Fan Movies

Post by **Interdictor** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 12:42 am

You just stay on that sopbox as long as you like Gordon. That was eloquently (sp?) put.

Post by **XAMan** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 4:08 am

Hi Gordon

It's a tricky situation. As I said I am not a lawyer (thank heavens !!) but regardless of the copyright on individual parts used to construct a car there is then a different entity made up by the whole. The interceptor is identified by a 'reasonable person' as being Max's car ... from the film Mad Max. This could lead to an inference that you were 'passing off' a connection between the new work and the original.

Then there is the issue of moral rights. This is a protection for artistic works where the original author has a right to ensure that the images embodied within their film are not demeaned or diminished in a way that was not originally intended by the author. KM could well argue either way in the case of a fan film.

Putting a BonB into a short filmwould not necessarily be a brech of copyright. If you put in a BonB, a character named Max Rockatansky (or The Dark One etc) in a world created by the filmmakers would be.

Is it likely that KM would take action against you if you made a fan film ... not really. If you were making money then you could count on it. Intelectual property is the only asset produced by filmmakers and theft of IP is regarded no differently by them than your local ford dealer would tollerate you borrowing a car.

Drive mentioned schools putting on plays ... some years ago a bunch of my mates decided to put on a musical for charity ... we chose JC Superstar ... We did a few rehersals at the Landsdowne Hotel and the publican offered the venue for the show. We advertised in the street press as Superstar-Superstar with Tex Perkins from the Cruel Sea as Jesus and Brad from the Hoodoo Gurus as Judas ... all proceeds to the Childrens Hospital. Within 24 hours the cast, promoter and venue received a restraining order from Harry M Miller ... the copyright holder in Australia. No matter how we pleaded or assured him it was for charity no deal.

Post by **drivethiscrate** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 4:33 am

Hmmmm. I think i'll get into the business of buying copyrights for musicals....LOL

Post by **Gordon Hayes** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 5:23 am

Hi Pete.

I do actually understand just where they are coming from with this.

I had never heard of Intellectual Property (the idea in other words?).

You wrote...

"Then there is the issue of moral rights. This is a protection for artistic works where the original author has a right to ensure that the images embodied within their film are not demeaned or diminished in a way that was not originally intended by the author. KM could well argue either way in the case of a fan film".

The line "intended" is open to so much interpretation... If I look at it from their side I understand the point.

We would be using both the cars, and the post apocalypse world they inhabit, so for sure any "reasonable" person would see the link.

Well that really sucks... no place to go with this MAX thing, the cars are just awesome machines, they deserve to be displayed to the biggest and most interested audience just for the enjoyment that they can give people... there is just nothing like them.

But not on film I see.... When I think about that play that you were going to do... Even if I personally made no money at all. I could still get trashed in court. And that would be for sure in a USA court.

So what I do not agree with is the finality of the situation. I work at a pharmaceutical company, if they invent a new drug they have about 15 years of patent, in that time they can recover there research and development costs hopefully make a nice profit and then after 15 years it is a free for all.

Is there no life-span on films?

Like the re-make of Vanishing Point, was it necessary to clear a production path and pay royalty to a film 30 years old?

I suppose it was..

IF Ray Beckerly had placed design copyright the modifications to the XB Coupe, George Miller and all of us would be really stuffed.

Ha... Not that it would bother George![/font][/font]

Regards

Gordon[/font]

Post by **drivethiscrate** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 5:29 am

Guys, i'd say it would be a different story if they had trademarked the alterations they did to the vehicles. If they had, you probably wouldn't be able to show replica cars at shows etc.

Post by **Interdictor** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 6:29 am

Well, I see a slight flaw in that. Take for example Carroll Shelby, and his seemingly neverending copyright battle with his Shelby Cobra. As it stands, nobody can legally use the Cobra name, but the design, down to the smallest details, (minus the name or Cobra emblems) is fair game. I think making replicas (assuming K-M had copyrights to the XB modifications) would still be kosher, as long as you didn't call it an Interceptor, or try to pass it off as a genuine article. As it stands, no builders (save for that car 17 goofball) represent their work as anything other than a replica.

Post by **Gordon Hayes** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 3:34 am

Check out the Batmobile replica story sometime. It seems that some time back in the 1960's some guy replicated the "Barris" Batmobile (the TV batmobile of the time). And went on tour with it. Barris had some kind of license on the design and confiscated the first replica batmobile.

I do not know if Barris had copyright on the Batmobile, but he defiantly controlled it

The fans had to wait 15 years before they could build and display replicas.

http://www.javelinamx.com/Batmobile/batcar5.htm not the first replica but still interesting.

We are now close to 25 years since Mad Max so at least we have passed that mile stone, although that control never existed in the Interceptor.[/font]

Regards

Gordon[/font][/font]

Post by **camchain** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 10:49 am

One point about copyright and IP law that's always intrigued me is the money aspect. It's illegal to use copyrighted material for making money (unless you own the copyright) So I figure it'd be okay and lawful to make a fanfilm of the max world and sell it as long as we only plaan to break even. By not making a profit, we could say that we had no financial gain from the images/ characters and stuff and so the copyright laws don't technically apply.

I've no idea what would happen if the money coming in outweighed the production costs though..... I guess it'd all go to Kennedy/Miller.

Post by **XAMan** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 10:41 pm

This whole thing is intriguing ... Here's an extract from an article on the artslaw.com.au site ....

"Passing Off & Misleading and Deceptive Conduct

Even if you haven't registered your title as a trade mark, you may be able to stop someone from using your title if their use of it is likely to cause confusion to consumers. If a filmmaker was to produce and distribute a low - budget feature called Moulin Rouge: the Sequel, the producers of Moulin Rouge might be entitled to take action to get them to change the name. The producers could bring an action arguing that the producers of the sequel were seeking to pass off their film as that of the original producers, and that their use of the name is likely to cause confusion to consumers and damage their reputation. They could also bring an action under section 52 of the Trade Practices Act on the basis that consumers are likely to be misled or deceived into thinking there is a connection between the sequel and the original production by the use of the words Moulin Rouge in the title.

In order to be able to rely on an argument of passing off or misleading and deceptive conduct, there needs to be a reputation attached to your film. This means that until your film is promoted or released, the title of your film is very vulnerable. You may have spent several years developing and producing your film, and while you are in the process of completing the final edit someone else releases a film of the same name. Unfortunately you may have to find a new name for your film (unless you have already registered the title as a trade mark). It is important that in agreements with creative personnel, such as writers, or the person optioning you an underlying work such as a novel, you retain the right to change the name of the film.

Parody

If someone creates a film that mimics or parodies your film they risk infringing copyright in your work. If they also borrow and manipulate the title, such as the recent The Wind Done Gone, which was an unauthorised sequel to Gone With the Wind, or Roll, Lola, Roll, which was a spin on Run, Lola, Run, you may be able to stop them by taking action for passing off or misleading and deceptive conduct. "

I'm going to call a Lawyer who specialises in thes things and see if I can get a definative answer ... this article deals with film titles specifically but has implications on a broader scale.

Post by **drivethiscrate** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 10:53 pm

Inter, i agree, but i'm talking in terms of generating money from such a replica, like at a car show where people pay to see a vehicle. If it WERE trademarked, this wouldn't be possible.

Think Star Wars. No way would you be able to pay to see replicas of droids, characters etc without the express permission of Lucas Films. People have tried and have been threatened with legal action.