The movie industry is full of flashing lights, cameras, and famous faces. On the surface it would appear that the movie industry is one of the most lucrative industries to have ownership in. The latter statement is partly true; the movie industry is lucrative to many owners of major and smaller independent studios. For every blockbuster movie that is shown in theaters throughout the world there are literally thousands of lawsuits that are filed against the studios that produce them. Film litigations are the downside of owning a production company. It is not a question of “if” you get sued but rather “when” you get sued as it relates to producing films in Hollywood. Film litigations are costly and can take years to resolve. Another party may file a lawsuit against a filmmaker’s intellectual property such as a film or movie script. Let us look at a few film litigations to understand the many different causes.
The first litigation we shall review is the lawsuit filed by former South Carolina House of Representatives James L. Mann “bubba” Cromer Jr. against Showtime and HBO. Cromer created and filmed a movie called “The Hills Have Thighs” in 2008. The film is a comedic adaptation of the horror cult classic “The Hills Have Eyes”. According to the article Cromer hired an agent to increase the films profile. After doing so Cromer saw an ad saying his movie would be aired at 1:30 am on a Showtime network called the movie channel. Cromer being excited emailed and called all of his friends to spread the good news. To Cromer’s dismay, what was aired that night was a soft pornographic movie with the same movie title but with a different director. Cromer filed a lawsuit stating that by airing the soft pornographic film with the same title has caused action of defamation, violation of the Lanham Act, violation of the rights of publicity, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. (Belloni, 2010)
I will merely state my opinion on this lawsuit. It is my belief that Mr. Cromer is suing the wrong parties. There are a lot of movies that have similar titles. I think both Mr. Cromer and his agent failed to do their due diligence in the area of copyrighting. Mr. Cromer should have searched to see if there were any films already made with the same title. Even now Mr. Cromer’s attorneys should be trying to ascertain when Salvadore Ross actually created his version of the movie. If the findings state that Mr. Cromer’s film was an earlier copyrighted film, then Mr. Cromer should sue Salvadore Ross for copyright infringement. Showtime and HBO did not error in showing Salvadore Ross’s version of the film; it was shown after hours for adults. Mr. Cromer acted with haste and announced his film would be shown without thoroughly verifying that it was indeed his movie being aired.
The next case is well known and many of us as moviegoers are wondering how will this impact the finish product. It is the litigation between Warner Bros and DC Comics VS. the heirs of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster the creators of the “Superman” character. The Siegel family in particular filed a lawsuit against Warner Bros. and DC Comics claimed that the family owned profits on the movie “Superman Returns” in relation to a “sweetheart deal” struck between Warner Bros. and DC Comics. The heirs do not have any ownership of the copyrights to the “Superman” character until 2013. The families will own the entire original copyrights to the “Superman character” in which no new Superman films can be made without the families’ approval. However the court did not rule in the heirs’ favor for the damages but warned Warner Bros. that if the production of a new Superman movie does not begin by 2011, then the families can sue Warner Bros. for damages in 2013 when the families reclaim ownership. (Wigler, 2009)
This case is clearly one that is based on knowing about copyrighting laws and the rights to intellectual properties. I think the Judge made an error in this ruling. I base my opinion on Title 17 Section 302 of the Copyright law of the Untied States of America. Under section 302 it clearly states the following ” (a) In General. — Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the following subsections, endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and then to any heirs 70 years after the author's death.” Copyright Act (1976)
It has not been 70 years since the death of the creators of Superman. Jerry Siegel died in 1996 and Joe Shuster in 1992. In my opinion Warner Bros. and DC comics should pay the heirs profits from Superman returns.
The clash between church and state is more common than we may hear about. Brazil’s archdiocese of the Catholic Church is suing Columbia Pictures for using unauthorized images of the world famous statue The Christ the Redeemer in the blockbuster movie “2012”. The Brazilian Catholic Church commissioned Paul Landowski to create it in 1931. Under Brazilian law the copyright belongs to the author or work until his death and then to any heir and successors for 70 years.
The Brazilian Catholic Church wants Columbia Pictures to make a public declaration that the company did not intend to cause offense by showing the statue destroyed by a giant tidal wave in the movie. (AFP, 2010)
In my opinion this case is should be simple and to the point but unfortunately it is not. The main issue centers on international law. Columbia Pictures may have violated Brazilian copyright laws, but who has the power or jurisdiction to enforce Brazilian law on an American based company. I think that Columbia Pictures should indeed offer an apology and settle out of court with the Brazilian Catholic Church in order to continue shooting future film in Brazil. In reality, Columbia Pictures will not be held liable for violating the use of the statue.
To read the articles cited in the blog click on the links below.
0 comments:
Post a Comment