if this were real, would the copyright infringement laws stand? - Be Kind Rewind (2008) Discussion

[–] Aegis54 15 years ago

As obvious as it may look, the sweded movies are counterfeit (they are basically their own stuff sold under a brand name) and I don't know any country where counterfeiting is legal.

And Gondry obviously got all the rights required.

reply

[–] Stuartie-B 15 years ago

Also if you notice a lot of the movies they sweded were New Line Cinema movies - such as The Lord of the Rings and Rush Hour 2 - which also made this film so getting permission to use them would be a hell of a lot easier.

Check out my portfolio website:
www.stuarthamiltonportfolio.co.uk

reply

[–] darkzero 15 years ago

What about the most prominently sweded movie in the film, Ghostbusters? That's the property of Columbia Pictures.

To see the only real monster, one must only look in the mirror.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mark-414 11 years ago

That's more of trademark infringement, than copyright infringement. Given that the store was originally legit and was licensed to rent their movies, they couldn't have infringed on copyright, but using the brand name to market something else, is trademark infringement. Whatever, its just a movie.

reply

[–] karlweb2002 15 years ago

If you had paid attention to the end credits of the movie, you would have noticed that this movie had acquired all the necessary copy right permission for the dozen movies that it sueded

from Taiwan china

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jaydubsky 15 years ago

I think it also had to do with using the original tapes that the movies were on.

"Death, you are my bitch lover!"

reply

[–] Heidi_Smiles 15 years ago

Actually, no. Copyright laws have nothing to do with whether or not money is being made.

reply

[–] Ariston72 15 years ago

Whether the sweded movies were illegal or not, the lawyers who show up at the store certainly wouldn't have any authority to summarily destroy the tapes. You can't destroy someone's property without due process--and they certainly wouldn't destroy the evidence in a case that hadn't yet gone to court.

--Ariston
You do not have the right to not be offended.

reply

[–] shodan-4 15 years ago

Exactly. The lawyers couldn't just come and destroy the tapes just like that. There would be some kind of process first! The way it was depicted in the movie, the lawyers were like angry bullies, or the mafia. This is the only thing about the film that I can't forgive.

reply

[–] BitterAsHell 15 years ago

I don't think making acknowledged references to, or for that matter, unacknowledged "quotes" of, other movies is considered copyright violation. I seem to recall that the US Supreme Court ruled that a hip-hop group was allowed to use the tune of Roy Orbison's Pretty Woman without it being a copyright violation, because their intention was to satirize the original song, not to pass the tune off as their own. It's sort of the same thing as how a reviewer can quote a passage from a novel when writing a review of tha novel, but if a novelist takes the same passage and puts it in his own novel, as if he had written it himself, it's considered stealing.

I'm guessing that the fake movies in BKRW would be considered closer to parodies than to outright rip-offs. The writers might have been in trouble if they had the guys running the video shop use dialogue from(let's say) Men In Black, and tried to make it seem like original writing.

reply

[–] Angiers 15 years ago

I think Sweded films would fall under fair use but that would take a judge to ultimatly decide. Copyright laws allows exception for parody.

reply

[–] fkrayzee 15 years ago

Angiers is correct regarding copyright.

the real issue would be trademark violation and the tort of passing off (at least in the UK it would be - in the US it may well be something else

"you don't get any medals for trying - you're supposed to do that"

reply

[–] natk 15 years ago

Do you know that downloading or copying dvds music cds or vhs's is not actually stealing. Stealing is defined as removing peoples property permanently so that they can no longer sell it at all. Once a file is downloaded it can still be sold or downloaded hence it's not considered theft

reply

[–] sufferblind86 15 years ago

No, it is considered piracy. Where one party benefits, while the other does not.

You download a movie. You have the movie, but the company does not have the money from you having the film. Stealing!

Stealing is to take without permission.

I'm not knocking people for downloading movies, I'm not one to judge their, but saying it isn't stealing is just ignorant.

Are you watching closely?

reply

[–] GorillazButter 15 years ago

^That makes no sense, you said it's piracy and then you said it's stealing.

You were right with the first one, but not with the second.

---
I'd love to see you in the moonlight with your head thrown back and your body on fire.

reply

[–] sufferblind86 15 years ago

The person I responded to said its not stealing. I was stating that it is defined as Piracy for legal purposes and I later go on to say that piracy, means stealing.

Are you watching closely?

reply

[–] GorillazButter 15 years ago

I'm aware of what you said, I'm just saying that piracy is not equivalent to stealing.

---
I'd love to see you in the moonlight with your head thrown back and your body on fire.

reply

[–] sufferblind86 15 years ago

So, you're saying piracy does not qualify as stealing?

If so...

piracy –noun
1. practice of a pirate; robbery or illegal violence at sea.
2. the unauthorized reproduction or use of a copyrighted book, recording, television program, patented invention, trademarked product, etc.: The record industry is beset with piracy.
3. Also called stream capture. Geology. diversion of the upper part of one stream by the headward growth of another.

stealing –noun
1. the act of a person who steals.
2. Usually, stealings. something that is stolen.
–adjective 3. given to or characterized by theft.

Sound similar to me... aside from the whole geology thing.

Are you watching closely?

reply

[–] GorillazButter 15 years ago

Similar, yes, but they aren't equivalent. One has much more serious consequences over the other.

---
I'd love to see you in the moonlight with your head thrown back and your body on fire.

reply

[–] sufferblind86 15 years ago

Well, stealing directly has more immediate circumstances, but both are punishable by law and depending on what it is that was stolen or pirated, can land one in huge fines and possibly land them in prison.

Grand theft is a felony. In certain cases, pirating or selling pirated dvds can be charged as a felony.

You can't just hit the drum. You have to beat the s*** out of it!

reply

[–] fkrayzee 15 years ago

theft is defined as dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive.

when you illegally copy something is it;

dishonest? yup, you are either aware that you shouldn't be doing it or you should be aware.

property? yup, intellectual property. in most of these cases, the relevant IP is copyright.

belonging to another? obviously!

intent to permanently deprive? well, this is something of an assumption, but one that is readily made given that the remaining criteria have been satisfied. on the balance of probabilities, given that dishonesty has been proven, it would be a bit of a stretch to assume that the defendant would have put the IP owner in the position they would have been in had there been no IP violation.

"you don't get any medals for trying - you're supposed to do that"

reply

[–] RayofBethshine 15 years ago

Dishonest? No, it is not dishonest to use your legally purchased copy and let your friends listen to it or watch it.

Property? Yes...it is MY property. When I burst into the record studios and start stealing their CD's, then it'll be me taking THEIR property. My CD or DVD will be THEIR property when I take away their intelectual property, rather than use my personal piece of that property they sold for me to listen to.

Belonging to another? Uh, no. It belongs to me. I paid for it. It still belongs to me when my friends listen to it, however as it is my property I can let them listen to it however many times I want.

Intent to permanently deprive? I havn't deprived anyone of anything. They traded me a piece of property with their intelectual property on it for a sum of money, that specific piece is now mine. This is not a matter of profiting off of anothers intelectual property, as it is free.

So until you can explain why tapes are exempt from such idiotic restrictions or that it is somehow legal for my friends to listen to the same music at the same time or if I lend a DVD to them...yet ILLEGAL to do the same but copying my copy, then you will have something.

But seeing as it dosn't even fit any, let alone all, the description...id say you've got more than just that to justify.

reply

[–] malachai_malachai 14 years ago

You might not care anymore but the music on your CDs is not yours, you own the disc its on, but not the content. If you want to play it to you friends that's fine, but try playing it in public to 250 people and the try the "it's my property, I'll play it how I want" line when Sony/BMG/EMI whoever else sends their lawyers after you. Have you ever read the small print on the back of your CDs?

I'm not really sure what you're ranting about at the end of that post but you don't seem to know much about the legalities of copyright or intellectual property. You own the media, not the content.

Plus record companies don't tend to store their CDs in recording studios, they use warehouses for that. They also have security in place to prevent lunatics "bursting" into them wittering about copyright laws.

reply

[–] RayofBethshine 13 years ago

No, I own the content according to all reasonable logic and understanding of it. I don't own the song, however I own whats on my CD. I can even remix and/or smash the CD if I wish.

As long as listening to a CD with friends is legal, you've got no leg to stand on in relation to sharing that CD with friends.

reply

[–] RayofBethshine 15 years ago

When stupid little people get sucked in by repeated, flat out lies by corporations.

It is not stealing. In fact it is barely copywrite infringment, unless a profit is being made by the infringing party.

Yes, yes...it's been made "illegal", but there is no legal basis for it nor any sort of justification.

If I listen to music with my friends, it is ok. If I listen to music with strangers, it is ok.

Yet apparently they having free access to music I own and have paid for, while they have paid nothing, is OK. It's apparently NOT stealing?

But I can't do that with CD's I own, copying them onto CD's I own, and distributing them to my friends to listen to, just as they listened to a single CD, is...stealing?

Tapes are fine. Yet you can't do the same for CD's?

It's truly moronic that people are so ignorant they genuinely think that loss of imaginary profits (no monetary loss ever occurs, the loss is that the company then believes that people who "steal" their music would have gotten a CD had they not downloaded or gained a copied CD) somehow equals stealing.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] skilletfreak86 15 years ago

no, the copyright infringement wouldnt be in effect here, they could classify it a "parody", even with the brand name, it would be protected by the laws of parody. i.e. weird al yankovic parodies songs, and uses the actual music, but because its under the parody section its protected from copyright infringmenet issues.

reply

[–] roctopus 15 years ago

The only case the lawyers would have is that the video store was "trading on the brand" by misrepresenting their videos as the original.

This is actionable under copyright law. In effect, parody and other protected speech do not apply if the creator is presenting their work as the original.

Of course, this is something that would have to be decided in court -a process which would take many months. U. S. Courts are reluctant to rule against speech rights so the video store could easy present a parody case -unless the copyright holders had an absolutely airtight case it would be very difficult for them to win.

asteriskpix.blogspot.com

reply

[–] dgreco1680 15 years ago

a related example:
There is a Chinese artist at my local mall that sells beautiful pics of famous people that he has painted. In some cases, he paints famous pictures (Ali vs Frazier, Goodfellas cover).

Noone has ever told him to stop. There is nothing funny about his work, so I'm not sure if the word 'parody' applies.

He has been selling for 10 years in plain sight. I always wondered how he was legally able to sell these.

Any answers? Do the applicable laws apply to the plot in this movie?

reply

[–] fly44 15 years ago

For your example he probably has to pay some royalty to the owner of the pictures. The fair use doctrine looks at the reason for the copyright infringement and he is clearly doing this to make money. There might be some way where he could paint the Ali Frazier picture and claim it was art or a parody but it is pretty unlikely.

As for the movie I think they would have a strong defense. Although they clearly did set out to make these videos as an entrepreneurial venture the nature of the films seemed to be spoofing all of Hollywood.

reply

[–] dgreco1680 15 years ago

Does it have to be a spoof? Definition of a parody is as simple as 'a reproduction'.

Satire is when you make a joke out of another entity's work. Not sure if there is a Satire Law, though.

I guess satire/parody fall under the same law?

reply

[–] podunko 15 years ago

Thet weren't representing them as originals, they were representing them as "Sweded".

"I like to watch"

reply

[–] fkrayzee 15 years ago

ok 1stly,i believe the question is asking whether what the guys in the film are doing would be legal if it were real. in short, the answer is no - they are trying to pass off their efforts as the original hollywood blockbuster that has mad millions spent on promotion etc.

2ndly, parody tends to qualify as acceptable use, as long as the use is classified as reasonable.

3rdly, regarding the artisitic impressions of cinematic scenes, this skirts dangerously near copyright infringement if prior consent is not acquired. there is copyright in the cinematic production, which in the context of these paintings would qualify as the underlying right...

"you don't get any medals for trying - you're supposed to do that"

reply

[–] dgreco1680 15 years ago

thanks fkrayzee

reply

[–] jodun306 15 years ago

I'll belatedly add my 2 cents as a (no-longer-practicing) attorney. (Life's too short!) Generally speaking, parody is protected under free speech, but it is wise to get the author's permission first (as "Weird Al" does with his song parodies), rather than proceed without it and take a chance that the "but it's a parody" defense will fly if you get sued. It is possible that a judge would grant the studio's motion to order the store to immediately stop the rentals even without the other side being heard. While it's highly UNlikely (though not impossible) that a judge would order the destruction of the tapes in a "1-sided" hearing, such an order no doubt would be issued if the studio prevailed after a full hearing. And - as someone else mentioned - even if the CONTENT is held to be protected speech, the fact that the "Sweded" movies were filmed on the physical tapes the original movies were on and rented in the orignal sleeves would also cause some legal headaches. And (last thing, I promise) bear in mind that copyright, etc., are FEDERAL matters so - all things considered - don't try this at home! Speaking of headaches: I have to take my attorney hat off now - it's giving me a migraine.

reply

[–] bobsagett 15 years ago

Part of the problem was that the black plastic cassette tapes are that, as written on the back of every tape and at the beginning of every movie, the physical tapes are the property of the production company, so any attempts to manipulate the tapes (i.e. "their property") would vaguely be considered a criminal act. Erasing the tapes, copying over them with a parody of the original content, renting them out to the public for personal financial gain would qualify.

Why this hasnt been challenged in court is beyond me (and it obviously never will now that VHS tapes have become extinct) but I think property rights come into play.

Regardless, there would be that whole "fair trial" and the local police would probably 1. assist with the discussion of charges and 2. seize the properties in question (as exhibits for later during a trial).

But the again, it's not a real example, its only Passaic, NJ.
:)

reply

[–] benjtsang 14 years ago

Like many other parts of this movie, the copyright infringement thing just doesn't make sense.

Yes they may have been trying to pass off ghostbusters and Rush Hour 2 as the original thing, but after that, their customers all knew that Jack Black and Mos Def were making parodies of the original versions. The movies share a tiny bit of similarity in storyline (definitely not enough to be considered copyright or trademark infringement) and the same name as the original (I doubt this is enough). If making parodies of hollywood movies is not allowed, then someone should be taking down all those parody videos off youtube since they are also infringing copyright (just google LOTR parody).

The only thing that seems to have some grounds is the fact that they are using the original tapes, which are property of the movies studios.

BUT, after all their stuff gets destroyed and they are musing about what movie to make, Jack Black says they can't do one based off of a hollywood movie (otherwise they'll get sued) - so apparently its not merely the using of the tapes that is the problem. As I said before, since there are thousands of amateur internet videos made that parody hollywood films (and their creators don't get sued), so why exactly would what Jack Black and Mos Def were doing be illegal?

"Even my parents called me Mulder" -Fox Mulder

reply

[–] berga52 14 years ago

It had to with them making money off them I think, one of the lawyers pointed out when they were assessing the amount of the fines they were going to owe, something like 3 billion. Most people on YouTube aren't trying to make money off of those videos.

I saw werewolf with a Chinese menu in his hand, walking through the streets of Soho in the rain.

reply

[–] Monknificent 8 years ago

Well, well, well, how things change, eh? Your comment was made almost exactly 6 years ago to the day, and now there are people making a real living off YouTube revenue! In fact, some bozos are making enough of a fortune from such lame, idiotic pursuits as filming the odd passing rare supercar on the streets of London as to be actually able to afford to BUY a minor supercar (such as the Audi R8) of their own! Has this world gone topsy-turvy? Yes. Yes, it has.

Anyway, at least this does put a new spin / throw a new spanner in the complicated legal works of the various copyright questions in this thread, no?

"It's too late... Always has been, always will be... too late"

reply

[–] MrRazorz 14 years ago

As I recall, the clincher in the copyright case was that they were recording their "sweded" films onto the original cassettes, renting them out in the original covers and (at first, anyway) trying to pass them off as the original films. I'd have thought that would be classed as "fraud" rather than "copyright infringement", but what do I know?

reply

[–] fkrayzee 14 years ago

well, i don't know what it's called in the US, but in the Engalnd & Wales it'd be called 'passing off' and also there'd be trademark violations...

copyright is said to protect the expression of an idea rather than the idea itself, but if the expression of the idea is effectively duplicated, then it's still copyright infringement.
that the 'sweded' films are clearly just Jack Black and Mos Def's characters duplicating the films to the best of their ability does not alter the fact that copyright is being infringed.

so, if legal action were to be taken, it'd be on 3 fronts at least (once again, on the principles of the law of England & Wales); Trademark infringement, copyright infringement and passing off.

i imagine that US law is not too different in the broader aspects of IP law...

"you don't get any medals for trying - you're supposed to do that"

reply

[–] haafket 14 years ago

I believe I know why they really call that swedding. I live in Sweden, and here nobody would bother sueing or something for erasing a movie you have the rigt to rent out to people and then putting your own material on it (as long as people renting it is aware of it). But then again, the law system is starting to suck here as well...

reply

[–] Hasjtracker 12 years ago

United states of Europe is only a dream buddy.

We will storm the bastille,maybe you swedes will not be part of it but be sure the more southern parts of Europe our totally fed up with the current tide of things xD

reply

[–] bthr 12 years ago

seems like the shop owner is really stupid. they just did what they were told without consulting a lawyer. who is idiot enough to do it.
a judge might even agree to keep them as archive or something.

i dont know the law, im not a lawyer but im pretty sure they are not allowed to give an order and take it with them without both sides fronted a judge.

reply