Yet more Lucas insanity

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Vlvetmorning98, Sep 27, 2004.

  1. from IMDB.com:

    Lucasfilm Halts 'Star Wars' Spoof


    Lucasfilm has quashed a Seattle, WA screening of Star Wars by a local
    improvisational comedy group that redubs movies live. The Seattle
    Post-Intelligencer reported Saturday that Lucasfilm sent the NONPROFIT Jet City
    Improv a cease-and-desist letter after learning on an Internet site about plans
    for the screening. The group said that it was the first time in seven years of
    performing such spoofs that it has received such a letter. "In order to protect
    our copyright, anyone who plans to commercially exhibit our films has to go
    through the appropriate channels," a Lucasfilm spokeswoman told the newspaper.
     
    Vlvetmorning98, Sep 27, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Vlvetmorning98

    Yazandtony Guest

    And.....? He has every legal right to. It's just more people bashing Lucas just
    to bash him. Move on already!
     
    Yazandtony, Sep 27, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Vlvetmorning98

    Rich Clark Guest

    "Vlvetmorning98" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > from IMDB.com:
    >
    > Lucasfilm Halts 'Star Wars' Spoof
    >
    >
    > Lucasfilm has quashed a Seattle, WA screening of Star Wars by a local
    > improvisational comedy group that redubs movies live. The Seattle
    > Post-Intelligencer reported Saturday that Lucasfilm sent the NONPROFIT Jet
    > City
    > Improv a cease-and-desist letter after learning on an Internet site about
    > plans
    > for the screening. The group said that it was the first time in seven
    > years of
    > performing such spoofs that it has received such a letter. "In order to
    > protect
    > our copyright, anyone who plans to commercially exhibit our films has to
    > go
    > through the appropriate channels," a Lucasfilm spokeswoman told the
    > newspaper.


    Is the emphasis on "non-profit" yours or the original article's?

    People should understand that "non-profit" doesn't mean "makes no money." If
    the group is charging admission, and the performers are being paid, then
    they are using someone else's copyrighted material illegally.

    The fact that no other copyright owner has tried to stop them before is
    meaningless. There is only one way to retain clear ownership of a trademark,
    and that's to defend it aggressively.

    RichC
     
    Rich Clark, Sep 27, 2004
    #3
  4. Vlvetmorning98

    JWB Guest

    "Vlvetmorning98" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > from IMDB.com:
    >
    > Lucasfilm Halts 'Star Wars' Spoof
    >
    >
    > Lucasfilm has quashed a Seattle, WA screening of Star Wars by a local
    > improvisational comedy group that redubs movies live. The Seattle
    > Post-Intelligencer reported Saturday that Lucasfilm sent the NONPROFIT Jet
    > City
    > Improv a cease-and-desist letter after learning on an Internet site about
    > plans
    > for the screening. The group said that it was the first time in seven
    > years of
    > performing such spoofs that it has received such a letter. "In order to
    > protect
    > our copyright, anyone who plans to commercially exhibit our films has to
    > go
    > through the appropriate channels," a Lucasfilm spokeswoman told the
    > newspaper.


    You obviously don't realize you must defend your copyrights, or risk losing
    them.
     
    JWB, Sep 28, 2004
    #4
  5. Vlvetmorning98

    Ronald Cole Guest

    "JWB" <> writes:
    > You obviously don't realize you must defend your copyrights, or risk losing
    > them.


    That's TRADEMARKS, nitwit.

    --
    Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412
    Ronald Cole <> Phone: (760) 499-9142
    President, CEO Fax: (760) 499-9152
    My GPG fingerprint: C3AF 4BE9 BEA6 F1C2 B084 4A88 8851 E6C8 69E3 B00B
     
    Ronald Cole, Sep 28, 2004
    #5
  6. Vlvetmorning98

    Dick Sidbury Guest

    Rich Clark wrote:
    >
    > Is the emphasis on "non-profit" yours or the original article's?
    >
    > People should understand that "non-profit" doesn't mean "makes no money." If
    > the group is charging admission, and the performers are being paid, then
    > they are using someone else's copyrighted material illegally.
    >
    > The fact that no other copyright owner has tried to stop them before is
    > meaningless. There is only one way to retain clear ownership of a trademark,
    > and that's to defend it aggressively.
    >
    > RichC
    >
    >

    Yeah but Star Wars is not trademarked so your point is moot.

    dick
    -- at least in the sense that your comment implies.
     
    Dick Sidbury, Sep 28, 2004
    #6
  7. Vlvetmorning98

    Bratboy Guest

    No, you have it wrong.
    Copyright = Protects intelectual property ie Book & film content
    Trademark = Protection of Name/logo Such as the wording and style of it ie
    If lucas has the Star Wars logo/text marked then no one can use that design
    on thier products. In this case if they are showing the film while doing own
    spoof speach then its a copyright issue NOT a Trademark one, silly. Oh, and
    you have to protect them both, failure to take action in either case opens
    the door to challenge and loss of the right.

    "Ronald Cole" <> wrote in message
    news:-intl.com...
    > "JWB" <> writes:
    >> You obviously don't realize you must defend your copyrights, or risk
    >> losing
    >> them.

    >
    > That's TRADEMARKS, nitwit.
    >
    > --
    > Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412
    > Ronald Cole <> Phone: (760) 499-9142
    > President, CEO Fax: (760) 499-9152
    > My GPG fingerprint: C3AF 4BE9 BEA6 F1C2 B084 4A88 8851 E6C8 69E3 B00B
     
    Bratboy, Sep 28, 2004
    #7
  8. Vlvetmorning98

    Bratboy Guest

    Just in case you doubted me:

    trade·mark (trdmärk)
    n.
    Abbr. TM A name, symbol, or other device identifying a product, officially
    registered and legally restricted to the use of the owner or manufacturer.
    A distinctive characteristic by which a person or thing comes to be known:
    the shuffle and snicker that became the comedian's trademark.

    tr.v. trade·marked, trade·mark·ing, trade·marks
    To label (a product) with proprietary identification.
    To register (something) as a trademark.

    cop·y·right (kp-rt)
    n. Abbr. c. or cop.
    The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or
    distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a
    literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work.

    adj.
    Of or relating to a copyright: copyright law; a copyright agreement.
    Protected by copyright: permission to publish copyright material.

    tr.v. cop·y·right·ed, cop·y·right·ing, cop·y·rights
    To secure a copyright for.
    "Bratboy" <> wrote in message
    news:cjbrl4$bcn$...
    > No, you have it wrong.
    > Copyright = Protects intelectual property ie Book & film content
    > Trademark = Protection of Name/logo Such as the wording and style of it ie
    > If lucas has the Star Wars logo/text marked then no one can use that
    > design on thier products. In this case if they are showing the film while
    > doing own spoof speach then its a copyright issue NOT a Trademark one,
    > silly. Oh, and you have to protect them both, failure to take action in
    > either case opens the door to challenge and loss of the right.
    >
    > "Ronald Cole" <> wrote in message
    > news:-intl.com...
    >> "JWB" <> writes:
    >>> You obviously don't realize you must defend your copyrights, or risk
    >>> losing
    >>> them.

    >>
    >> That's TRADEMARKS, nitwit.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412
    >> Ronald Cole <> Phone: (760) 499-9142
    >> President, CEO Fax: (760) 499-9152
    >> My GPG fingerprint: C3AF 4BE9 BEA6 F1C2 B084 4A88 8851 E6C8 69E3 B00B

    >
    >
     
    Bratboy, Sep 28, 2004
    #8
  9. >Oh, and
    >you have to protect them both, failure to take action in either case opens
    >the door to challenge and loss of the right.


    You don't have to defend a copyright in order to maintain it.
     
    Robert Morgan, Sep 28, 2004
    #9
  10. Perhaps this troupe ought to screen a video copy of the original 1977 edition
    of "Star Wars" instead -- since, in Lucas' eyes, this version "no longer
    exists", how could he claim copyright infringement upon a non-entity?
     
    Stroke of Eight, Sep 28, 2004
    #10
  11. Vlvetmorning98

    Video Flyer Guest

    On 9/28/04 9:39 AM, in article
    , "Robert Morgan"
    <> wrote:

    >> Oh, and
    >> you have to protect them both, failure to take action in either case opens
    >> the door to challenge and loss of the right.

    >
    > You don't have to defend a copyright in order to maintain it.



    No, but you DO need to defend it in order to enforce it.

    The question, though, is whether or not this particular instance constitutes
    copyright infringement. It seems to me that the courts have in the past
    upheld the rights of...*ahem*..."artists" such as Weird Al Yankovic to
    parody copyrighted works. If this troupe is re-dubbing the dialogue, this
    performance may fall under this rubric and therefore be protected.

    Neal
    --
    "If morons could fly, it'd be pitch black." - Anonymous
     
    Video Flyer, Sep 28, 2004
    #11
  12. what really offends me about what Lucas is doing to these guys is that he's
    infringing on the right of others to parody his works. Parody has repeatedly
    been defended in court on the basis of the First Ammendment
     
    Vlvetmorning98, Sep 28, 2004
    #12
  13. Vlvetmorning98

    Bratboy Guest

    Not so sure it would, I think it has to do with usage of actual material. If
    they are using the Film stock and just adding their own words to it it isn't
    the same as doing an entire parody where you recreate it completely. For
    example Weird Als Eat it parody of MJ's beat it he did entire thing. If he
    had used MJ's footage and just dubbed the lyrics then MJ would of owned him.
    Also other examples would be French & Saunders spoof of phantom menace (a
    great laugh with John Inmann of Are you being Served playing the emperor) &
    Mel Brooks Space Balls. Both copy/parody Star wars but use own actors etc
    not Lucas property directly. Its all moot. Sounds like Lucas didnt say they
    couldn't do it just to cease & desist doing so without permission, which is
    his right. (only reason even know much about CR and TM is that I spent 5 yrs
    fighting over one in court, so got learned the hard way, hehe)

    "Video Flyer" <> wrote in message
    news:BD7EEBE3.200AB%...
    > On 9/28/04 9:39 AM, in article
    > , "Robert Morgan"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>> Oh, and
    >>> you have to protect them both, failure to take action in either case
    >>> opens
    >>> the door to challenge and loss of the right.

    >>
    >> You don't have to defend a copyright in order to maintain it.

    >
    >
    > No, but you DO need to defend it in order to enforce it.
    >
    > The question, though, is whether or not this particular instance
    > constitutes
    > copyright infringement. It seems to me that the courts have in the past
    > upheld the rights of...*ahem*..."artists" such as Weird Al Yankovic to
    > parody copyrighted works. If this troupe is re-dubbing the dialogue, this
    > performance may fall under this rubric and therefore be protected.
    >
    > Neal
    > --
    > "If morons could fly, it'd be pitch black." - Anonymous
    >
     
    Bratboy, Sep 28, 2004
    #13
  14. Vlvetmorning98

    JWB Guest

    "Vlvetmorning98" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > what really offends me about what Lucas is doing to these guys is that
    > he's
    > infringing on the right of others to parody his works. Parody has
    > repeatedly
    > been defended in court on the basis of the First Ammendment


    Parody is fine. Using his film without permission is not.

    Spaceballs is a parody - Mel Brooks needed no permission

    MST3K is not a parody - they needed permission to use many (if not all) of
    the films.
     
    JWB, Sep 28, 2004
    #14
  15. >No, but you DO need to defend [a copyright] in order to enforce it.

    No. You have to defend patents and trademarks (a subset of copyrights), but
    you don't have to defend copyrights. It makes business sense to do so, of
    course, but it's not a legal requirement in the sense that patent/TM defense
    is. An undefended copyright is still in effect as long as the time period of
    protection hasn't lapsed.
    Theoretically, a copyright owner could ignore thousands of blatant violations
    for decades, and then pick a single violator to sue; as long as the copyright
    owner can prove they are the original author or copyright holder, they'll win.

    >It seems to me that the courts have in the past
    >upheld the rights of...*ahem*..."artists" such as Weird Al Yankovic to
    >parody copyrighted works. If this troupe is re-dubbing the dialogue, this
    >performance may fall under this rubric and therefore be protected.


    "Weird Al" doesn't use prerecorded, copyrighted material, which is where the
    Star Wars comedy stuff is infringing. Copyright laws permit new performances
    of a previously-recorded musical work, which would protect Al and his band (and
    is why bands can cover songs regardless of the wishes of the original artists).
    It doesn't protect unlicensed public performance of recorded works, however;
    even without the audio, the comedy troupe is playing back copyrighted video in
    a public performance. Lucas is in his rights to make them stop.
     
    Robert Morgan, Sep 28, 2004
    #15
  16. >You have to defend patents and trademarks (a subset of copyrights), but
    >you don't have to defend copyrights.


    Oops- bad form to reply to my own post, but thought I'd correct myself.
    Trademarks are a subset of *patent* law, not copyright law. Gotta quit
    watching TV while posting.
     
    Robert Morgan, Sep 28, 2004
    #16
  17. Vlvetmorning98

    Video Flyer Guest

    On 9/28/04 11:00 AM, in article
    , "Robert Morgan"
    <> wrote:

    >> No, but you DO need to defend [a copyright] in order to enforce it.

    >
    > No. You have to defend patents and trademarks (a subset of copyrights), but
    > you don't have to defend copyrights. It makes business sense to do so, of
    > course, but it's not a legal requirement in the sense that patent/TM defense
    > is. An undefended copyright is still in effect as long as the time period of
    > protection hasn't lapsed.
    > Theoretically, a copyright owner could ignore thousands of blatant violations
    > for decades, and then pick a single violator to sue; as long as the copyright
    > owner can prove they are the original author or copyright holder, they'll win.



    ______________________

    Which is what I said. The previous poster had stated, "You don't have to
    defend a copyright in order to maintain it." I agreed but noted that in
    order to ENFORCE it you must defend it via the courts even if you only
    choose to do so once every several thousand blatant violations.

    ______________________


    >
    >> It seems to me that the courts have in the past
    >> upheld the rights of...*ahem*..."artists" such as Weird Al Yankovic to
    >> parody copyrighted works. If this troupe is re-dubbing the dialogue, this
    >> performance may fall under this rubric and therefore be protected.

    >
    > "Weird Al" doesn't use prerecorded, copyrighted material, which is where the
    > Star Wars comedy stuff is infringing. Copyright laws permit new performances
    > of a previously-recorded musical work, which would protect Al and his band
    > (and
    > is why bands can cover songs regardless of the wishes of the original
    > artists).
    > It doesn't protect unlicensed public performance of recorded works, however;
    > even without the audio, the comedy troupe is playing back copyrighted video in
    > a public performance. Lucas is in his rights to make them stop.


    ______________________

    Not being a lawyer, myself, I wasn't aware that this distinction was
    actually made although in hindsight it does seem to fit what I know of
    previous examples.

    I yield to the more legally knowledgeable among us :p

    Neal
    --
    "If morons could fly, it'd be pitch black." - Anonymous
     
    Video Flyer, Sep 28, 2004
    #17
  18. Vlvetmorning98

    luminos Guest

    "Rich Clark" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Vlvetmorning98" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> from IMDB.com:
    >>
    >> Lucasfilm Halts 'Star Wars' Spoof
    >>
    >>
    >> Lucasfilm has quashed a Seattle, WA screening of Star Wars by a local
    >> improvisational comedy group that redubs movies live. The Seattle
    >> Post-Intelligencer reported Saturday that Lucasfilm sent the NONPROFIT
    >> Jet City
    >> Improv a cease-and-desist letter after learning on an Internet site about
    >> plans
    >> for the screening. The group said that it was the first time in seven
    >> years of
    >> performing such spoofs that it has received such a letter. "In order to
    >> protect
    >> our copyright, anyone who plans to commercially exhibit our films has to
    >> go
    >> through the appropriate channels," a Lucasfilm spokeswoman told the
    >> newspaper.

    >
    > Is the emphasis on "non-profit" yours or the original article's?
    >
    > People should understand that "non-profit" doesn't mean "makes no money."
    > If the group is charging admission, and the performers are being paid,
    > then they are using someone else's copyrighted material illegally.
    >
    > The fact that no other copyright owner has tried to stop them before is
    > meaningless. There is only one way to retain clear ownership of a
    > trademark, and that's to defend it aggressively.
    >
    > RichC
    >


    Spoofs such as MST3K pay royalties to use movies for spoofs. In fact, some
    companies that granted TV rights have refused DVD rights.


    Commercial exhibition is protected under copyright law.

    Note that on AtomFilms.com where there are many spoofs, star trek and star
    wars spoofs have to change the music, create new names for characters, etc.
    to avoid copyright infringement.
     
    luminos, Sep 28, 2004
    #18
  19. Vlvetmorning98

    RichC Guest

    Dick Sidbury <> wrote in message news:<>...

    > Yeah but Star Wars is not trademarked so your point is moot.
    >
    > dick
    > -- at least in the sense that your comment implies.


    If they sold tickets to a movie and used the title "Star Wars" (which
    is indeed trademarked) they were infringing a trademark. They were
    committing several other crimes as well, of course. Even if the actual
    product being sold wasn't Lucas's movie, using his trademark to sell
    tickets is a trademark infringement.

    The fact that the product being sold was, in fact, Lucas's movie
    (being used as the major ingredient in another product) makes it a
    copyright infringement as well.

    RichC
     
    RichC, Sep 28, 2004
    #19
  20. Vlvetmorning98

    Ronald Cole Guest

    "Bratboy" <> writes:
    > "Ronald Cole" <> wrote in message
    > news:-intl.com...
    >> "JWB" <> writes:
    >>> You obviously don't realize you must defend your copyrights, or risk
    >>> losing
    >>> them.

    >>
    >> That's TRADEMARKS, nitwit.

    >
    > No, you have it wrong.
    > Copyright = Protects intelectual property ie Book & film content
    > Trademark = Protection of Name/logo Such as the wording and style of it ie
    > If lucas has the Star Wars logo/text marked then no one can use that design
    > on thier products. In this case if they are showing the film while doing own
    > spoof speach then its a copyright issue NOT a Trademark one, silly. Oh, and
    > you have to protect them both, failure to take action in either case opens
    > the door to challenge and loss of the right.


    You forgot the "IANAL" in your post. Without it, people might get the
    incorrect impression from your post that you can lose a copyright,
    which you can't in the US until your term expires. You can only sign
    away your copyrights.

    --
    Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412
    Ronald Cole <> Phone: (760) 499-9142
    President, CEO Fax: (760) 499-9152
    My GPG fingerprint: C3AF 4BE9 BEA6 F1C2 B084 4A88 8851 E6C8 69E3 B00B
     
    Ronald Cole, Sep 29, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Re: Lucas: Cake farting

    , Dec 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    7,402
    Betty Swallocks
    Dec 12, 2003
  2. aka JP

    OT Lucas Tam has been shut down

    aka JP, Apr 16, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    357
    aka JP
    Apr 16, 2004
  3. Grand Inquisitor

    why is George Lucas such a buttmunch?

    Grand Inquisitor, Sep 24, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    64
    Views:
    1,709
    Bexley
    Oct 7, 2003
  4. Metlhd3138
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    3,266
    BubbCoop
    Nov 15, 2003
  5. Princess Leia

    Star Wars & Lucas & CGI -- Oh My!

    Princess Leia, Feb 11, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    907
Loading...

Share This Page