Entertainment Law Podcast Review

Entertainment Law Update Podcast Ep. 10

In 2006, LucasFilms won a $20 million dollar judgment in US court against a British prop designer who sculpted the original Storm Troopers helmet for the original film and began to sell replicas. The case was later moved to UK court of appeals, as a liability case, to try and enforce the compensatory damages made in US courts and in 2010 all of their appeals were dismissed. It had been so because under British copyright law the helmets did not qualify as sculptures.

My take on this is that it goes to show, and is a good example of what was said in my Entertainment Law class, that you should do your homework and know the jurisdiction and extent of the laws of where you plan to file suit. I’ve already been researching that since I’m planning to do business across a few different states, and that’s just domestically. If I were to ever be involved in litigation in a different country I would consult my lawyer or take it upon myself to be prepared for what could happen in court. LucasFilms, had they not moved the case to the UK court of appeals, could have had a very different outcome had they kept it in the states, and they should not have tried to enforce a US ruling in a UK court initially.

Entertainment Law Update Podcast Ep. 15

In 1990, the US Supreme Court ruled, in lawsuit over the rights of the Alfred Hitchcock film, Rear Window, that MCA has the rights to further exploit the film. It storyline circles around a teenage boy looking out of the rear window of his home and thinks he sees a murder and has a hard time getting people to believe him. The Hitchcock film is based on a short story owned by The Sheldon Abend Revocable Trust, a literary agent, who filed the suit in 1990.

Later, in 2007, Universal, formally MCA, releases the film, Disturbia, which has very distinct similarities and was ruled as a remake by the public.  Being so that Universal did not shutdown these claims Abend filed suit again, 2010, but were later dismissed by the court saying the film was not similar enough to the short story.

My take on Abend’s claim is that, yes, Disturbia could very much be an adaptation of the short story but it was distinct enough to be different, as the ruling said, to not infringe on the on the story. After the settlement in 1990, Abend should have just stopped their efforts against MCA, Universal, and the film Disturbia was in no way advertising or stated to be a remake or related in anyway to Rear Window, by the producers or anyone involved in the production. Nowadays it’s very hard to write an original screenplay that won’t be compared to anything else it may have similarities to. Avatar was a huge film that was compared to more than several films yet it was in the works for almost a decade. Abend should have given it a rest longer than a decades but I guess they were trying to get compensation before the copyright becomes public domain in the next 10 or so years.

References

Episode 10

http://www.entertainmentlawupdate.com/2010/04/entertainment-law-update-podcast-episode-10-use-the-force-big-boy-and-watch-out-for-beyonces-undies/

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Stormtrooper

Episode 15

http://www.entertainmentlawupdate.com/2010/11/entertainment-law-update-podcast-episode-15-tiny-astronauts-and-child-actresses/

http://www.scribd.com/doc/37944033/Decision-Rear-Window-Disturbia


http://blog.eduify.com/index.php/2009/10/26/write-like-you-mean-it-alfred-hitchcocks-rear-window/