Printable View
OK, let me get this straight (or gay or whatever).
Lycan Film releases a movie entitled BAREBACK MOUNTAIN.
Then Blue Pictures releases a film entitled BAREBACK MOUNTAIN.
Who's on first? Or does anybody give a rat's ass anymore about originality…
Oy! ...that's Italian for Oy Vey!
(Cute title. Why didn't we think of that?!?!?!)
When is your version of "Bareback Mountain" coming out. ;)
How much time passed before the remake of TITANIC or KING KONG or
even CAPE FEAR?
I guess, given that we live in the "PORN TIME ZONE" we might give it a little while...
Is that vague enough?
not a surprise, everyone is trying to get a part of the brokeback hype. I guess I will have to force myself to watch both of these to assess their quality and find out who's really on first.
cheers,
Luke
Puppy Productions also just released one....it's called "Bareback Mountain - The Raw Truth"
Bill
Gosh, I guess that very few in this industry give a hoot about © copyright infringement...
O ri gin al ity ? Is that a word from one of the dead languages?Quote:
Originally Posted by A_DeAngelo
I thought it was clear as day that a large percentage of our industries 'players' were/are built off the hard work of others (ideas/concepts), especially when the ideas are a big hit.
The prime example for mainstream entertainment is 'reality' (this, and reality that). Kryst, I see one more "new" cutting-edge reality show or site, umma gunna start tah SCREAM! (Now THAT'S Italian!)
Everyday, people are looking at the work of others, for "ideas", (the bigger it is or becomes, the more pairs or eyes it invites) because they cannot come up with something original. They see the originator/creator raking in the mad money and they simply can not stand it ... they MUST have what the other has (and so begins the vicious cycle/circle of keeping up with the Joneses).
I call it theft, others call it what they want. All I know is FAWKING hell do I ever hate the clones of the Joneses!
Not sure I would agree with that statement given the recent number of copyright infringement suits which have been recently filed by adult entertainment companies, both straight and gay. But then, to make a copyright infringement suit worthwhile, the company claiming the infrigement must have actually filed the copyright with the US Copyright office. If not, it isn't possible to obtain statutory damages.Quote:
Originally Posted by A_DeAngelo
Speaking for ourselves only, we have filed a number of copyright infringement actions. We search the web constantly looking for infringements and send out DMCA notifications farily frequently. And, while we are searching for infringements against our copyrighted works and we see infringements of other companies with whom we are familiar, we let those companies know so that they can take appropriate action and they extend the same courtesy to us.
But since this thread has to do with companies who have produced titles called Bareback Mountain, and since Bareback Mountain is a different name than Brokeback Mountain, it really isn't a copyright infringement issue. Lack or originality? Yes, but not a copyright violation.
Bill
I guess that I just don't follow...it's ok to use the same name, BareBack Mountain again and again...?!?!?!
I don't think so, but then again, I might be wrong...
Uness Anne Proulx wants to sue, I think it's ok.
Well, as ok as it is to make a Bareback movie, which is a completely different thing altogether, isn't it?
Have to check with a lawyer but I think that yes, it's ok to use as long as the name hasn't been copyrighted or trademarked. And, seems that Puppy Productions changed it slightly by adding "The Raw Truth" to the title, so that most likely makes it ok. By the way, not a bad film.Quote:
Originally Posted by A_DeAngelo
And, most studios don't register that titles with the copyright office so they can't sue for punitive damages. That means, that most won't sue cause it cost way too much in attorney fees to do and no attorney will take it on retainer since punitive damages aren't involved.
Keep checking at http://www.copyright.gov/search/ and do a search for the name. It takes about 4 to 6 months after submission before it is posted. It may surprise you to see who actually registered the name first, and that company will be able to go after all the others for copyright infringement and punitive damages.
Bill
thank you Mr. Gardner, we are very well versed in © copyright law!
I suggest you take a little refresher course...
for starters...
I would suggest reading an interesting OnLine editorial on the subject of © published by AVN Online
this is the link...
item 10 is of special interest on this subject
http://avnonline.com/index.php?Prima...tent_ID=232071
We are gonna be different...We'll just call ours
"Brokeback Mountain - The Actors Cut"
LOL Get Jake back in to shoot some scenes (he said he wanted to shoot the first time around) and we'll be on the shelves for Xmas!
:santa:
now that's cute and cut? or un...
Gee Tony, for a producer of adult entertainment your lack of understanding of the copyright law is quite surprising. I would suggest you re-read the article you mentioned, paying careful attention to:Quote:
Originally Posted by A_DeAngelo
"For example, a copyright owner that has registered the copyright in work prior to the infringement of the copyright by a third party will be entitled to receive damages of up to $150,000 per willful infringement of the work without the necessity of showing either the amount of the infringer’s wrongful gains or what the copyright owner’s damages were. In the absence of such prior registration, such a showing, which is often quite costly, would be required."
Seems to me it says exactly the same thing I have said several times on this board. In order to receive damages your work MUST be registered with the United States Copyright Office. AND, it says, the work must be registered PRIOR to the infringement.
Bottom Line, and it isn't difficult to understand.....if you DON'T register you films with the US Copyright Office, you CANNOT receive damages. If you cannot receive damages it makes the expense of a federal copyright infringement suit almost too costly to pursue.
Bill
Sorry if I have offended anyone on this board. It is clearly not my intention.
However, in all fairness, it is not difficult for me to understand that it is not necessary to register a copyright to collect damages. That is what the editorial states.
And, I quote the editorial in AVN Online magazine that I referred to in my previous thread… "In the absence of such prior registration, such a showing, which is often quite costly, would be required."
"often quite costly" does not mean "can not" … The question really is - what is costly ?
Perhaps I should have never brought any of this to the board's attention in the first place! This subject is obviously boring to most!
Perhaps one of our attorney friends on the board would like to offer their understanding of the issue of Copyright Ownership?
I would like to hear what a professional has to say…