of Hong Kong movies I've seen, but I always took those to be inadvertent rather than intentional parody.

  • Of course they want it stopped... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Cat9117600 ( 627358 ) on Sunday September 26, 2004 @01:24PM (#10355505) Homepage
    Of course Lucas wants it stopped, otherwise how would he be able to release "Star Wars: The Super-Extra-Special-Parody Edition"?

  • Rocky Horror? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 26, 2004 @01:24PM (#10355507)
    Nothing funnier than a room full of geeks dressed as Boba Fett shouting "LOOK SIR, DROIDS!" simultaneously.

  • As long as they pay the same fee anyone else pays (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JavaNerd ( 805503 ) on Sunday September 26, 2004 @01:25PM (#10355512)
    IMHO, as long as they pay the same fee that any other theater would pay to screen the movie, they should be free to pariody it as they wish.

  • LucasArts don't like parody (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 26, 2004 @01:25PM (#10355518)
    If They don't want people making a parody out of thier films, how about a cease and desist letter to a certain George Lucas?

  • YRO? What's online got to do with this? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Sunday September 26, 2004 @01:25PM (#10355520)
    It seems like the "Your Rights Online" section of Slashdot has outgrown its name into a pure copyright-bashing area. Where's the "online" in this story? All we have here is a group of artists who wanted to do a live performance while showing the video half of a still-under-copyright movie. Having copyright laws that block that from happening against the copyright-holder's wishes may be annoying, but it's the law and they've gotta deal with it.

    The connection to online is just plain not there... either this story belongs in the main index section instead, or this section needs a new name.

  • Hang on a moment... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BJH ( 11355 ) on Sunday September 26, 2004 @01:25PM (#10355521)
    What it comes down to is (a) the movie will be shown without its soundtrack and (b) some people will be talking in the theater while the movie is showing.

    Sorry, but how the hell can this be the target of a C&D letter? Point (a) is up to whoever's showing the movie, and point (b) has no relation to the movie itself. Where does copyright law come into this at all?

    • Re:Hang on a moment... (Score:5, Informative)

      by OS24Ever ( 245667 ) * <trekkie@nomorestars.com> on Sunday September 26, 2004 @01:30PM (#10355557) Homepage Journal
      No, you A) Have to pay a license fee to show the movie whether or not you B) want to play the sound is up to you

      It's a target of a C&D letter because they didn't get the rights to show the film in the first place. If they got the rights to do show it, then this would be a moot point.

      It's not like a bunch of geeks dressed up as star wars characters were going on stage and doing the movie without the original lines, it was showing the movie a la MST3K which they need the rights to do so.

      • Re:Hang on a moment... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by jeffkjo1 ( 663413 ) on Sunday September 26, 2004 @03:54PM (#10356457) Homepage
        I can't believe this got posted to Slashdot in the way it is. It's a complete non-story. The guys didn't get the rights to publically exhibit it... and on top of that they want to charge 10 bucks a head (even more than most rip-you-off theater chains), and yet they didn't expect to get a C&D.

        Slashdot needs to stop sensationalizing it's headlines. They didn't get the rights to even show it in the first place. Of course they were going to get a C&D, parody has nothing to do with it.
    • Sorry, but how the hell can this be the target of a C&D letter?

      Because anything can be the target of a "Cease and Desist" letter. They are just something a lawyer produces saying "stop doing what you're doing - we don't like it". It has no actual legal standing, other than notifying you that, if you don't stop, they will sue.

  • Nice contrast (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Yesterday we had the CNN story with Mark Hamill telling people not to take SW too seriusly and now Lucas does exactly the opposite. Way to go dude, keep pissing off your customers and fans.

    Turbo Smorgreff [www.des.no]

    • He gets private tutoring in business administration from Hilary Rosen and Jack Valenti on Thursdays. They've taught him everything they know about public relations and customer satisfaction, and you can see how all their efforts are paying off.

      Besides ... after the last two films which were Star Wars in name only, I don't think he has all that many customers and fans left. Less than he started with, anyway. Should have just stopped with Return of the Jedi and left it at that.

  • didn't work for the Woody Guthry song (Score:3, Interesting)

    by vilain ( 127070 ) on Sunday September 26, 2004 @01:30PM (#10355556)
    Remember the company who sued the JibJab over the THIS LAND IS YOUR LAND use the political satire:

    http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/25/ 14 16257

    I realize there's a legal difference between parody and satire and that this case was over a lapsed copyrighted work.

    This still sounds like a great opportunity for litegation against LucasFilms over fair use.

  • Parody? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 26, 2004 @01:32PM (#10355568)

    Okay, this makes Lucas look like an enormous ass. But, oh, wait, that's long since been established. We already know that Lucas likes to tell Star Wars fans where they can shove their opinions, so he's not really losing anyone's respect here. If Episode II didn't piss you off, Episode I did... if it wasn't the prequels, it was the remastering or the remastering of the remastering...

    But I digress.

    This brings up the question are parodies fair use? And if so, should copyright holders be allowed to order people not to parody their work?

    No--this brings up the question, "What constitutes a parody?"

    There's a lot of precedent for parodies being protected under fair use. And certainly, copyright holders should not be allowed to order people around with regard to parodies.

    I think the real issue here is, the parody in question employs a public screening of Lucas' films. It would clearly be a protected parody if the movie were re-shot or acted out live. But actually putting on a public screening of the film--even with sound replaced--is not quite so clear cut a situation.

    Maybe we'll get lucky and this will go to court and we'll get a favorable ruling. But it probably won't make it so far.

    Here's proof. [gearlive.com] Free 27" flatscreen TVs. [freeflatscreens.com]

  • All part of the plan... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ILL Clinton ( 734169 ) on Sunday September 26, 2004 @01:33PM (#10355582) Homepage Journal
    Every small improv company comes up with an idea that makes one person in the group say, "But wait a minute... we might get in trouble for copyright infringement." and someone else says, "Yeah, but think of all the press we'd get if LUCASFILM came after us!"

    Well, they're getting some press alright.

    ILL Clinton - Maker of Machinima Movies [illclan.com]

  • The last two Star Wars movies were parodies themselves. How can you tell the difference?

    Seriously, Mr. Lucas, please put down the bullhorn and step away from the camera. Start writing children's books or something, but on behalf of myself and others, I urge you to back away from the franchise and let it die a natural death. There's no sense running it over a cliff.

  • Weird Al (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mick Ohrberg ( 744441 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .grebrho.kcim.> on Sunday September 26, 2004 @01:37PM (#10355614) Homepage Journal
    Wow, Weird Al would be in trouble. I mean, he does make a lot of songs himself, but must be most well-known for his parodies. The Amish Paradise skirmish with Coolio being one example of a deal gone sour. Then there's all the artists who say they haven't made it big until Weird Al makes a parody of one of their songs.
    • Weird Al gets permission before he does that. Except in the case of Coolio, but that was apparently the result of miscommunication. So it's not the same.
    • Wow, Weird Al would be in trouble. I mean, he does make a lot of songs himself, but must be most well-known for his parodies.

      From what I have read right here on /., Al always requests permission from the original artists he is paroding. He has a legal dept team that takes care of that!

      • Re:Weird Al (Score:3, Insightful)

        by K8Fan ( 37875 )

        The thing is, Al does NOT have to ask permission, any more than the morning shock jocks who do parody songs have to ask permission. He just has to pay the copyright fee necessary to record the original song. Al asks permission because Al is a really nice guy. (Horrible shame about what happened to his parents.)

    • The difference is that Weird Al recreates the songs he parodies, usually with a moderate amount of deviation from the original. The improv group isn't creating a parody so much as they are publicly exhibiting a copyrighted work - something that is prohibited by the standard license acquired when you purchase a DVD.
    • The single for his latest album, "Poodle Hat", is a song called "Couch Potato", which is a parody of a song by Eminem. Weird Al got permission from Eminem to do the parody and release the single, but Eminem asked that Al not release a music video of Couch Potato... so he didn't.

  • Just Like Star Drek (Score:5, Interesting)

    by serutan ( 259622 ) <snoopdoug@geekaz ... minus physicist> on Sunday September 26, 2004 @01:37PM (#10355617) Homepage
    Just like Paramount shut down Star Drek [jadelake.com], an unbelievably funny musical parody of Star Trek by David Rodwin. [jadelake.com] It ran for a year and a half in Seattle. No matter how funny, no matter how popular, no matter anything, it's all about money. Unfortunately, pieces of entertainment are no longer artistic works that become part of our culture. They are only "properties." We are allowed to "consume" them for as long as they're profitable, and that's all. Then they get locked away and carefully guarded in case they might someday be profitable again.

  • Parody Yes. Satire No. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cutecub ( 136606 ) on Sunday September 26, 2004 @01:37PM (#10355618)

    The Sunday Morning Fog is still hovering over my brain, but I seem to recall that the law makes a distinction between Parody and Satire.

    Parody (in which an artist is commenting on the work itself ) is protected as Fair Use, while Satire ( where an artist is merely using the work as a tool to comment on something else entirely) is not.

    So, as always, the devil is in the details. And whether this Mashup is considered Parody or Satire would depend entirely on the content of the derived work.

    -Sean

  • This isn't parody (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Robotron2084 ( 262343 ) on Sunday September 26, 2004 @01:37PM (#10355619) Homepage
    A parody doesn't allow for unlicensed playback of copyrighted works. LucasArts are perfectly within their rights to request this!
  • We used to do this as kids, with two VCR's and a mic. One VCR would play Star Wars, the other would tape the video output, and record the sound from the mic instead of the movie. We'd adlib the whole movie like this, just making up lines as we went. Still have the tapes actualy.

    Can I have my cease and desist Mr. Lucas?

  • Parodies (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ebuck ( 585470 ) on Sunday September 26, 2004 @01:40PM (#10355636)
    Considering that Slashdot runs copyright stories multiple times a week, why does the submitter even question if parodies are fair use.

    Among the very few things that are explictly proctected under fair use is parodies.

    I know that there's a lot of RTFA going around, but how can people with exposure to the issues multiple times a week even ask such a question, unless:

    1. It's obvious flamebait.
    2. Nobody RTFAs or even bothers to understand the laws they are talking about.

    Not that copyright law is great, but really, why question if it protects parody when the law explicitly states that copyright does not prevent reuse of the material in the case of parodies.

    • Re:Parodies (Score:3, Informative)

      by kalidasa ( 577403 ) *
      The problem is that this probably doesn't qualify as a parody under the common law. This is probably characterized as a derivative work, with the video from the film being combined with parodizing content, and so is not protected by fair use provisions. But IANAL.

  • actually, they don't have the right (Score:3, Interesting)

    by moosesocks ( 264553 ) on Sunday September 26, 2004 @01:42PM (#10355652) Homepage
    Actually, the supreme court decided a few years ago that the copyrigt holders indeed do not have the right to do this.

    I believe it was over a weird-al song -- Amish Paradise if I recall correctly. If it goes to the courts, it should be a pretty straightfoward case.

    As long as these people CAN convince the judge that what they are doing is a parody, LucasFilm doesn't have a leg to stand on.

    • Re:actually, they don't have the right (Score:4, Informative)

      by xigxag ( 167441 ) on Sunday September 26, 2004 @02:19PM (#10355868)
      As long as these people CAN convince the judge that what they are doing is a parody, LucasFilm doesn't have a leg to stand on.

      Wrong.

      Why?

      Imagine this. I decide I want to sell Star Wars bootleg videos in the street. So I break out DVDAuthor and superimpose MST3K-ish "parody" subtitles onto the movie. Now, according to you, I can go ahead and distribute my "parody" SW version with impunity?

      Fair use [wikipedia.org] doesn't work that way. Just because something's a parody, doesn't automatically make it fair use. In every case, the rights of the defendant must be weighed against those of the plaintiff, and except in very clear cut circumstances, the plaintiff has the upper hand because fair use is an affirmative defense -- you must prove that it applies to your infringement, not just assert it.

  • Lower the volume instead of muting it! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Do they have a law about how softly you can play the audio track? Do they have a law about talking in a movie theater? Fuck Lucas. Turn the volume knob down to "1", crank up the audio on the live actors, and talk right over the real audio track.
  • When someone sends a cease and desist letter, or any other threat, without the right oppose the action, that's corporate assault. Unless their threats are legally valid, the sender should be liable for that assault, a court should compensate the victim, and assign punishment.
  • Imagine that someone took the source code to the Linux kernel, modified it heavily, gave every command a fake Finnish sound to it, and released it for $50 a pop as "Finux" WITHOUT releasing the source or doing anything else to satisfy the GPL provisions. If you think what this theater troup is doing is fair use parody, "Finux" would be legal. If you think the GPL would prevent someone from releasing Finux without following the provisions of the GPL, then what this theater group is doing is not fair use paro
  • How much would the license cost to do this legally then? If it's all about money, why doesn't Lucas ask for $1 per ticket, rather than just shut the whole thing down?

    That's a curious thing about a lot of these copyright cases, a license is never presented as an option, it's always just "stop!" If someone is managing to make money from someone else's material, surely it would be more profitable to both parties to actually license it, rather than pay the horde of lawyers to make sure there is no revenue s

  • Lucasfilm: "Fr1st c3a23 & d3s12t!!!"

  • No Respect. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Izago909 ( 637084 ) * <.moc.liamg. .ta. .dogsiuat.> on Sunday September 26, 2004 @02:06PM (#10355798)
    Lucas is a greedy bastard. Does anyone know that he owns the term "android" and its derivatives? He has been suing independent artists and labels left and right that infringe upon his words. He wouldn't sue big guy like Radiohead for their song "Paranoid Android" because that would be big news and might cause a backlash. One example of a small label was a group that called themselves "Dead Droid Records" in Evansville, IN. Here is my question to you: Has the word "android" entered the American vocabulary and become so popular that Lucas should still have the copyright? Before you answer, remember that popular trademarks often enter the public domain as generic words (like scotch tape and aspirin). Also, should a person holding the rights to a single word have the right to selectively sue people as to not start a public backlash against them, or should they sue everyone who infringes regardless of their status?
    • I cannot believe this. 'Android' is a word of Greek origin, it appears in 1913 Webster's dictionary. How can one own a word like that? Did he sue Douglas Adams for calling Martin an android?

    • Re: Android or droid? (Score:4, Informative)

      by ciurana ( 2603 ) on Sunday September 26, 2004 @02:27PM (#10355915) Homepage Journal
      The word "android" certainly predates Lucas. Check any dictionary.

      The word "droid", on the other hand, was introduced by Lucas/Alan Dean Foster in the first Star Wars movie. Knowing about all the merchandising that resulted from Star Wars, it's not hard to believe that Lucas trademarked it.

      Based on my (somewhat limited) knowledge of copyright and trademark law, he's within his right to ask for damages in the case of "droid" if the word is trademarked. Also, I believe you may use the word "android" all day if you want.

      Cheers,

      E

    • Re:No Respect. (Score:3, Informative)

      by russotto ( 537200 )
      Lucasfilm doesn't own "android". They do own "droid" for toys and for software, though not apparently for record labels.
  • By now everyone should know the entertainment media has full control of the laws now and can do pretty much anything they want. Even make things up...

    This is why i no longer give them any of my money. No need to add to their pocketbooks, just to help them sue me later.
  • IIRC parody is when you take a work, and in an intent of humor you change it. In that case one could argue that a film is composed of two things : a copyrighted sound band, and a copyrighted image band, the film being recomposed by being the two together. So if you use the image part and change the sound part it isn't enough. You would have to change both, maybe by adding pink dancing bunny on every scene. Mind you I do not know how the law on parody is amde, but I saw time and time at the end of the films

  • One Man Star Wars Parody Allowed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by KevinH ( 58690 ) on Sunday September 26, 2004 @02:43PM (#10356018)
    Strange that Lucasfilms won't let this theatre company perform. Charles Ross does a One Man Star Wars live theatre peformance where he takes the classic first 3 films and does all the main scenes. He condenses the 3 films down to 1 hour. Amazing to watch and incredibly funny as well. More info can be found at http://www.onemanstarwars.com/one_man_star_wars1.h tml [onemanstarwars.com].
    Or to just see a video clip is here: http://www.onemanstarwars.com/OMSWDemo.WMV [onemanstarwars.com]

    Lucasfilms most definately knows about him as he was flown down as their guest for one of the recent conventions. He will also be performing at the big Celebration III for the new movie.

    The same guy also does the One Man Lord of The Rings which is also incredible.

  • What the laws say (Score:4, Informative)

    by wheatwilliams ( 605974 ) on Sunday September 26, 2004 @09:56PM (#10358859) Homepage
    In the United States, you can't take a copyrighted film and alter any part of it without the permission of the copyright holder.

    Even more basic is the fact that you also can't SHOW a copyrighted film in a theater without a contract from the copyright holder. Let alone sell tickets.

    You can't take a copyrighted anything and modify it without the permission of the copyright holder.

    Under the Compulsory License provision for audio recordings, You CAN take a copyrighted and commercially released song recording and make your own original recording of the melody and arrangement with parody lyrics (a la Weird Al Yankovic)as long as you pay the compulsory license fee to the copyright holder. The copyright holder CANNOT deny you permission to do this. But under this arrangement you can't sample any of the actual audio from the actual original.

    If you want to sample actual audio from the original, you can't do it unless you get contractural permission from the copyright holder--and that usually involves licensing and money.

    But rights for film, theater and television are called "grand rights" and are different than rights for songs and audio recordings.

    The point here is that this theater wanted to use George Lucas' actual film (which is copyrighted) and change the soundtrack. They might have been able to create their own original film, without using any footage or images from the real Star Wars. But what they were trying to do here is clearly a no-go, legally.

    A couple of years ago, as reported here on Slashdot, a company wanted to release DVDs of movies like "Titanic" with the nudity hidden, by digitally painting clothing over the nude actors. They wanted to pay the licensing fees to the copyright holders and sell the DVDs to people who were offended by R-rated movies but would be willing to buy them if the reasons for the "R" were removed. The copyright holders, including the film company that produced "Titanic" rightly stepped in and prevented this from happening.

    If you create a work of art and you copyright it, you have the absolute right to control the way that this art is seen in public, and to protect yourself from having what you created altered in any way that doesn't suit you.

    The "parody" question comes into play when somebody makes a piece of art that is 100% their own creation which parodies an existing work of art (Mel Brooks' movie "Spaceballs," which is a parody of "Star Wars"). But that is clearly not what the theater in question was wanting to do.

    So, no, modifying copyrighted material for parody is not fair use. The laws defining the concept of "fair use" don't mention parody at all.

  • Fair Use? Not really such a thing anymore... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Robotech_Master ( 14247 ) * on Sunday September 26, 2004 @11:35PM (#10359508) Homepage Journal
    "Fair use is the right to hire a lawyer."

    --Lawrence Lessig in Free Culture [free-culture.org]

Slashdot Top Deals

I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.

Close