Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

007 Dis(Gold)members Austin Powers 327

Posted by Roblimo from the submitted-over-and-over dept.
gpinzone writes, "MGM and Danjaq, the British company that controls the Bond film license, have obtained a cease-and-desist order against New Line Cinema that prohibits New Line from calling the latest installment of Mike Myers' shagadelic spy series Austin Powers in Goldmember . The full article is available from E!-Online."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

007 Dis(Gold)members Austin Powers More

007 Dis(Gold)members Austin Powers

Comments Filter:
  • It thought most people were aware this movie was in development for a while, so why has it taken so long for MGM to move on it?
    • why has it taken so long for MGM to move on it?

      MGM was just waiting to see if it was worth their while. If Goldmember turned out to be a dud, MGM has nothing to gain by attempting to squelch it. But if Goldmember looks like it's going to be raking in the bucks hand over fist, surely they won't have to twist New Line's arm too hard to "remind" them to share just a little itty bit of the profits...

    • Look at all the stuff that New Line has out there already they have to recall. I'm sure that if it's coming out this summer, then most of it is already filmed. Either New Line has to scrap a lot of work $$$$$ or pay of MGM $$$. I guess MGM is hoping that'll look like the best bet to them now.

  • Precedent (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sql*kitten ( 1359 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @04:43AM (#2918494)
    Weird how they're upset about this, but allowed "The Spy Who Shagged Me". I thought that satire counted as fair use of copyrighted material?

    • Re:Precedent (Score:5, Informative)

      by Oink.NET ( 551861 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @05:22AM (#2918591) Homepage
      They got upset about "The Spy Who Shagged Me" too, and were rewarded for it. You can bet they'll try that trick again!


      From a Yahoo story [yahoo.com]: MGM initially challenged the use of "The Spy Who Shagged Me," an obvious play on the 1977 Bond title "The Spy Who Loved Me." But that dispute was settled when New Line agreed to include trailer play for MGM movies on its Austin Powers sequel.

    • From the BBC [bbc.co.uk]:

      Bond's producers unsuccessfully contested the title of Myers's last movie, The Spy Who Shagged Me - a spoof on 007 movie The Spy Who Loved Me.

    • Irrelevent (Score:3, Insightful)

      by N8F8 ( 4562 )
      The problem with "fair use" is that it has to be proven and defended on a case-by-case basis. If New Line wants to fight it they wouldn't have a chance of sufficiently marketing it and still get it out for the summer blockbuster season.

    • Re:Precedent (Score:3, Informative)

      by Rogerborg ( 306625 )
      • I thought that satire counted as fair use of copyrighted material

      Yeah, it sucks that there's not some some huge global information network [www.org] where we could go to learn about fair use issues [publaw.com] rather than just speculating about them.

      Goldmember falls flat on 2 out of 4 fair use criteria. Fair use is an exception to the very clear copyright law, and it's a civil action, so it's "balance of probabilities" not "beyond all reasonable doubt". It's not prior restraint on publication either, as the name is already being used in marketing (c.f. the recalled material). The copyright owners are well within their rights to take this action, and Mike should have been ready to defend it from day one.

      It's no big whoop though. We're looking at a quick out of court settlement, balanced against free publicity for both franchises. A couple of PR guys lose out... unless the whole issue is a well managed PR stunt to scam publicity for all parties.

    • Re:Precedent (Score:2, Informative)

      by big_cat79 ( 156695 )
      According to a story on Yahoo! [yahoo.com], this time they Austin Powers people did not go through the proper channels to gain permission to use the title. So, if they go through these channels, which they tried to circumnavigate this with Goldmember, they can probably use it.
    • See other posts for details on the previous dispute, but this is a trademark dilution case, not a copyright infringement case.

  • A thought parodies were protected ? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by -douggy ( 316782 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @04:43AM (#2918495)
    It's weird Al allowed to make his songs so similar to the original becuase they are parodies. Surely the the same is true for this film?

    • Re:A thought parodies were protected ? (Score:4, Informative)

      by JimPooley ( 150814 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @06:21AM (#2918685) Homepage
      Ah, but Weird Al can't release the parodies without permission from the song's owner.
      There are some songs (Chicken Pot Pie, Snack All Night) which he'll do live but wasn't allowed to release on record, and are not included in the live video. This is because the song's owner wouldn't allow the release of those parodies.

      Neil Innes wrote brilliant Beatles parodies for "The Rutles", and despite being a pal of the Beatles, (The Bonzoes hit single "Urban Spaceman", also penned by Innes, was produced by Paul McCartney!), he had the rights taken away from him in court when the owners of the Beatles songs successfully sued. These rights to songs such as "Ouch", "Doubleback Alley", "Cheese and Onions" etc eventually ended up with all the other old Beatles material as being owned by Michael Jackson!
      The late George Harrison in later years attemped to buy back the rights for his mate Neil, but with no success.
      Neil Innes later successfully sued Oasis for stealing the melody of his song "How sweet to be an idiot", which considering many Oasis songs could be labelled beatles parodies is nicely ironic!

      So. Parodies can get you in legal hot water, and if the Bond people want to force the name of the new Austin Powers movie to be changed, there are precedents.

      Besides which, the Austin Powers joke got old after the first movie...

      • Re:A thought parodies were protected ? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @07:56AM (#2918857)
        Ah, but Weird Al can't release the parodies without permission from the song's owner.

        Actually, he can. It's his own decision to not release those parodies that haven't been approved by the original artist.

      • wrong wrong wrongwrongwrongWRONG (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Al doesn't have to get ANY permission from the original writers/producers of the songs. They're protected as long as they are parodies. If you remember Amish Paradise, the rapper who originally did that song wanted to kill him for "Stealing his music" .. When all was said and done - Sorry, protected because it was a parody. please drive thru thnx.
      • Weird Al certainly *can* release parodies without permission. From the FAQ [weirdal.com] at Weird Al's website [weirdal.com]:

        Does Al get permission to do his parodies?

        Al does get permission from the original writers of the songs that he parodies. While the law supports his ability to parody without permission, he feels it's important for him to maintain the relationships that he's built with artists and writers over the years. Plus, Al wants to make sure that he gets his songwriter credit (as writer of new lyrics) as well as his rightful share of the royalties.
        What do the original artists think of the parodies?
        Most artists are genuinely flattered and consider it an honor to have Weird Al parody their work. Some groups (including Nirvana) claim that they didn't realize that they had really "made it" until Weird Al did a parody of them!
        What about Coolio? I heard that he was upset with Al about "Amish Paradise."
        That was a very unfortunate case of misunderstanding between Al's people and Coolio's people. Short version of the story: Al recorded "Amish Paradise" after being told by his record label that Coolio had given his permission for the parody. When Al's album came out, Coolio publicly contended that he had never given his blessing, and that he was in fact very offended by the song. Al immediately sent Coolio a very sincere letter of apology for the misunderstanding, but has yet to hear back from him.
        Have any artists ever turned Al down for a parody?
        Even though most recording artists really do have a pretty good sense of humor, on a few very rare occasions Al has been denied permission to do a parody. Actually, the only artist to turn Al down consistently over the years has been... well, I would tell you, but my keyboard doesn't have that little "symbol thingy" on it.

        Additionally, he does need permission for songs like The Saga Begins, because the use of American Pie to parody Star Wars doesn't count like that.

      • Ah, but Weird Al can't release the parodies without permission from the song's owner.

        IIRC he could but dosn't. Also heard that he seeks permission from the writer and/or signer even if they are not the current copyright holder.
      • Other people have quoted Weird Al as saying that he thinks he could win on the law, but thinks its polite to ask permission, as well as avoiding a lawsuit. I'm not so sure about him winning on the law, because of a factor that doesn't necessarily come into the movie title cases. His parodies generally use the original tune with a parody of the lyrics. If the tune was original, it is copyrighted by itself -- you can't even print the tune on sheet music without getting permission from the copyright owner. Al's lyrics by themselves don't violate the copyright, but playing the tune along with them might.

        However, the Austin Powers 3 case is about trademark, not copyright, the claim apparently being that both the title and the character Goldmember infringe on the Bond title and character Goldfinger. Since it's pretty hard to parody something without putting enough resemblance in the names so people can tell what you are parodying, I would not expect this to hold up in a US court. I don't know about British law (where MGM and the Bond franchise reside), or whether Myers (who sure sounds British) and his production company are in British jurisdiction. If British courts rule one way and US the other, MGM would become the "bad guy" who kept the film out of British territory only -- or the "good guy" to Brits of taste. 8-)

        One thing: how close was Myers planning to come to the original on the title song? (I cringe to think about the possible lyrics...) There might be a copyright violation on the tune.
      • Strictly speaking, Neil Innes' songs weren't parodies in the same sense Weird Al's songs are. They belong more in the realm of "style parodies" where you parody an artist's style but not their actual work. Examples from Al's catalog are "Mr. Popeil" (B-52s), "Dog Eat Dog" (Talking Heads) and "Dare To Be Stupid" (Devo). Without having seen the lawsuit (but having seen The Rutles), I would say on some of the songs Innes got a bit closer to the original material than he should have.

        MAD Magazine won a lawsuit in the 60s where the right to publish parody lyrics to songs without permission from the copyright holder was established. I don't have the title of the suit, but it was discussed in Frank Jacobs' book, "The Mad World Of William M. Gaines." I don't know how that suit relates to the music, however, since MAD never published the music -- only the words and the instructions, "Sung to the tune of:".
    • Weird Al gets permissions from the people he parodies. He has said that he might have the right to do it without that, but it's much safer having that license in hand.

  • Porno Style (Score:4, Funny)

    by Strudleman ( 147303 ) <strudleman@NospaM.strudleman.com> on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @04:44AM (#2918497) Homepage Journal
    Could this be the end to creative Porn Titling? Some of the greatest Adult ventures of all time were titled after famous flicks. Setting a precedent like this could only harm the most sucessful industry in history.
    • I remember one such file. Flesh Gordon, a parody of Flash Gordon. Nice sci-fi flick, I recommend it to the Slashdot readers.
      • Edward Penishands was pretty funny for the idea alone, but it was a terrible film ;/

        Based on Edward Scissorhands [imdb.com], starring Johnny Depp and directed by Tim Burton, in case you hadn't guessed...
      • Oh my god! It's a penisaurus!

        F-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-c-k (king kong falling off tower)

        Or how about the "sex ray" that made everyone on the plane passing through it start having sex! :-)

        A classic movie.

        I never did see "Caddy Shack-Up" since I was actually looking for the real movie at the time I came across it.
    • I always liked 'Sex Trek - The Next Penetration'
    • Actually, porn was hit really hard about 10 years back with Warner Brothers suing Legend Video over a Cal Jammer/Madison movie called Splatman. Up to that point, Legend had put out rather well-done (for porn standards) parodies of Cheers, The Flintstones, and Married With Children. (Kelly's counterpart: "I had an organism!") But with Splatman, they made the mistake of using actual audio from Batman the movie, and Warner Brothers came down hard (porn double entendre not intended). Since then, porn take-offs have been very few and far between, although there starting to make a comeback (again, double entendre not intended).

  • Jesus Christ! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Big Dogs Cock ( 539391 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @04:46AM (#2918502) Homepage Journal
    Has nobody got a sense of humour any more? (Well, I know Mastercard [attrition.org] haven't.)

    Soon it wont be possible to satirise anything [bbspot.com] without getting a nastygram?

  • Pack of wolves? (Score:4, Troll)

    by hazem ( 472289 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @04:49AM (#2918510) Journal
    "We are currently in the arbitration process and trying to resolve this matter under the MPAA guidelines," the studio...

    It will be interesting to see if "MPAA Guidelines" and laws like the DMCA will be used by MPAA members against each other, rather than us consumers. I have visions of a pack of wolves turning on its weaker members in a gory bloodbath.

  • Play (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gnomish ( 168308 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @04:52AM (#2918521)
    It's a play for revenues. MGM wants cash. My prediction: amicalbly resolved with an undisclosed cash settlement in 2 weeks.

  • In related news (Score:5, Funny)

    by J.D. Hogg ( 545364 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @04:54AM (#2918528) Homepage
    MGM and Danjaq, the British company that controls the Bond film license, have obtained a cease-and-desist order against New Line Cinema that prohibits New Line from calling the latest installment of Mike Myers' shagadelic spy series Austin Powers in Goldmember. As a preventive measure, they also obtained a cease-and-desist order barring New Line from using their following planned movie titles :

    - Austin Powers: Dr Yes!!!
    - Austin Powers: From Russia with Lovers
    - Austin Powers: Thunderballs
    - Austin Powers: You Only Live for Shag
    - Austin Powers: On Her Majesty's secret Lover's List
    - Austin Powers: Diamonds Are For Minks
    - Austin Powers: Live and Let's Shag
    - Austin Powers: The Man with the Golden Bum
    - Austin Powers: Moonraiser
    - Austin Powers: OctuplePussy
    - Austin Powers: A View to A Shag
    - Austin Powers: License to Shag
    - Austin Powers: Tomorrow Never Bites (hard)
    - Austin Powers: Never Say Lover again

  • Goldmember with Star Ballz? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bogusbrainbonus ( 547948 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @04:59AM (#2918535)
    I wonder if New Line Cinema can take any lessons from Star Ballz? If they can get away with a PORN parody it seems like a weak reference like "Goldmember" should be allowed too. Especially when New Line Cinema (with all that cash) is backing it...

    • I wonder if New Line Cinema can take any lessons from Star Ballz? If they can get away with a PORN parody it seems like a weak reference like "Goldmember" should be allowed too. Especially when New Line Cinema (with all that cash) is backing it...

      Forget what is right and wrong, this case has nothing to do with what stuff. [avault.com]

      No, New Line Cinema plans to release this movie in time for the Summer season and has already distributed huge amount of promotional material for the movie (with references to "goldmember"), if they want to fight this case out in court, they can forget all about this summer for the release.

      MGM knows this and is simply trying to make a "quick buck" from New Line Cinema with some kind of compensation for the name.

      So to speak MGM has New Line Cinema's "GoldMember" in a tight squeeze.

    • This isn't a case where US law is in any way involved. The parties here are all members of the MPAA and agree to follow its guidelines and rulings. Obviously, if this came to court, New Line would win under parody protection (at least I'd hope so). For New Line to sue, however, they'd have to breach an agreement with all the others in the BIG HOLLYWOOD MOVIE CARTEL we know as the MPAA and would lose all of the benefits of that ogliopoly (please don't bring up the independent scene as evidence against their ogliopoly - three companies control at least 90% of domestic production, distribution, and display - that there's an ogliopoly). Therefore, New Line (actually AOL/Time Warner) is more than happy to reedit the intro the AP if it's already been created and bow to the will of the MPAA if it means retaining the benefits of that illicit organization.

      Since Star Ballz creators are not members of the MPAA, they could really care less and sue under US law.
  • I have a feeling this latest court battle has its roots further back. Mike Myers went through a terrible time when the plans for the movie based on his SNL character Dieter, fell through. Universal Studios and Mike Myers were involved in a fierce lawsuit-counterlawsuit battle. It got to the point where Mike Myers hid out in Toronto (his "home" city), and resorted to wearing disguises when going about his business. The reason for this was that Universal had hired some private detectives to essentially make Myers' life horrible to live.

    The suit ended in a settlement in which Myers agreed to make a movie for Universal and Dreamworks would get a cut of the profit. Dreamworks entered the picture becase Spielberg and Katzenberg helped broker the deal between Myers and Universal. Today, we have MGM issuing a cease & desist to Goldmember. Well, MGM and Universal have had close ties before and have often collaborated in projects. I wouldn't be surprised if some people at Universal are still quite upset with Myers and are trying to make every thing he does quite difficult.

  • Here's a better article (Score:4, Redundant)

    by Oink.NET ( 551861 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @05:06AM (#2918549) Homepage
    The main story's article doesn't even mention the word "copyright".

    Here's an article with fuller details [yahoo.com]. I find the following paragraph particularly interesting: The "Goldmember" flap is not the first between MGM and New Line over Austin Powers titles. MGM initially challenged the use of "The Spy Who Shagged Me," an obvious play on the 1977 Bond title "The Spy Who Loved Me." But that dispute was settled when New Line agreed to include trailer play for MGM movies on its Austin Powers sequel.

    MGM's past actions show that all MGM is interested in is profiting off anything halfway Bond-related, whether they thought of it or not. If they can leverage copyrights to accomplish that, they will do it. If it takes, as MGM's CEO says, having "a zero-tolerance policy toward anyone who tries to trade on the James Bond franchise without authorization", they will leverage that too.

    This isn't primarily an issue about rights. It's primarily about money, and rights are only dragged into the picture when they are likely to bring in more money.

  • Goldmember (Score:5, Informative)

    by Metrollica ( 552191 ) <m etrollica AT hotmail D0T com> on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @05:13AM (#2918561) Homepage Journal
    Other articles:
    Movies.go.com [go.com]
    Yahoo [yahoo.com]
    BBC news [bbc.co.uk]
    CNN [cnn.com]

    From CNN: Rappers 2 Live Crew, for example, took their use of the Roy Orbison song "Pretty Woman" all the way to the Supreme Court, which then reached the explicit conclusion that a parody falls within the scope of the fair-use defense. It would, however, be impossible to market the film as "Goldmember" during that process.

  • This is a good thing. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Wakko Warner ( 324 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @05:16AM (#2918573) Homepage Journal
    Because Austin Powers is so confusingly similar to James Bond, and penises are so confusingly similar to fingers.

    - A.P.

  • double entedre (Score:5, Funny)

    by Stillman ( 185591 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @05:20AM (#2918582) Homepage
    Apparently, the 007 folks weren't too keen on the double entendre of Goldmember


    Hmmm...I realise this may be a poor choice of words on behalf of the writer of the article, but if not, the people who gave us "Pussy Galore" and "Ivana Onatopp" better not be whining about use of double entendre!

    • Re:double entedre (Score:3, Insightful)

      by iapetus ( 24050 )
      And it's not as if we haven't seen things getting even more dubious in recent Bond films, what with discovering that Mr Bond is a 'cunning linguist'. ;)
    • the people who gave us "Pussy Galore" and "Ivana Onatopp" better not be whining about use of double entendre!

      You forgot Plenty O'Toole, who Bond assumed was named after her father. :)

  • Read all about it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @05:22AM (#2918589) Homepage

    For the benefit of the hordes who will post "I thought satire/fair use yadda yadda yadda", don't speculate, go and read [publaw.com] about it.

    There is a specific codification of fair use for parody or satire, but satire alone is not automatically enough to protect you.

    The factors relevant to this case are:

    • Commercial/non commercial. Goldmember is a commercial production. This counts against it.
    • Nature of work. Goldmember is "creative" rather than "informational". This counts against it.
    • Amount of copyrighted work used. Probably just a small member. This counts for it.
    • Effect on potential market or value of the copyrighted work. Minimal, I'd have thought. Goldmember won't compete directly with Goldfinger, nor will it cheapen a franchise that includes characters like Pussy Galore and Dr Goodhead. This counts for it.

    Prima facia, it's about 50-50. Mike is trading on someone else's idea for profit, but in a small way compared to his original content. Using the character in the title was rather asking for it though. Mel Brooks got away with that, and with significant use of Star Wars material in Spaceballs, because he also parodied at least another 21 sources, and used his borrowed characters to perform a fair amount of critical commentary ("moichandising, moichandising").

    Remember that but fair use is an exception to the law, and as Mike is clear about where he's taking his material from, it really is up to him to prove his innocence. He shouldn't have much trouble doing so, and this is likely just a well timed gambit to land a quick out of court settlement, one that the Goldmember people really should have anticipated and prepared for. But heck, it lands them free publicity, so the only losers here are a few PR executives.

    (Incidentally, I agree with other posters that this article really is -1 Offtopic. If we really care IP issues, then why not run my submission on how all the sound and fury about IP on Slashdot has failed to translate into actual support for the WIPOUT [wipout.net] essay competition. For gods' sake, all you have to do is CC your usual Slashdot rants to them!).

    • While the work is commercial in nature, it's also satirical in nature. Satire is specifically mentioned as allowable, therefore the count should stand at 3:1 not 2:2.

      -- I have a zero tolerance policy for zero tolerance policies.
        • While the work is commercial in nature, it's also satirical in nature. Satire is specifically mentioned as allowable, therefore the count should stand at 3:1 not 2:2.

        No, let me be clearer. Being satire or parody makes your derivative work eligible for fair use protection. The criteria that a court uses to decide whether it is fair use are: commercialism, type of work (creative/entertainment or informational), amount of copying, effect on the original. The judgement can focus on any or all of these, and the court can also consider other factors, if it is so minded.

        There seems to be some confusion about the point I was making. All I'm doing is providing a link to a quick reference and saying that there is prima facia grounds for a case and an injunction. I find the Austin Powers franchise clumsy and not particularly funny, but I believe that it is very clearly fair use (including use of the name and character of Goldmember/Goldfinger), but it will have to prove that. You don't get a presumption of innocence in a civil case, it's all down to balance of probabilities, which is why it's a very good idea to at least ask the rights owners if you can use their work, to try and flush out any complaints early in the process.

  • ...and why us Brits find sites like this [goshagging.com] so amusing...

  • Zero Tolerance? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @06:00AM (#2918658)
    "MGM/UA and Danjaq have a zero-tolerance policy towards anyone who tries to trade in on the James Bond franchise without authorization," says an MGM spokesperson.

    Really? Veerrryy interesting.. So what about:

    "The Spy who Shagged Me"
    The Spy who Loved Me

    "Random-Task"
    "Oddjob"

    "Dr. Evil"
    Dr. No

    "Alotta Fagina" / "Ivana Humpalot" / "Robin Swallows"
    "Pussy Galore" / "Plenty O'Toole" / "Mary Goodnight"

    "An unnesecarially slow moving device to which i'll leave them alone so i can't actually witness their deaths."
    umm... pick any of the last 19 bond flicks..

    • The post is funny, but it actually points to a good legal precedent. New Line could argue that MGM doesn't have a leg to stand on because they've let the Bond series be parodied explicitly twice before in the previous two Austin Powers movies. It's the responsibility of the person or organization that holds a copyright to enforce it in the courts. Thus, if you have been aware of previous copyright violations and failed to act, you've put yourself in a position where your copyright may be invalidated because you've tacitly allowed use of it before through your previous inaction.

      Basically, MGM doesn't get to decide to enforce its copyright sometimes and not others. It either enforces it or not, and if it's chosen not to with the Powers movies then it may not legally have the option to now.

  • And already the recalled poster are on ebay (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Cyberllama ( 113628 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @06:00AM (#2918659)
    And approaching 100 dollars each in the bids!

  • New character suggestion... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ectoraige ( 123390 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @06:39AM (#2918705) Homepage
    Whatever way it turns out, I think Mr Myers should add a new character called 'Emgi M. Sucks' :)
  • On the one hand, I firmly believe that parody should be protected by law, and that a mangled title such as this easily falls under that category. On the other hand, anything that would prevent or even delay the release of another idiotic Mike Myers film should be counted as a blessing.

    Oddly, I cracked a malicious smile when Star Ballz had and won its day in court against George Lucas. No mixed feelings there... anything that makes Georgie uncomfortable in the slightest is good news to me, especially after Ep. 1 and what I've seen of Ep 2.

    Seriously, though, Hollywood is taking protection of copyrights just a little too far these days. But as we know, money talks. I'm waiting to be charged a licensing fee to wear a Bond costume on Halloween...
    • I'm waiting to be charged a licensing fee to wear a Bond costume on Halloween...

      A tuxedo?

      You could be Bond *and* the linux mascot at the same time.

      -Legion

  • Old Article - I'm guessing it's no longer true (Score:3, Informative)

    by GrenDel Fuego ( 2558 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @08:22AM (#2918923)
    Check the date on the article. This was reported back in September. It said that filming was scheduled to begin in November.

    Meanwhile, a few weeks ago I saw a preview for Goldmember. It was still a ways off, but I'd assume they would have changed the name in the nearly 4 months since this article was written if there were still legal issues surrounding it.

  • Old news (Score:4, Informative)

    by leviramsey ( 248057 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @08:30AM (#2918953) Journal

    This has beeen discussed ad infinitum on alt.fan.james-bond many times before. This isn't a copyright or trademark dispute. It's a standard part of the MPAA.

    Basically, MGM has a problem with how Goldmember is being marketed (the trailer comes too close to some of the sight gags in Goldfinger, mainly). They're not suing New Line; they've complained to the MPAA panel that governs member's promotions and titling and so forth and convinced them to bar New Line from promoing the film until they work out their differences.

    I think MGM/Danjaq/EON are being morons, but this is not a threat to parodies of Bond films outside the MPAA. If you want to make a homemade porn film titled "GoldenCock", you can.

    That said, it is nice to see the Bond series getting some play on Slashdot. Enough of those crap Sci-Fi series like Star Trek and Star Wars...

    • This decision was not rendered by any Federal or State Court, but by an Arbitration Panel. We do not know the composition of that panel, nor what (MPAA?) rules it was attempting to enforce.


      I would hope that if this came before a Court, they would dismiss the complaint. Parody is protected expression, and will necessarily involve mimicing sight-gags. But that may be meaningless if the MPAA has effective control over trailer distribution. OTOH, such monopoly control could be the basis for suit. IANAL.

  • This is an old trick, let the other side name the film, start getting press attention, let them print the posters etc then slap an restraining order on them. Next go for an out of court settlement to the tune of (pinky to mouth) one million dollars. This has been timed perfectly so that it did not lead to questions like "why wait this long" but still so that the studio had commitments to the name "Goldmember".


    Sucks doesn't it but thats business.

  • All the discussion about fair use, parody, etc. applies only to copyright claims. This a clearly a TRADEMARK dispute. As far as I know, "fair use" doesn't apply to trademarks, although the "requirements" for infringement are much higher (e.g., will the customer be confused, etc.).

    --Doug
  • LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA- Under pressure from the Motion Picture Association of America, executives at New Line Cinema have decided to scrap the title of the upcoming Austin Powers film originally known as Goldmember. The film's producers immediately began surveying area sixth-graders for new title ideas. In just four hours, they had gathered half a dozen Bond-based double entendres including:
    • Thunderballs
    • Decapussy
    • Her Majesty's Shag-o-licious Secret
    • Dr. Yes Yes Oh, God Yes!
    • From Russia With Scabies


    The theatrical trailer for the film certainly indicates that the new film will find a way to break new creative ground. The 2-minute short appears to be a parody of the original 1997 film.


    We spoke with director Jay Roach. "It's a copy of the dance sequence from the first movie, but with all small actors. Get it? It's a mini Austin! The wig, the teeth, even a tiny sports car. Ha. Little people are funny."



    Full Story [ridiculopathy.com]

  • ... in at least two places: here in medium resolution [akamai.net] and here in high resolution [countingdown.com].


  • The whole Austin Powers franchise is basically a spoof /remake of an old 60's movie called Casino Royale [imdb.com], which in and of itself was a spoof of the Bond films. It could be argued that Austin Powers is a spoof on Casino Royale, and NOT of the 007 movies. If anyone should be pissed, it would be Peter Sellers and the production company behind Casino Royale, not the company behind the 007 movies. They didn't seem to have a problem when Casino Royale came out, or when the first two Austin Powers movies were released.

    Go figure.

  • Protected parody or actionable satire? Who Knows? (Score:3, Informative)

    by werdna ( 39029 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @12:16PM (#2920031) Journal
    While we might at one time have thought the law well-settled concerning the copyright issues of parody as fair use, the truth is far more interesting.

    Clearly, we know that a rap reworking of O Pretty Woman, parodizing the song as an unrealisticly romanticized account of the horrific life of a prostitute on the street is fair use, for the Supremes told us so in Campbell v. Acuff Rose. [cornell.edu]

    Alas, the Courts in infinite wisdom have distinguished with a fine hair the parodizing of a work of authorship with the satirizing of a societal issue by reference to a work, for example the Dr. Seuss-esque storybook about the O.J. Simpson Trial, the "Cat NOT in the hat, which was held NOT to be fair use. There was an interesting article about this case in the Cardozo Law Journal. [yu.edu] (big pdf file)

    Finally, we have the recent reworking of the civil war epic "The Wind Done Gone," which led to one of the more important recent copyright and parody decisions, and an excellent Eleventh Circuit opinion. [harvard.edu]

    And that's just the Copyright issues. There remain the trademark parody cases, which have an even odder range of uncertainty. Certainly, there are a host of cases where trademark parodies have been found permissible and protected (I think "Off the wall-street journal" was an example of one that passed), but apparently there is an invisible (or at least very gray at the fringe) line of cases where the use is so offensive to the trademark that it borders on unfair competition. (I think Jordache with a depicted butt and Cocaine with the Coca-cola commercial style failed, but again, I may be misremembering).

    I had a case not too long ago when I analyzed these issues and this absolutely murky hunk of case law. The best I could approximate is the SDR&R standard: "it is ok to parody a trademark, unless you make reference to sex, drugs or rock & roll."

    Interestingly, these standards (trademark and copyright) are NOT consistent. The Campbell Copyright case was a fact pattern as egregiously offensive to the Orbison estate as Cocaine was to the Coca Cola Company. Yet there, it was protected expression.

    It would be interesting to see a case well-resolved that addresses these conflicting areas of law clearly. But at any rate, I wouldn't presume without seeing ALL the facts and ALL the arguments that either side has a clear win. This is one of the truly gray margins of the law, except in the few arenas where the conduct has already been litigated. Unless your case lies foursquare on the facts of an existing, controlling case, this is as uncertain an area as it gets.
  • Why else would they be suing for such a frivolous reason? Do they honestly think that I'm going to confuse Goldfinger with Goldmember? Austin Powers is undoubtedly a very popular character, but today he still doesn't hold a candle to the popularity of James Bond. Though he may be closer in people's minds today (more recent really), in the long term it's likely that James Bond will survive the test of time. It has already, really. They could both make out like bandits in a strategy like that, and not get into all this legal B.S..

    I guess another option is that MGM is thinking "Hmm... these guys are going to have a hit on their hands. I bet we can make really good money off this movie if we get a settlement out of them...". That's just plain evil. This type of legal crap is silly. It'd be far better if the next James Bond film took a poke at Austin Powers instead. Imagine if it was a ritual for an Austin Power movie to come out after every James Bond movie, and each on is slinging mud at each other. Now that would be far funnier. Now an Austin Powers fan would watch James Bond, and the other way around. (It probably happens anyway, but I think it's a fun idea.)

    So either MGM thinks I'm a total moron who can't distinguish an over the top parody from James Bond, or MGM is illegitimately suing for the title. I tell you what, it's enough for me to boycott any more James Bond films.
  • we have a law protecting creative satire. Obviously it doesn't neccesarily apply to internationally released films. The previous 2 installments of austin powers were blatent satires of Bond and similar spy movies. How come the Bond people didn't file C&Ds then? and furthermore.. the musical group Goldfinger got away scott free. Nothing bites my bunyons more than seeing governments or big-boy corporations standing in the way of artistic creativity. This here has an easy solution, however. Boycott Bond. Any company who is going to thrust their "Zero-Tolerence" upon a blatently positive creative entity for no reason other than protection of their prescious trademark deserves a boycott untill they can accept creative satire.

  • Call off the hounds! This is not a fair use issue! (Score:3, Informative)

    by foxtrot ( 14140 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @07:12PM (#2922537)
    From the article:
    MGM and Danjaq, the British company that controls the Bond film license, have obtained a cease-and-desist order from an Industry panel that prohibits New Line from calling the latest installment of Mike Myers' shagadelic spy series Austin Powers in Goldmember.

    See the bold part there? They didn't get the cease-and-desist from the Government. This is a private business issue.

    And a Motion Picture Association of America arbitration panel sided with MGM.

    Ayep. Your friends, the MPAA at work.

    If New Line is taking it seriously, then there's probably a contract issue in place here. Chances are, New Line is un-titling their movie because MGM would sue the pants off New Line for releasing it as is, probably a breach-of-contract suit; I would guess stemming from some rules of membership in the MPAA.

    While I personally think it's pretty stupid of MGM to push this, it's _entirely legal_. This has nothing to do with copyright law or fair use.

    -JDF

Slashdot Top Deals

"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne

Close