I wonder if the judge got approval of the writers etc. before he used the word “Sharknado” in his ruling.
I also wonder if this is the first citing of “Sharknado” in ANY ruling. Almost legitimizes trash…
“The court has viewed Woody Allen’s movie, ‘Midnight in Paris,’ read the book, ‘Requiem for a Nun,’ and is thankful that the parties did not ask the court to compare `The Sound and the Fury’ with `Sharknado,”’ the judge wrote.
…
“We’re very disappointed in the judge’s ruling and we feel it’s not only wrong, it’s going to be damaging to creative people everywhere,” Caplin said.
—
You know what is ACTUALLY damaging to creative people? Taking the entirety of modern culture and locking it under a draconian “Life + 75 years” copyright regime. All art derives from prior art. Want to watch a no-frills documentary about The Wrecking Crew (studio musicians from the dawn of rock & roll)? Sorry, you can’t, even though this is a critically important piece of history and American culture — and under our current laws, if you were to seek this out and view it, you would be a criminal. This judge couldn’t have made his point any better. Bravo.
This is perhaps an appropriate time to highlight Caplan’s own contribution to literature as a self-proclaimed creative person. Caplan, an attorney, wrote one book. It was entitled “The Business of Art.” He also produced a made-for-TV movie based on the classic Faulkner novela “Old Man” and movies such as “To Die For… AKA Dracula The Love Story” and “G.I. Jesus.”
How does Caplan perceive the loss of his right to absolute control over work which he did not actually even create (Faulkner’s writings) as “damaging to creative people?” It is unclear what Caplan’s relationship to William Faulkner is. Some material seems to suggest he was a former neighbor of Faulkner’s daughter.
Stop and think for a moment that perhaps the genesis of the explosion and worldwide influence of American culture came precisely because we USED to embrace freedom of expression, and we USED to perceive copycats as flattery. That is, of course, until muscled paper entites decided they could make millions of dollars a year–and still do–from the rights for cultural mainstays like “Happy Birthday” which was originally written by a school teacher in the 19th century.
I wonder if the judge got approval of the writers etc. before he used the word “Sharknado” in his ruling.
I also wonder if this is the first citing of “Sharknado” in ANY ruling. Almost legitimizes trash…
The judge got it right. Sony even gave credit to Faulkner. There is no confusion in anyone’s mind and there should never have been a lawsuit.
“The court has viewed Woody Allen’s movie, ‘Midnight in Paris,’ read the book, ‘Requiem for a Nun,’ and is thankful that the parties did not ask the court to compare `The Sound and the Fury’ with `Sharknado,”’ the judge wrote.
…
“We’re very disappointed in the judge’s ruling and we feel it’s not only wrong, it’s going to be damaging to creative people everywhere,” Caplin said.
—
You know what is ACTUALLY damaging to creative people? Taking the entirety of modern culture and locking it under a draconian “Life + 75 years” copyright regime. All art derives from prior art. Want to watch a no-frills documentary about The Wrecking Crew (studio musicians from the dawn of rock & roll)? Sorry, you can’t, even though this is a critically important piece of history and American culture — and under our current laws, if you were to seek this out and view it, you would be a criminal. This judge couldn’t have made his point any better. Bravo.
This is perhaps an appropriate time to highlight Caplan’s own contribution to literature as a self-proclaimed creative person. Caplan, an attorney, wrote one book. It was entitled “The Business of Art.” He also produced a made-for-TV movie based on the classic Faulkner novela “Old Man” and movies such as “To Die For… AKA Dracula The Love Story” and “G.I. Jesus.”
How does Caplan perceive the loss of his right to absolute control over work which he did not actually even create (Faulkner’s writings) as “damaging to creative people?” It is unclear what Caplan’s relationship to William Faulkner is. Some material seems to suggest he was a former neighbor of Faulkner’s daughter.
Stop and think for a moment that perhaps the genesis of the explosion and worldwide influence of American culture came precisely because we USED to embrace freedom of expression, and we USED to perceive copycats as flattery. That is, of course, until muscled paper entites decided they could make millions of dollars a year–and still do–from the rights for cultural mainstays like “Happy Birthday” which was originally written by a school teacher in the 19th century.