Firefly Fans Fight Back Against Universal 294
Gossi writes "What happens when a film studio and a fanbase get into bed? Fans of Joss Whedon's Firefly, and the movie by Universal Studios — Serenity — are not amused. After being encouraged to viral market Serenity, the studio has started legal action against fans (demanding $9000 in retroactive licensing fees in one case and demanding fan promotion stop), and going after Cafepress. The fans response? Retroactively invoice Universal for their services."
Missing the point (Score:4, Informative)
Main point (Score:5, Insightful)
However, that being said, Universal will disregard everything that they (and anyone else) do. It's going to take a hot poker to get Universal to do anything pro-consumer. Remember, all of the decisions are made by a group of women and men sitting at a table trying to figure out how to maximize profit. And that they are going to try to do, even if they are shortsighted about it.
Re:Missing the point (Score:5, Interesting)
Offtopic, I know, but here's my theory: It's due to a universal (pun not intened) misconception that a manager should focus on the "big picture" and delegate responsibilites to subordinates. So your average manager is totally out of touch with the customers, the employees, and the market. The only thing he or she sees is charts, reports and presentations, and somehow key decisions should be made with this stuff.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Serenity (Score:5, Insightful)
There are very few films I go see at the cinema and because I don't have a TV most of the promotions for them pass me by - and a lot don't appeal.
Re:Serenity (Score:5, Insightful)
Step 2: Allow viral marketing to create a demand for our product
Step 3: Sue the people from step 1
Step 4: Profit!
This has to be the most cynical thing I've ever seen.
Re:Serenity (Score:5, Funny)
So all this time, the "..." was just "Stab the guys who helped you in the back to make more money"? Damn, it's so obvious once you've seen it...
Re:Serenity (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Serenity (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a point that the limited times of the early copyright laws directly addressed, and which has repeatedly been swept away by the rich, the greedy and the powerful, for their own mean and selfish ends.
Oh bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a line between blogging about the movie and showing trailers on your web site, and marketing licensable items (like shirts). The first two are viral advertising, the latter is, well, marketing something that someone else owns as your own products.
From the fucking article:
I don't see any mention of marketing t-shirts as viral advertising.
Now while I generally think of movie executives as dick heads, but to be fare, they put up a lot of money to finance a movie that returned not so much. If they make a few million dollars on this, then good for them. They put up US$39 million dollars in production costs, around US$15 million in advertising costs, and about US$8.5 million in distribution costs [leesmovieinfo.net]. The film made US$38.3 million GROSS at the box office (meaning before the theaters take their cut). If the movie ran over production budget, or flopped, etc. You wouldn't give a rat's ass about the folks who would have lost their shirts. They paid for the right to market shirts.
Just because you REALLY REALLY like something, doesn't mean you can take if for your own and do whatever you want with it. This is also the reason we have patents (real patents, not business rules patents). If someone spends time and a lot of money to develop a new something, whether directly as an investment, or in their own time (so they can't earn money elsewhere), why do you think it should be OK for someone else to profit off of it. Or is it a matter of "if it's the little guy getting ripped, then defend the hell out of him, but if it is the big guy, or they have something you really really like, then fuck it, rob him"?
Man on the street to another guy: "Excuse me, but do you know what time it is?"
Second guy: "It's three P.M."
First guy: "Thank you... and I really really like your watch... I want to sell it to that guy over there."
Second guy: "What? Excuse me, it is my watch, I paid for it."
First guy (gathers a mob around him): "We don't care. We want it , and we're going to sell it."
I know this can easily be called a troll since there are going to be a lot of fanboys reading this thread, but really. And I happen to really really like Serenity (saw it twice in the threater), and watched and really really liked Firefly when it first came on TV... and was supremely disappointed when it was canceled. But I still think that showing trailers on your web site is one thing and selling someone else's idea as your own is another.
Re:Oh bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
1) When it comes to advertising, t-shirts are indeed... "like creating bumper stickers and gift cards"
2) Man on the street to another guy: "Excuse me, but do you know what time it is?"
Second guy: "It's three P.M."
First guy: "Thank you... and I really really like your watch... I want to sell it to that guy over there."
Second guy: "What? Excuse me, it is my watch, I paid for it."
First guy (gathers a mob around him): "We don't care. We want it , and we're going to make our own and sell it."
Second guy: "Ohhhhh....well, I'm glad that I could spark your creativity. Good luck. (shakes second guy's hand)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
THIS is NOT what we're talking about here: "We don't care. We want it , and we're going to make our own and sell it."
If it were, the t-shirts would have been "spin-offs" from the original. They would have been more like Fan Fiction, in that they would have featured NEW characters that didn't exist in the original. They would have had different names instead of Firefly or FIrefly related names. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN HERE. Wake up and stop decieving yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Serenity (Score:5, Insightful)
It was indeed a great viral marketing campaign, and most of the people/groups who participated will either be directly affected by Universal's actions (by getting a letter from Universal's lawyers) or know someone who was (often through being participants on a site that has been targeted). The thing that Universal isn't considering is that viral marketing can work to put out the negative word at least as easily as it puts out the positive ones. (It's likely it will be even more effective because people that are mad about something tend to complain to more people than they would if they were complementing something.) This will affect the sales of Serenity going forward, but Universal probably doesn't care about that as they've made the majority of the money from it already (or at least they think they have). I don't think it'll stop there though, people are going to look up what current and future stuff (as well as past titles) Universal owns, and they're going to tell others what those are and what Universal has done to fans of Serenity. It's going to have a financial impact, although it's hard to say how big of one. Univeral's throwing away future income here. I know I'm not going to be going to see any of their movies or buying any of their DVDs from now on and I doubt I'm alone.
Of course Universal will attribute any drop in sales to piracy and never figure out it's their own damn fault.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a problem. They'll just get their lapdogs in Congress to pass a video tax that every citizen will have to pay --- because we're all pirates, ya know.
their own damn fault (Score:2)
Looks like the lawyers took over there too.
Re:Serenity (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Serenity (Score:5, Informative)
Also, some of 11th Hour artwork was used in the prepublicity material from Universal, and it's seen on the Serenity DVD in the special feature on fans.
None of 11th Hour's artwork is from the movie. It's all original. It doesn't feature characters, screen shots or anything like that. You can view it here: http://www.cafepress.com/11thhourart [cafepress.com].
Basically, what's happening here is slightly retarded. Universal's lawyers are digging themselves into a hole by not understanding what they are doing in the scheme of things.
Re: (Score:2)
On a lighter note, if you liked Serenity, you should watch Firefly, the TV show it was based off of. Same actors and everything, and it's every bit as good (IMHO, better).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Rule number one: (Score:5, Insightful)
And this group has a lot of spare time and energy and has shown they'll fight for something they believe in.
But of course no one is required to have any social literacy to head a major corporation. Obviously.
Money Money Money / Must be funny... (Score:2)
Re:Money Money Money / Must be funny... (Score:5, Insightful)
It can be pretty amazing what people can accomplish out of pure passion for the work, as opposed to the profit to be made from it. In this case, the fans are more than willing to make the effort. The question is, will it be for or against Universal releases of the future?
If it goes against, there could be some problems for future TV and movies from Universal, as this loyal block will remember and potentially boycott. Universal knows that the potential loss of revenue from a rabid base of fans in that much coveted "18-35 male without an understanding of credit card debt" demographic would be something advertisers would look at closely. It would certainly cost them more than the 9,000 they are looking for in liscensing fees.
Then again, the MPAA and RIAA are dumb enough to cut off the hands that feed them all the time. Why should this be any different?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't fool yourself. The Firefly fanbase is an
Totally wrong, not a grassroots effort at all (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And this group has a lot of spare time and energy and has shown they'll fight for something they believe in.
They have also shown that they will work for free for an international multimillion dollar corporation. They are not exactly the smartest people on this planet.
Come on! They worked for free so that a corporation could make profit by selling them mind dumbing entertainment! It would be just as stupid if I worked for free at McDonalds and then went to the other side of the counter and bought th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't annoy someone who has more spare time than you do.
Why not?
The site is mildly amusing (very mild), but it's hardly going to cause an uprising by the people against Universal.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm involved with a wee activist group that has that same power base: people with a lot of free time. It's really quite amazing what a few hundred people can do when they work together and have the time to put in; I can only imagine the power of tens or hundreds of thousands behind an "issue" like the Firefly fan base. :)
But what I really like is the reverse invoicing -- it's a great response and 100% legal AFAIK. I used the same tactic on a doctor or two over the years. When I had to sit more than an
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fanbase Overboard? (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm partial to wrath (Score:2, Funny)
wish I had someone to bill... (Score:2)
Well, the thing is... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, well, what's the problem?
Re:Well, the thing is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But if you read a little MORE (I know, I know, it's Slashdot) you'll see he said this:
"The questionable image in my shop were, for the most part, already pulled down by Cafe Press after the first email notice I got last week."
So it would appear at one point he WAS using their images. And then his wording of "for the most part" sounds like he removed some of them but STILL was trying to
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"The questionable image in my shop were, for the most part, already pulled down by Cafe Press after the first email notice I got last week."
And if you keep reading (this could go on forever, I'm sure) there was an original C&D related to the copyright and images, which was complied with (the 'already pulled down...' part). These being images that Universal had previously encouraged use of for promotion of the movie -
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, well, what's the problem?
No problem whatsoever, if that was in fact what was happening. The trouble is that Universal is claiming this with regard to images this "knucklehead" made himself, related to Serenity, but not using any of their copyrighted work. If anything it's a violation of trademark, not copyright. That's a more subtle case en
Boycott (Score:5, Informative)
The Black Dahlia
Man of the Year
Idlewild
Accepted
Miami Vice
You, Me and Dupree
coming
Lets go to Prison
The Good Shepherd
Children of Men
Alpha Dog
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I don't think the boycott is going to work. How do I not see those movies any more than I was already not seeing them?
Invoicing? (Score:3, Informative)
you gotta be kidding me (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, bring back Firefly. Best sci-fi series since ST:TNG in my opinion.
Re:you gotta be kidding me (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never seen firefly (Score:4, Funny)
Can I get a retroactive refund?
Re: (Score:2)
I've never seen firefly
That would be the problem. I could understand how not seeing the Firefly series would make the movie not so interesting. For me, the series by itself was okay, but not great. The movie by itself was okay, but not great. If you've seen the series, the movie makes much more sense and I think they did a great job in the movie of explaining a lot of what happened in the series. There were several "Ah-HA!" moments for me where I now understood what was going on in the series, which prob
if they ever try to send this invoice (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The issue I take to
Re: (Score:2)
But watching a movie is an activity that is typically not compensated for. Advertising is an activity that typically is. Not a lawyer and all that, but it seems that is the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An invoice may be challenged in a lawsuit or its validity may be decided in a lawsuit brought for non-payment. If the fans submitted the invoice, Universal could sue the individuals or the group that submitted the invoice challenging its validity. If they
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong interpretation! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the clue bat. This is your head. This is the clue bat hitting your head.
As others have already pointed out, it's not copacetic to sell merchandise like that. You think you can start selling Star Wars t-shirts and Lucasfilm will be OK with that? Not likely.
But that is entirely beside the point. The point is that Universal believes this is a valuable franchise, and acts to protect it. They are not trying to shut down the fan community. Simply, there are people at Universal who think a Serenity sequel is a possibility, and they want to maintain control over that so when they fund the next movie they're going to get a proper ROI. That is all.
It's basically good news that they want to defend this.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah, well. Firefly, we hardly knew ye.
Re:Wrong interpretation! (Score:4, Interesting)
At present, this [cafepress.com] is the closest thing I could find to an infringement of any copyright or trademark on the T-shirt site in question. The product itself has no hint of infringement, and the description of the product has the word "serenity" but it's just a translation from the Chinese character in the picture on the shirt. Maybe the site used to contain more infringing stuff; I don't know. But at present, the Universal lawyers are still demanding that he take down the site (and holding the usual obscene $150,000 per instance copyright infringement damage number over his head to make sure he does it).
There is a danger to the Firefly/Serenity franchise here. Viral marketing works, but it works in both directions. The whole mythos of Firefly is about rebellion against a powerful government. If it looks like the franchise is in the hands a pseudo-government (big corporation) the most ardent fans will rebel. Of course, Firefly/Serenity has been in the hands of a big company since it was started, but the Browncoats might actually notice it now and become rather disillusioned rather than support it as fervently as they have done so far. No viral marketing means (maybe) no market. No market means no movie.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The key point IMO is that Universal allowed their trademarks to be infringed when the infringement served as "free advertising". Universal is not allowed to come back now and try to retroactively enforce their trademarks. In the legal world, this is called estoppel [wikipedia.org]:
It is perfectly copacetic to se
Well, while they're suing for IP use, why not... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Well, while they're suing for IP use, why not.. (Score:2)
Firefly has been one single corporate fuckup (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't you wish Bill Gates were a Sci-Fi fan? He could just finance a whole season, no strings attached, just for the heck of it, and donate the the sales of the DVD to his charity fund. I'd buy.
I am a lawyer on the wind (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
A lawyer on the wind, watch how I... *KA-CHUNK*
Well, there's that sorted out.
This just in... (Score:5, Funny)
Snakes on a Plane (Score:2)
And here's the real issue. If Universal REALLY didn't want this person selling those t-shirts... just ASK them to stop. A nice letter with an explana
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here we go again, FF this, Debian that... (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, Firefly. Nevermind, do carry on.
Comment from an attorney (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, they are clearly creating derivative works and would normally be violating Universal's copyright. However, it seems that Universal specifically was encouraging fans to create derivative works to promote the release of the movie. I would personally subpoena every document involving the viral campaign and look for language that I could use to prove a grant of license to the fans.
Disclaimer: I am not your attorney, I am most likely not even licensed to practice in your state. This is simply an academic discussion.
Battlestar Galactica fansites take notice!!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
The new Battlestar Galactica series is popular and has good ratings by cable standards, but not great ratings by new. The season premier got a 1.5 share. The CBS evening news pulls a 5, and CBS is embarrassed by the low rating. So there's some perspective.
Sci-Fi recently encouraged fans to "Make Galactica #1" with a spread the word campaign. Sound familiar? Kinda like what the Browncoats were encouraged to do?
Next year the marketing machine for Star Trek will ramp up to promote the new TOS based movie. Do you think they might reach out to the fans? Do you thing Paramont might be desperate for some old school Trekkie action? Perhaps it would be stupid for Paramont to sue fan sites, biting the hand and all that.
Universal hasn't learned this leason.
One word: estoppel (Score:5, Interesting)
Since Universal Pictures knew about the "infringing" activities and did nothing when those activities helped promote their film, their retroactive licensing fees should IMO be estopped. I don't know if Universal's cease and desist orders can be estopped or not. Since people built business models based upon Universal's tacit acceptance of the use of their trademarks, I think a good argument could be made that Universal delayed too long and have thus invalidated their own trademarks. If trademarks are not vigorously enforced, they are forfeited.
I had NEVER seen firefly til (Score:4, Interesting)
I went and bought Serenity, watched it, loved it and bought the entire DVD set of Firefly. Showed them to the Mrs., and she loves it too. Too bad it was underwritten by douchebags.
Summary makes no sense! (Score:3, Informative)
I hate what the Internet has done to basic language skills.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This news is rather upsetting (Score:3, Funny)
Serenity Now!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They're not actually billing them, if you read the site it says they're trying to make Universal aware of all the time and energy people have put into promoting Serenity/Firefly* without expecting any monetary
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The first few seasons of Buffy I found at least tolerable, and occasionally interesting...although once Dawn and Tara showed up, I lost interest more or less immediately...Dawn in particular reminded me a little too
Re: (Score:2)
As has been said numerous times, Joss Whedon is at his best when creating an ongoing series as he has much more time to develop everything as compared to a movie.
I wish a television network with some balls or nothing to lose would fund another Joss series and just let him run wild. Perhaps the new CW station (or whatever UPN/WB stat
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If Universal aren't planning on making another movie, then there is no reason that they shouldn't allow the fans they're 'memorabilia'.
If they are, why go after the fans who will only be driving more people in to see the sequel?
They're not going after fans. They're going after people stealing their IP for personal profit.
I'm quite sure you can buy your "memorabilia" from them (Universal). You know
Re: (Score:2)
There is no such thing as stealing of copyrighted material and there is no such thing as Intellectual Property. Intellectual property is a misleading term coined by lawyers to umbrella up copyright and patents. It is not a term of law and it is misleading to use.
I'm sure you think I'm just a grammar nazi for mentioning this, but if you allow the redefinition of the language of the law this way, don't be suprised when the FBI gives you a gre
Re: (Score:2)
You're absolutely correct.
Let me change the post so it's literally correct:
They're going after people using their copyrighted material without permission for personal gain, which they are 100% within their rights to do.
- Roach
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, this is Slashdot; do you think I'm going to let you get away with making a statement like that? First, there's no such thing as "IP". There's copyright and there's trademark (and patent, which doesn't apply here). Second, you cannot "steal" any of those things. Putting somebody else's picture on a T-Shirt you're selling isn't stealing, in exactly the way that downloading music off the internet (wi
Re: (Score:2)
They're going after people using their copyrighted material without permission for personal gain, which they are 100% within their rights to do.
- Roach
Re: (Score:2)
It's not stealing because it's potlatch. Gifts are being passed around at the cultural feast. The movie is getting promoted as a gift, in part by people wearing t-shirts. Those t-shirts are got in exchange for money, but t-shirt makers most always expect to make some return on their labor. So
Re: (Score:2)
Blah Blah Blah.
Since you want to nitpick what I wrote literally instead of simply taking it for what it was, let me rewrite it for you:
"He was using their copyrighted material without permission. This is a copyright violation".
You can't create a "Derivative work" without permission (for any reason, not just profit). He did. He did not have explicit permission. They told him to stop. End of Story.
That's the way US copyright law works. Look it up.
- Roach
Re:Some people are just ... stupid. (Score:5, Interesting)
However this is missing the point of how viral marketing campaigns are supposed to work. Viral marketing can be scary particularly for large control-freak companies, as the essential point behind viral marketing is to give away control of the brand to the fans / early adopters and let them be a mouthpiece for your product, a voice that other fans and their less fanish friends, family and acquaintances will trust when they wouldn't even notice a conventional marketing campaign via TV, radio, print and billboards.
I wouldn't be surprised if Universal's marketing dept were over the moon with all the fan promotion including Serenity T-shirts (free advertising by the wearer). And at the same time their IP dept were doing the only thing they know how to do. Plenty of YouTube vids were posted by marketing depts only to be retracted by their own lawyeres.
It seems to me that part of the deal with viral marketing is giving away control to the fans and while this may be informal (how do you contract for that 20th C-style?) and the fan volunteers have a right to be treated with respect for their work. Even if that means they make a little money out of the owner's IP. Under the technicalities of the law that may be "unlicenced" use, but there is an implicit grant of rights in marketing a product that we consumers have let slide and given the corporations free rein to trample over. Otherwise every time we told a mate about a great product we'd have to pay a licence fee and balance that by billing the corporation for marketing services. Just as these Browncoats have tried to show...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where am I "Wrong"? That's how copyright currently works in the US. You do not have a right to create a "Derivative work" from another. And yes, I do believe that the copyright holder should have
Re: (Score:2)
There were two letters, a C&D related to copyright-infringing merchandise (which was complied with), and a second letter afterwards demanding licensing fees for Serenity-related original artwork (a T-shirt that has the chinese characters for 'serenity' - Universal is asserting that they own the word. At least, the word in chinese.)
So, you're probably right... fair use doesn't really enter the picture.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you some kind of MPAA shill that must make absurd leaps of logic to make his point?
What I SAID was since the copyright owner had been taking advantage of the fanbase to market their IP, some quid pro quo seems perfectly
Re: (Score:2)
USC pertaining to Copyright, emphasis mine -
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. 17 U.S.C. sec. 105
Re: (Score:2)
It's called a "Derivative work", and you need permission from the copyright holder.
If I liked "Cars" and I draw a car with a smile on a tee shirt does Disney have rights to my t-shirt If that's the case wasn't there a cartoon car (a dunebuggy I believe) that t
Re: (Score:2)
They were using originally created artwork, granted referencing Serenity/Firefly.
Really? "Originally created", yet it wouldn't exist and no one would buy it unless someone else had made a TV series called "Firefly" and a movie called "Serenity". Interesting concept.
It's called a "Derived Work". And it's a copyright violation unless they received permission from the copyright holder to create it.
If you think that you s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since I am no laywer and I don't live in the U.S, my own estimate that this is Universal trying to claim ownership of something that they don't own
They own the original work, and any "Derived work". He was selling works wholey derived from their creation without permission. Under US copyright law, he can't do that.
- Roach