Although you might not have seen it, chances are good, that you know Hurt Locker is a film that has recently been screened in theaters all over the country ( 535 theaters to be precise.) In the movie industry, distributors consider the opening weekend of their movie crucial for the success of a theatre run. An opening weekend that grosses around $10000 per theatre is considered a good opening. Opening in only four theaters, Hurt Locker grossed on average a little over $38000 per theatre, which is a great success for any movie, let alone a rather small ( in comaprison with Hollywood’s studio system) independent picture. It went on to gross $12.67 million domestic and $ 6.56 million in the foreign territories.
Depicting life as a soldier in bomb squad unit in Iraq, the movie managed to grab the audience’s interest, probably due to the country’s involvement.
The turnaround happened yesterday, when Sgt. Jeffrey Sarver filed a Complaint with New Jersey’s Court District http://www.scribd.com/doc/27777754/Sarver-Complaint-NJ-Version-Final-03-02-2010-w-Case).
According to his complaint, the film , which is based on a 2005 story published by Playboy depicts not only his struggle in Iraq, but also infringes his personal copyright, without any financial compensation or written agreement to do so.
Besides Writer Mark Boal ( who wrote the screenplay and the original Playboy article) and Director Kathryn Bigelow, Sgt. Sarver also sues The Hurt Locker,LLC and the Distributor Summit Entertainment, LLC, amongst others.
The claim made a total of seven counts, all depicting how the plaintiff was used for enriching the defendants. Furthermore, five out of the seven counts ask for financial compensation of $ 75000, as well as attorney fees.
Although the complaint doesn’t include specific US Code referrals, it says that ” The Defendants’ various different uses of Plaintiffs’ name and/or likeness was mainly for commercial or trade purposes, without redeeming public interest, news, or historical value.”
As one might imagine, this formulation excludes a possible claim by the defendant to plead for fair use.
Further information (and commentary) are provided by Business Week (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-03/army-bomb-expert-alleges-he-inspired-hurt-locker-update1-.html) and Playboy http://www.playboy.com/articles/man-in-the-bomb-suit-sergeant-jeffrey-sarver/index.html).
The fact that the original story reolved around Sgt. Sarver excludes the probability, that his life story is similar to the film’s plot. The case, at least the case that his life was used for the motion picture is rather obvious. However, I can’t make any sense out of Mr. Boal’s decision to not alter the script and thereby protecting himself and his fellow filmmakers from a lawsuit.
Anyone?
Some Rights Reserved
If all of these claims against Boal are true, then he just made a really dumb mistake and probably deserves what’s coming… you really don’t need to know about fair use or legal rights to see what he did was just wrong… I am trying to come up with more to say, I really can’t think of anything!!
Also… the playboy link… I’m pretty sure that’s not where we were supposed to be directed… !
Well,it is not that easy to determine if all claims are true and it is unclear what might come.. I was just wondering if anyone might have to add something or detect an error in my framing of the case, that’s why I thought it’d be an interesting topic to debate.
Regarding the Playboy link: Although I might understand, that an individual associates certain pornographic images with the magazine, it is also the origin of the article from which The Hurt Locker ultimately derived. I therefore used the link as an accurate academic source, without any intent of advertising for the magazine or it’s content.
From what I understand about the blog, only the administrator might be able to delete comments.
The plaintiffs aren’t making a copyright claim here; the complaint alleges “misappropriation of name and likeness; invasion of privacy; breach of contract; infliction of emotional distress; fraud; and negligent misrepresentation.” All perfectly valid causes of action, but none of them are about copyright, i.e. Sarver’s rights to some tangible embodiment of his own original expression. The word “copyright” doesn’t seem to appear in the complaint at all.
You guys are free to discuss other causes of action like these that sometimes come up in the same case as claims of copyright infringement, but you need to be careful not to conflate them. It’s one thing to ponder whether or not Sarver could have a copyright claim here, but it’s another (problematic) thing to say he already asserted one when he didn’t. Especially when you title a post like this one.
Well then how about this one for an example of the creators of a movie can get sued for copyright infringement:
A science fiction writer, Zhou Shaomou has filed a lawsuit against Avatar for copyright infringement, saying that 80% of “Avatar”’s key elements and plot are the same as his novel, “Tale of the Blue Crows.”
That’s really disappointing! I loved this movie and thought it was so original!! Here’s the article: http://www.examiner.com/x-19663-LA-Legal-Examiner~y2010m3d7-Chinese-writer-files-copyright-lawsuit-over-Avatar
I read about this lawsuit against James Cameron also. I think the problem with this is that the story isn’t original. Avatar has received a lot of criticism for being similar to Pocahontas and I just don’t see how such simple plot elements could be copyrighted. I think Cameron obviously showed a lot of originality in his execution of the film. I guess we’ll see!
I’ve not seen Avatar (I know, where have I been?), but many of the comments I’ve heard liken it to Pocohontas, Fern Gully, and Dances with Wolves.
However, according to this article, Avatar was “80% similar” to Tale of the Blue Crows. If true, that’s a pretty substantial portion!
But then again…blue aliens in a foreign landscape aren’t exactly a unique concept, are they?
It’s no secret that a lot of the same basic themes get used over and over again, so how unique does a film have to be?
It will be interesting to see how this case plays out, albeit not a copyright case. I don’t see how Sgt. Sarver will be able to make valid claims of his story being stolen and his likeness being used, unless there is written proof somewhere. I am not too familiar with the intricacies of the military, but it seems that The Hurt Locker camp is trying to claim that their story is loosely based around the standard duty of military personnel and not solely Sarver’s. On the other hand, if there were certain promises made to Sarver, the Hurt Locker camp could be liable.
When you say that The Hurt Locker infringes on Sgt, Sarver’s “personal copyright” I think you are referring to his life rights. We’ve covered this in another class I’m taking (Legal Aspects of the Entertainment Industry). I haven’t seen the movie yet, but if The Hurt Locker does indeed tell Sgt. Sarver’s life story, then he may have a case against them. I’m not sure if they would have needed to secure his life rights. If the story is based on the article written by Boal (who I assume was given permission by Sarver to write the article in the first place), then life rights for the film may not have needed to be secured. I’m sure Sgt. Sarver is just looking for a piece of the pie, considering he could have gotten some cash for selling his story. However, it might be too late for that. If he gave Boal permission to write the article, then I believe Boal had the right to create the screenplay and sell it to the studio.
I’m quite curious about this – I really loved The Hurt Locker… however, I can see where a copyright infringement claim might make sense I’d have to say from my own experience of the movie it seemed less about an individual person’s story and more about the very first words we see in the film, that “war is a drug.”
In that respect, I think the (c) infringement claim is pretty weak – after reading the Mark Boal article and comparing it with the movie, there seem to be very general similarities. In a lot of respects, the movie is just like any other war movie and aspects of the Jeremy Renner character (like his being confounded by a supermarket) seem quite deviant from the way Sarver appears in that article. Furthermore, the screenplay was deemed an “Original Screenplay” (hence it’s win in that category on Sunday night).
If it hadn’t been brought up in this lawsuit, I doubt that the average person would make a connection between the film’s events and Sarver’s events based on Boal’s published articles of Sarver/EOD/his time as an embedded reporter.
It’s Very Interesting Article And I have Enjoyed Reading it , I’m From Iraq And I can tell you that that 90% from this info is true . The Station is hard in Iraq now and as you know we had election not long ago and we all wish everything will be find soon .
Thank you for this article I am happy to part with you, I think that everything will change, and certainly I see things from the other side,I’m from Iraq … .. only for welcome …