6 ms·

His point is that, when you translate a tale to a feature film, you're going to need to make certain adaptations. Many of those changes are quite natural, and s

by pdpi 11y ago

His point is that, when you translate a tale to a feature film, you're going to need to make certain adaptations. Many of those changes are quite natural, and several writers doing the same adaptation work would arrive at those same changes. But whoever was first to the party can claim copyright on the new version, so anybody else coming afterwards won't be able to resort to those same changes, obvious though they may be (unless they can somehow prove they've never watched/heard of/had any contact with the older film).

anigbrowl 11y ago
And my point is that that's not really so. If the adaptations are indeed 'natural' (eg a Snow White scene where the Evil Queen consults the magic mirror about who is the most beautiful and the mirror affirms that she is, followed by another scene where the mirror identifies Snow White instead), then I say that's certainly defensible in court. Disney doesn't have first dibs on the idea of an Evil Queen with a magical talking mirror, seven dwarfs who live in a little house and so on. Anyone can use those elements. What you can't do is call your seven dwarves Happy, Grumpy, Dopey etc the way they are in the Disney movie, as those don't appear in the original story. This sounds very much like an argument about clean-room reverse engineering as a defense to claims of copyright infringement. But that's a totally different situation.
- justinlardinois 11y ago
  Retric mentioned the term "chilling effect," which is certainly relevant here. Wikipedia defines chilling effect as "the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights by the threat of legal sanction." You're probably right that such an adaptation would be deemed not infringing on Disney's copyright by a court. The issue is that a studio might not have the resources necessary to make it that far into the legal process. In that case, the choice is either make the movie, and risk going out of business if Disney brings a lawsuit, or not make the movie. Legal issues aside, which do you think they're going to pick?

by pdpi 11y ago

anigbrowl 11y ago

And my point is that that's not really so. If the adaptations are indeed 'natural' (eg a Snow White scene where the Evil Queen consults the magic mirror about who is the most beautiful and the mirror affirms that she is, followed by another scene where the mirror identifies Snow White instead), then I say that's certainly defensible in court. Disney doesn't have first dibs on the idea of an Evil Queen with a magical talking mirror, seven dwarfs who live in a little house and so on. Anyone can use those elements. What you can't do is call your seven dwarves Happy, Grumpy, Dopey etc the way they are in the Disney movie, as those don't appear in the original story. This sounds very much like an argument about clean-room reverse engineering as a defense to claims of copyright infringement. But that's a totally different situation.

justinlardinois 11y ago
Retric mentioned the term "chilling effect," which is certainly relevant here. Wikipedia defines chilling effect as "the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights by the threat of legal sanction." You're probably right that such an adaptation would be deemed not infringing on Disney's copyright by a court. The issue is that a studio might not have the resources necessary to make it that far into the legal process. In that case, the choice is either make the movie, and risk going out of business if Disney brings a lawsuit, or not make the movie. Legal issues aside, which do you think they're going to pick?