Printable View
EonFilms_Rocky stated " But since I am changing everything in the movie by 10% to avoid any copyright lawsuits (font on the title, the last names of the characters, the plot, the shade of orange, number and model of the car), I had to make a few sacrifices."
In responce to chadknowslaw's broken heart to see a Camaro instead of a Dodge Charger.
Is 10% enough to keep you safe in the world of parody films?
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by IdolKnights
However, that doesnt mean the other company cant sue you, this is Amerika, you can be sued for anything, by anyone, at any time.
Whether they win or not is a different matter :)
Regards,
Lee
;) ty and good to know
I would amplify and modify Lee's comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by IdolKnights
10% might be defendable in a court of law, but you'll be broke by the time you get there to defend it. As Lee said, anyone can sue for anything, and in the US, there's really nothing to deter someone from filing a frivilous lawsuit. My understanding is that in the UK and many other countries, the plaintiff is responsible for the defendant's costs if the plaintiff loses, and that's a very strong deterrent.
So if I were doing a parody, I would probably be much, much more conservative... the bottom line is, if you parody a well known franchise or asset, such as Dukes of Hazzard or Brokeback Mountain, and use a somewhat similar plotline or characters, you're asking for the legal department at the original studio to get up in arms. They would probably send a cease-and-desist first, but if you told them "fuck you", they might well decide to file suit if they believe that you're using the goodwill of their franchise as the principal means of attracting buyers. And the costs of defending the suit will be way, way greater than the income from the video.
It all boils down to your comfort level with various levels of risk.
well, you WOULD be using the goodwill of their franchise to attract buyers. without mainstream fame and popularity, who would be interested in a video like dicks of hazzard or the madams family or edward penishands?
my son's first job was in a video store, and people used to talk about the parody videos and why they were renting them. the main reason people check those boxes is because they want to see if the sets and characters are like the originals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip
Exactly. What it boils down to is, does the legal department of whatever studio owns the Edward Scissorshands franchise or the Dukes of Hazzard franchise feel like there's anything to gain and/or will they inadvertently cause more publicity by making a stink about it. (Honestly, I suspect it also has something to do with whether the people reviewing the situation have a sense of humor or not as well... seems most of these guys don't.)Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
There is a protected exclusion for parody, even though it's using the goodwill of the franchise, but what it boils down to is does the studio who owns the franchise feel like their franchise is being damaged/someone is making big bucks that they aren't getting paid for.
We had a couple of fabulous names that we've shied away from strictly for that reason. I'm not interested in attracting the ire of someone with deep pockets.
I only know of one movie that was ever sued for being a parody, and that was "Star Whores", sued by Lucasfilm.
LucasFilm lost.
Parody titles and plots have become the norm in the industry and many movie studios, directors and even stars consider it a badge of honor to have their movie parodied in porn. It is often the topic of conversation on late night talk shows, most notably Davie Letterman, Jay Leno, and quote frequently, Conen O'Brien.
In short: I'm not worried.
Rocky :-)