First up is the little heard of scandal regarding The Purge franchise. The writer and producers of The Purge have lost the motion to dismiss idea theft charges by one Douglas Jordan-Benel, who claims the concept of the film was stolen from his spec script, titled Settler's Day. Now, both parties have to head to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The case seems rather murky and convoluted. When Jordan-Benel submitted his script to various studios, there was an implied contract that he would be compensated if his ideas were to be used, which, obviously, seems to have been broken. However, the people behind The Purge seems to have countered those claims by using California's Anti-SLAPP statute, which is something used to weed out frivolous lawsuits. Under the stature, a judge can throw out a case if he feels the likelihood of the plaintiff winn
ing is slim. Obviously, this didn't work and the court case progressed. Now, Hollywood is always prone to idea theft and intellectual property claims, but this court case, if won by Douglas Jordan-Benel, might open the floodgates and set precedents that will allow many people with small evidence to claim idea theft and file lawsuits, which could cost the industry millions in legal fees and settlements.
It's hard for me to judge this situation because I haven't read Settler's Day, but I've seen The First, a horror film about a Neo-Utopian society taking over the United States in the near future, a feat accomplished by allowing the citizens run amok and murder, maim, and plunder for one night out of the year. It's an interesting concept, but in my opinion it was a very mediocre film. However, I must point out that I've seen the same concept used in an old Star Trek episode, a Latin American art-house film, and even an episode of The Powerpuff Girls. Not to mention where this concept seems to have come from, the Spartan practice of Crypteia. My point being is that this concept isn't exactly new or original, therefore if the script of The Purge did copy Settler's Day in more ways than just the premise, I fully support Douglas Jordan-Benel's lawsuit and hope he wins his due royalties and credit. It might affect Hollywood in the long run, but it'll teach the studios that settling and buying can be a lot less of a hassle than nonchalantly walking off with other people's scripts.
Now, here's another interesting case It seems the Zorro trademark was deemed invalid in Europe! Seems Sony Pictures was slapped in the face by the European Union copyright court that stated that the name "Zorro" is not distinctive enough to warrant a trademark. The mess began when Robert Gabell, an American composer, contested Sony's copyright name of Zorro because of his stage musical, titled Z - The Musical of Zorro (Not to be confused with another musical version of Zorro, both of which are getting staged and left and right across Europe, to much audience confusion.) Gabble claims that since character of Zorro comes from two public domain sources (1919 novella and a 1920 film starring Douglas Fairbanks), the story and characters seen in those works are fair game. The court sided with him, and stated that Sony cannot copyright Zorro because it's a public domain property that anyone has access too.
I must say, I wholeheartedly agree with the European Union. Zorro has always been a public property as long as I can remember. I've seen cartoons, films, tv shows, and stage plays based on it long before Sony started making their Zorro films, so I don't understan
d what is so special about their take on the story that warrants a copyright and effectively removing other people's access to it.
Last but not least story I read is a rather ridiculous lawsuit filed by Lionsgate against Ameritrade for using their trademarked line from Dirty Dancing, "nobody puts baby in the corner." The Ameritrade add is a spoof of the famous final scene, showing a banker about to embrace a giant piggy bank, with a caption "Nobody puts your old 401(k) in the corner." Lionsgate claims that they have future plans for this "valuable property" and that Ameritrade is lying to customers by implying they're in partnership with Lionsgate. Now, Ameritrade have launched their own tirade against Lionsgate, essentially saying they're being harassed and their claims of copyright infringement are baseless and overreaching.
I must say, I wholeheartedly agree with Ameritrade. What they did was a parody, which is protected under the 1st Amendment and the Fair Use clause. Lionsgate has no case and it seems to me to just be an excuse to drum up some publicity for a tired old franchise. "Future plans for this valuable property?" Yeah, right!
Well, hope you guys enjoyed this post and tata for now!
~Evgueni Mlodik
