The Shining Prequel Copyright Complications

1 Reply

As a Stephen King fan on Facebook I occasionally receive news about new projects and such.  This one link caught my eye and turned out to be another legal problem with an aspect of copyright.  This article describes a film company (CAA) that wants to make a prequel to The Shining, a Stephen King book that was made into a movie.  However, another film company (Warner Bros.) owns the rights of making the book into a movie which includes any part of the book including deleted portions.  The prequel that CAA wants to make a movie on is based on a prologue portion that was cut from the book but that is within the rights of Warner Bros.  Therefore, CAA has to get approval from not only Stephen King but Warner Bros. as well.

This part of the law I don’t agree with at all.  Warner Bros. never made any part of their movie about this inexistent portion of The Shining.  The film company shouldn’t receive the film rights to a part of a book that simply doesn’t exist.  In this case it should be completely up to Stephen King who came up with the idea for this deleted portion to give the rights to CAA.  Copyright Laws are supposed to protect people’s ideas, but this prologue to the book The Shining had nothing to do with the movie The Shining and the movie didn’t add anything whatsoever to the prologue.  If a film company buys the rights to a book it should only include the actual book’s story because other deleted parts simply aren’t parts of the book.  In this case Stephen King would allow the creation of this movie and the only thing standing in the way is Warner Bros. who had nothing to do with this deleted portion of the book.

Blog Prompt: E-Reading Tracker

2 Replies

Fox news reports this story link about another advancement in e-books that effects us as college students.  It’s about a program with e-books that allows professors to see the pages students are reading (and not reading) which in theory will allow professors to see where students are having trouble and focus more on needed areas.  This should benefit students, according to the company owner, and create a better educational environment for students.

The main debate that has surfaced from this is if this is too “Big Brother”.  This can be debated at length but my question is what are the legal boundaries for this?  Even if the professor tells the students to purchase this service I am not sure if the students is forced to our not.  The answer I believe lies in the same concept of buying a textbook for class.  No, the professor can’t force you to purchase it, but your grade will suffer if you decide not to.  It’s most likely the same policy with some differences.  The readings in a class are mandatory for any given student to learn the material, however this technology is not essential in learning any given subject.  It is an aid and therefore the policy that is with it should be treated as such.  It should be optional for a student to use it with no repercussions if they choose not to.  It is the students education and they should be able to make the decision if they would benefit from it or not.  If it is deemed mandatory by professors it is unjust because it simply is not needed to learn the course.

Today’s Class

4 Replies

In today’s class, an interesting discussion occurred surrounding the role of local bookstores in an evolving economy, where ebooks and online shopping are becoming increasingly present. Many people were inclined to side with these local stores, and felt that the new developments were threatening an enjoyable tradition. This makes perfect sense, because the act of shopping in a bookstore is in of itself an experience. The act of sifting through shelves and flipping through pages before making a final purchase has become one of the major appealing aspects of visiting a bookstore. It is what makes shopping for books a more enjoyable experience than grocery shopping for example, because the shopping experience is an adventure rather than a mundane task. Despite the fact that Barnes and Noble may have killed some local competition, people should be thankful for this company, as it is the institution that is most likely to preserve the experience we have come to know and love.

Future Developments in Copyright Law

2 Replies

It appears as if the United States will see a new major development in copyright law in the near future. On March 20, Maria A. Pallante, the register of Copyrights in the U.S. Copyright Office, gave a speech in the House of Representatives. In her speech, she stated that there will soon be new developments in U.S. copyright law, explicitly stating that the U.S. must begin “the next great copyright act”. This is in response to the increasing threats that illegal online distributors have posed to the creators of original works. As is to be expected, debate has begun on whether or not these reforms are necessary, and to what extent they will be expanded upon. As this speech was made relatively recently, it is early to begin coming up with conclusions as to what is the right course of action. We must wait and see what developments occur, as well what others have to say on the issue, before coming up with a correct conclusion.

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/04/10/comprehensive-copyright-reform/id=37826/

Blog Prompt – Live Performances

1 Reply

The issue of copyright’s role in live speeches and music performances comes with very difficult questions. Obviously, people who write books or compose music have ownership over their respective works. However, a public speech or concert is not so easy to categorize. After all, one could take this to the extremes and say that everything that somebody says is protected by law.

The way I look at it has do with whether or not there was intent for money to be made on the public performance or not. Paid events, such as the Tony Blair and Jane Goodall talks, have a price attached to them. So, it would be unfair to publicly distribute recordings of such performances without permission. Granted, this stance is not heavily enforced, as is seen with the countless phone recordings of concerts that are available online. However, it does set a relatively easier standard to follow.

Jane Goodall and copyright

2 Replies

When Dr. Goodall spoke about environmental concerns and the current practice of patenting plants that are genetically engineered I immediately thought of this class. Imagine a world in which corporations could own a life form. Imagine if evolution naturally created a life form that was close enough to a patented life form to warrant a copyright violation, would that corporation be able to sue nature? the premise of patenting a life form seems ridiculous to me for that very reason.

As an announcement if your like me and couldn’t get a ticket to the talk itself they are live streaming the talk here.

 

 

Marilyn Manson and the Paparazzi

3 Replies

Because of the world we live in we are all familiar with the role of paparazzi in our society. They capture images of celebrities without their permission for publication. From a copyright standpoint these images are the property of the magazines that the paparazzi sell them to. I have posted previously about photography taken without permission and the copyright laws regarding such practices. Because you can’t sue every paparazzi and every tabloid magazine that publishes your picture celebrities usually use other means to ensure privacy like wearing masks or covering their faces.

Marilyn Manson uses a different approach. He writes the word fuck on his face so the magazines can’t publish the photos. I suppose this is more convenient compared to wearing a mask but you will probably get some looks at starbucks. Then again if your Marilyn Manson you probably don’t care.

Videotaping for Archival Purposes

3 Replies

In my research for my previous blog regarding video recording on Broadway, I came across this 1987 New York Times article that describes Betty Corwin’s attempts to videotape plays on Broadway for archival purposes. Ms. Corwin was inspired when she “kept thinking of all those shows that were gone forever.”  In order to save the shows of her lifetime, Ms. Corwin began videotaping them to create an archive.  Broadway union workers and the playwright Neil Simon were among those who disapproved of Ms. Corwin’s work.  As a result, the tapes are “available for viewing only to students, researchers and theater professionals.”  While I generally disagree with recording live performances, I think this is a completely reasonable exception.  This should make us question where we draw the line, though.  Should every live performance be archived?  Should the viewing audience be expanded?  What has changed between 1987 (when the article was written) and now?

 

Recording on Broadway

1 Reply

As other members of the class have noted, it is typical for live performances to discourage and even prohibit recordings of their performances to be made.  Broadway is notorious for this.  Many of my childhood memories involve ushers harshly whispering at me, nine year old Shannon, to put away my camera as I took pictures of the chandeliers and the stages.  At the time, I was a bit confused (and annoyed at the usher for yelling at me), but I now understand that the effects of illegal videos of live performances could greatly impact the financial stability of such performances, with Broadway being at the forefront.

In 2009, Patti LuPone, a well-known Broadway performer, famously stopped in the middle of a performance of Gypsy because an audience member was seen taking pictures of Ms. LuPone.  Funnily enough, the event itself was also videotaped.  The reactions to Ms. LuPone ranged widely.  Many praised her for standing up for herself and her art, while others considered it a gross over-reaction.  Personally, I agree with Ms. LuPone.  What do you think?  And what does it mean that there is a video of an actress stopping a show to yell about recording during performances?

video and concerts

3 Replies

According to this article, Stacy Daxe quit Facebook after attending a concert. “My enjoyment was marred by idiots filming the concert and posting links to their Facebook status,” Daxe said. “It was annoying, rude and quite ridiculous given the fact that the quality of those videos was so poor, even Batman wouldn’t have been able to see them.” The article continues stating, “In general, the person who owns the copyright in the musical composition embodied in the video has the exclusive right to publically perform it, reproduce it and distribute it,” said Margaret R. Marshall, shareholder and entertainment attorney at Greenberg Traurig law firm.  Obviously artists don’t have the time to go after everyone who publicly posts videos of performances on social sites so people continue to do so.  However, would you ever react like Stacy?