BBC sued for "Orphan Black".

I really need to add the "no scripts will be read without prior agreement in writing" thing from my email signature to the contact page of my website.

But, as I understand copyright law, you can't copyright an idea or storyline. So Shaekespeare, if he was alive, cannot sue the producers of "West Side Story" for stealing "Romeo and Juliet", nor can he sue the producers of "Forbidden Planet" for stealing "The Tempest".

Click to expand...

It's too old to be protected by copyright, so you're correct, but for the wrong reason.

As for your question about Orphan Black:

Besides a copyright claim, Hendricks also alleges a breach of implied contract to pay and credit him for contributions.

Click to expand...

It would appear that it isn't only a case about copyright.

Sweetie,

I said IF Shaekespeare was alive - that's the critical condition.

As for the breach of an implied condition, yes, in litigation, a lawyer would throw in everything, which is his duty.

I said IF Shaekespeare was alive - that's the critical condition.

Click to expand...

aaah, fair point. Carry on

Aspiring Mogul said:

But, as I understand copyright law, you can't copyright an idea or storyline. So Shaekespeare, if he was alive, cannot sue the producers of "West Side Story" for stealing "Romeo and Juliet", nor can he sue the producers of "Forbidden Planet" for stealing "The Tempest".

Click to expand...

I'm no expert but AFAIK, if Shakespeare were alive today (and his works were not in the public domain) he could indeed sue the makers and/or distributors of "West Side Story" and "Forbidden Planet". Whether or not he would stand much or any chance of winning is another matter! This might seem like semantics but it plays an important part of the practical application of copyright law.

Occasionally huge amounts of damages are awarded in copyright cases but it's certainly not at all uncommon for the legal fees/costs to roughly equal or even exceed any damages awarded. The high legal costs of copyright cases is largely due to the fact that the claimant has to prove a level of "similarity" which is not clearly defined in law. For this reason a very high percentage of copyright cases are settled "out of court" or even before a suit is filed. Of course, some/many use this fact to gain an unfair advantage! Using your example for instance, it's unlikely that Shakespeare would try to sue but his publisher might be more inclined. The publisher may decide to sue even if privately they don't think they have a strong case, for example, if they think they can use costs to bully an "out of court" settlement and/or, just to send a message to other would be copyright infringers of their catalogue.

I don't know much about the book publishing world but in the case of the major music publishers, they're not in fact really music publishers anymore or rather, the actual publishing of music is not their main business! The major music publishers are packed with "in house" lawyers and their main business is the manipulation of copyright law, not music publishing. The same is true of the major record labels, where the actual creation of music recordings is likely the least profitable part of their business!

I'm sure you (OP) are already aware of most/all of this but I think it's worth putting it out there for some of the other forum members. In my experience many lo/no budget filmmakers have a very poor understanding of copyright, for example, many seem to think "fair use" is a right, rather than just a defence and some have a very poor understanding of what constitutes "fair use" in the first place.

Copyright law is a hideously boring subject to most creative filmmakers but I believe it would be a very useful resource if you were to post some of the more salient results of your research on IndieTalk.

G

AudioPostExpert said:

Copyright law is a hideously boring subject to most creative filmmakers but I believe it would be a very useful resource if you were to post some of the more salient results of your research on IndieTalk.

Click to expand...

I'll speak to a copyright lawyer and get back to you. In the meantime, how would you like me to post my research? Give me some examples of the format and content you would like.

Just because a lawsuit was filed does not mean copyright
was violated.

directorik said:

Just because a lawsuit was filed does not mean copyright was violated.

Click to expand...

Agreed and likewise, just because a lawsuit was not filed doesn't mean that copyright was not infringed. Most cases of copyright infringement as far as no budget filmmakers are concerned are either ignored/overlooked or just result in a take down notice. On the other hand, just a potential infringement can be enough to seriously affect lo budget filmmakers. I was actually involved in a film quite a few years ago which attracted a couple of distributors, both of which eventually pulled out due to concerns over a potential copyright infringement.

Aspiring Mogul said:

I'll speak to a copyright lawyer and get back to you. In the meantime, how would you like me to post my research? Give me some examples of the format and content you would like.

Click to expand...

To be honest I'm not sure. Just any info you come across which could affect lo/no budget filmmakers. For example, any precedents or clarification on "fair use" or instances of films/filmmakers which have fallen foul of copyright laws.

G

If Shakespeare were alive today, he might be getting sued by the writer of the material he is credited with writing.

People here have touched upon a key issue - filing a lawsuit in itself means nothing until a judgment has been passed.

For what it's worth, almost nothing Shakespeare wrote was using an original premise. Shakespeare drew together elements of Ovid, Dante, Boccaccio and Salernitano in order to come up with the plot of Romeo and Juliet, not to mention a poem called The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet which was published about 30 or so years before the play was first performed. Shakespeare was an absolutely shameless thief (not that it matters or stops him being the greatest writer ever) and would probably be endlessly tied up in lawsuits were he alive today.

I was talking about this a few days ago - Shakespeare and sources is a really interesting topic - and what's clear is that, up until about the 18th century, most of English literature was highly derivative. Generally, the sources were classical (a la Troilus and Criseyde), mythical (a la The Faerie Queene) or biblical (a la Paradise Lost), which were seen as having an authority that could be transferred from writer to writer. Writers simply weren't celebrated for their originality. The great writers of history - Chaucer, Shakespeare, Marlowe, Spenser, Milton - didn't produce a single truly 'original' piece of literature. Even in the 18th century, when we see the birth of the novel form and a great focus on narrative, writers like Fielding, Byron, Shelley, Wordsworth, Austen...etc, all seem to acknowledge that early period of source-based writing - their works are packed with classical references and allusions. The 18th century was a striking out against many of the traditions of writing, but they maintained a reverence for writers who never wrote a single original plot.

Now, I think, there is a much greater emphasis on the notion, however undefined, of 'originality'. I think this is, in part, due to increasing secularity, lack of Latin/Greek learning in schools, the rise of American literature without the burden of history, and the modernist trends of the early 20th century which pushed for language to be original, dynamic and expressive. Nowadays, it would be nigh on impossible to be considered a truly great writer if you were working from sources (and translating, as some of the early writers did) and I think that illustrate the way there has been a considerable change in emphasis in the past couple of centuries.

NickClapper said:

People here have touched upon a key issue - filing a lawsuit in itself means nothing until a judgment has been passed.

Click to expand...

I think we're going to have to disagree on this one! The legal costs of defending a copyright lawsuit are likely to be crippling, regardless of the final judgement. And, a final judgement is not required to issue a take down notice, nor is one required to dissuade a distributor from striking a deal.

NickClapper said:

what's clear is that, up until about the 18th century, most of English literature was highly derivative.

Click to expand...

Not just English literature but pretty much all of European art. There was little/no copyright law in Europe until the C18th and copying/plagiarising was both common and morally acceptable before this time. Up until the end of the C18th all composers (for example) worked under the patronage system but changes in the socio-economic situation (due to the industrial revolution) enabled composers to make a living directly from audiences paying to attend performances of their compositions, at which point protecting the intellectual property of a composition became essential. The industrial revolution also required the updating/introduction of patent law across Europe and the US at the end of the C18th to protect IP and therefore from this time copying/plagiarising became far morally unacceptable.

G