There was a recent legal dispute between the family of the creator of Alvin and the Chipmunks and 20th Century Fox. Karman, wife of the late creators son, claims that she was a contributing writer for the “Squeakual” which was released last year. The Hollywood Reporter explains that Karmen went ahead and wrote a script for the sequel and when Fox offered her compensation for her work, she claimed it was inadequate. Fox took the script and edited it to create the final script for the film. Karmen claims at least half the script is of her creation and therefore she is entitled to half the profits from the successful “Squeakual”. They are also claiming that Fox is in violation of a producers agreement.

It seems like there was major miscommunication between the two parties. Had all of these provisions been clearly outlined in the agreements that the creator’s family signed, then the entire debacle could have been avoided. Just how much of Karmen’s original script was used in the final script? Even though she refused compensation, is her script still considered a work for hire and therefore the intellectual property of 20th Century Fox? It seems like the creator’s family did not anticipate the success of the sequel and are looking for a bigger profit after the fact. It boils down to the wording of their contracts and what the family originally agreed to. If Karmen really never agreed to give over her script, then they may have a case. If not, she really can’t complain after she signed a contract.

link to article: http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/04/new-chipmunks-lawsuit.html

According to the Hollywood Reporter, Ashton Kutcher has been going around telling the public that he is going to pirate 10 minutes of his new film Killers and post it on the internet to share with fans. I agree with the article’s author; it seems like this is just a really terrible marketing ploy by Lionsgate. In an attempt to capitalize on Kutcher’s massive Twitter following, while making the actor appear rebellious, all the production company has succeeded in doing is encouraging the very thing that sucks money from their revenue. I’m not really sure how this is an effective tactic. What if production companies started promoting their films through other means of illegal activity? What if James Franco had been giving out dime bags to fans to promote Pineapple Express? I don’t think something like that would go over so well. Yet somehow, Ashton Kutcher promoting the illegal download of a film in interviews and tweets is completely acceptable. Why is there no stigma attached to the illegal downloader? Culturally, are we just accepting the fact that everyone, at some point or another, has downloaded illegally? Are we not pointing fingers because we do it too? Maybe there is this notion that you’re somehow a “sucker” for paying for music and films. Maybe no one cares that Kutcher is pirating his own film because we all know its a marketing ploy. Yet, it’s doubtful there will ever be public outrage over illegal downloading. Until the public sees illegal downloading as an act of piracy and a criminal offense, it will be difficult to curtail.

link to article:

http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/06/why-is-ashton-kutcher-pirating-his-own-movie.html

There was recently some controversy over the ownership of Fellini’s La Dolce Vita. The Hollywood Reporter explains that International Media Films sued Michael Lucas, the creator of a pornographic remake of the Fellini classic, back in 2007. The dispute revolved around the films chain of title. Apperantly, the films copyright has changed hands several times over the years. IMF took the last action in 2001, when they filed with the US Copyright Office on a restoration copy of the film. There was a lot of back and forth, but in the end the New York district court dismissed the case. La Dolce Vita had been in the public domain in the 1990s and unless copyright is proven otherwise, the film still is public property. The judge in the case clarifies that it is the job of the plaintiff to prove the film is still under protection.

How does someone, or a company in this case, lose track of a chain of title? Shouldn’t records be kept of such things? The article never really discusses how much of the original film was used in Lucas’s version. And considering the pornographic nature of the remake, it’s doubtful that it would harm the market for the classic. And if the film was in the public domain once, how exactly did someone ever regain its copyright? Even if IMF had copyrights on a restored version of the original, isn’t the non-restored version still up for grabs? There are way too many holes in this story to be sure of anything but it seems like International Media Films was just looking for a profit to which they had no claim.

link to article: http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/04/fellini-la-dolce-vita-lawsuit.html

Piracy has become a growing problem in Spain. According to this article in Variety, the Spanish entertainment industry has lost $6.5 billion in revenue in 2009. A poll of just under 6,000 Spaniards revealed that they were getting 84% of their movies and 95% of their music from illegal downloads. This epidemic, with a loss of $1.7 billion in taxes to piracy, is hitting the Spanish government hard. “According to the U.S. Congressional Intl. Anti-Piracy Caucus, unauthorized Spanish peer-to-peer downloads — 1.2 million in December — made Spain the world’s second-biggest P2P infringer by volume and per capita”. Spain’s Minister of Culture blames the lack of legal options available in Spain as well as a lack of listening and viewing devices.

This seems unlikely to be the sole contributing factor in the piracy prevalence in Spain. While America has many legal options for media downloading, piracy continues to be a problem in this country as well. The article claims that a poll revealed over 50% of Spaniards would be willing to pay for music and movies. However, only a small group of people were polled (less than 6,000) and the article provides no evidence as to what would motivate people in Spain to start paying for their media downloads. As the media industry evolves to adapt to the digital revolution, they will be hard pressed to get people to pay for what they’ve been getting for free for years.

link to article: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118020035.html?categoryid=19&cs=1&query=copyright

The recently released film Letters to Juliet had been tied up in a legal battle between Summit Entertainment (the films production studio) and EPV Enterprises (another studio claiming rights to a similar project). EPV claims that they have the rights to the story, which they licensed from another company ErgoArts. ErgoArts originially acquired the life rights to the group “Club di Giulietta”, the actual organization that answers letters written to Juliet in Verona, Italy. Summit claims that their project doesn’t violate any existing copyrights, but EPV fired back with a counterclaim seeking an injunction against the release of Summit’s film. While EPV claims their project is strikingly similar to Letters to Juliet, Summit went ahead with the film release as scheduled.

What is interesting about this case is the complications arising because of timing. It strikes me that EPV is upset simply because Summit got their story out before they could do the same. Summit never claims to have rights to the story of the “Club di Giulietta”, and I’m sure EPV/ErgoArts made sure they secured those rights in their option agreement with the club. There is no reason why both production companies could not release similar stories. Sure, a claim to market harm is valid (audiences will probably not go see two movies about the same thing). But legally, there is no error here.

Another question arises regarding life rights. Just how do life rights to an organization work? This particular entity has been in existence for over 100 years. Do life rights enter the public domain at some point? Can just anyone write a story about a dead guy if he’s been dead long enough? I’m not sure how that works, but it’s an interesting question.

link to article: http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/04/letters-to-juliet-injunction-release.html