Paramount sues to stop new book in ‘Godfather’ series

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by teh603

It should protect the creator, not some vulture who offers a lot of money for that idea. Unfortunately, most authors and creators aren't the ones who get protection. Just look at the Bratz trials to see how easily lost copyright over a given property can be, and how murky the law surrounding "work for hire" contracts is.

+1

agreed

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by teh603

It should protect the creator, not some vulture who offers a lot of money for that idea.

How are creators supposed to make money if some "vulture" doesn't offer them money for the idea? How can copyright protect the creator if the creator can't sell his or her work? Copyright gives the author saleable rights that can be transferred to someone else. This is valuable. If the creator isn't actually able to transfer any rights, it is not valuable and creators can't make any money, quit their jobs, and become accountants.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

How are creators supposed to make money if some "vulture" doesn't offer them money for the idea? How can copyright protect the creator if the creator can't sell his or her work? Copyright gives the author saleable rights that can be transferred to someone else. This is valuable. If the creator isn't actually able to transfer any rights, it is not valuable and creators can't make any money, quit their jobs, and become accountants.

Sell it directly to the consumers. No middle man. More money for the author, less expense for the consumer. Everyone except the vultures wins.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

How long is the copyright in this case? Is it corporation-length, or author-length. This is the best way to see who has the copyright.

No, the best way is to read the contracts.

The "Godfather" materials are not considered works-for-hire. Puzo wrote The Godfather novel first, and then sold all the rights to the book, sequels, and all the characters to Paramount.

When the copyright term on the book expires, copyright on that particular book goes into public domain, not the estate.

One feature of US copyright law allows the content creator or their successors to reclaim the copyright after 35-40 years. However, that only applies to works created after 1978. The Godfather was written in 1971 or 1972, so that doesn't apply.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by teh603

It should protect the creator, not some vulture who offers a lot of money for that idea.

As was already pointed out here, Puzo was already a top-selling author. There is no question that he had access to top agents and lawyers. He was not a victim; he made a free choice, and his estate is allegedly refusing to honor the contract Puzo signed.

It's abundantly clear that the estate is churning out low-quality "Godfather" books to make a buck. And again, if they held the copyrights, that would be perfectly legal and their choice. The only issue here is what is specified in the contracts.

Originally Posted by teh603

Unfortunately, most authors and creators aren't the ones who get protection. Just look at the Bratz trials to see how easily lost copyright over a given property can be, and how murky the law surrounding "work for hire" contracts is.

That's completely irrelevant.

The "Godfather" works are not "works-for-hire." The book came first, then he sold the rights, and co-wrote the screenplays for the movie sequels.

In terms of Bratz, the creator (Carter Bryant) was working at Mattel, and his contract specified that he could not take ideas he developed while at Mattel to a competitor. This includes ideas developed after-hours. He left Mattel, was hired by MGA, who then put out the "Bratz" dolls. I.e. no matter who he was working for at the time he developed the dolls, it's work-for-hire. The only question is whether he was working at Mattel, or on a break from them, when he came up with the idea.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Sell it directly to the consumers. No middle man. More money for the author, less expense for the consumer. Everyone except the vultures wins.

There is no way Puzo could have produced the "Godfather" movies, and distributed them on his own, in 1972.

JK Rowling is one of the wealthiest individuals in the world. She still went with a movie studio to make films from the Potter series.

And again, the estate are not white knights seeking to preserve Puzo's legacy; they're cranking out schlock to make a buck. If they held the rights, that would be their choice. They don't, so it isn't.

This is not a "Goliath smash David" story, it's just a contract dispute, period.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

This is not a "Goliath smash David" story, it's just a contract dispute, period.

So far, that's what it looks like.

Some folks just seem to think big corporations should *never* assert any IP rights, whether patents, copyrights, or trademarks. Well, any big company that did so would in short order cease to be a big company.
(And any management team that tried it would be out on the sidewalk before it got that far; shareholders wouldn't stand for it.)

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

The "Godfather" materials are not considered works-for-hire. Puzo wrote The Godfather novel first, and then sold all the rights to the book, sequels, and all the characters to Paramount.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

The "Godfather" works are not "works-for-hire." The book came first, then he sold the rights, and co-wrote the screenplays for the movie sequels.

Clear this out for me: if you consider that the "Godfather" materials are not considered works-for-hire then under what condition did Puzo co-wrote the screenplays? Did Puzo work for hire, or did he get the get the copyright for the screenplays?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

JK Rowling is one of the wealthiest individuals in the world. She still went with a movie studio to make films from the Potter series.

And she became one of the wealthiest people in the world by selling the movie rights. She was a successful author prior to the movies, but merely wealthy, rather than "super-rich". It was the movies that put her into the latter category.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Clear this out for me: if you consider that the "Godfather" materials are not considered works-for-hire then under what condition did Puzo co-wrote the screenplays? Did Puzo work for hire, or did he get the get the copyright for the screenplays?

As far as I know, it's all standard copyright.

Puzo sold Paramount control over the characters, after the first book was published and became a huge best seller.

He died in 1999, and it is his estate that wants to publish a sequel without permission of Paramount, which owns the rights to those characters.

Nothing about this dispute has any connection to "work for hire." It's all about what is in the contracts, period.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

As far as I know, it's all standard copyright.

Puzo sold Paramount control over the characters, after the first book was published and became a huge best seller.

He died in 1999, and it is his estate that wants to publish a sequel without permission of Paramount, which owns the rights to those characters.

Nothing about this dispute has any connection to "work for hire." It's all about what is in the contracts, period.

I see that you didn't bother to read my post. I asked about the condition under which Puzo co-wrote the screenplays. You said:

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

The "Godfather" materials are not considered works-for-hire. Puzo wrote The Godfather novel first, and then sold all the rights to the book, sequels, and all the characters to Paramount.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

The "Godfather" works are not "works-for-hire." The book came first, then he sold the rights, and co-wrote the screenplays for the movie sequels.

If co-writing the screen plays was not "work for hire", then what was it?

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I see that you didn't bother to read my post. I asked about the condition under which Puzo co-wrote the screenplays. You said:



If co-writing the screen plays was not "work for hire", then what was it?

co-writing the screen plays likely was a work for hire, but the screen plays have nothing to do with the case at hand.

Without seeing the contract, it is all guesswork as to what rights the estate retains, if any, regarding the work. They say they have the right, the studio disagrees. A judge (or jury) will sort it out.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

co-writing the screen plays likely was a work for hire, but the screen plays have nothing to do with the case at hand.

Without seeing the contract, it is all guesswork as to what rights the estate retains, if any, regarding the work. They say they have the right, the studio disagrees. A judge (or jury) will sort it out.

You think that the screen plays co-written by Puzo have nothing to do with the copyright over what Kali Yuga calls "the "Godfather" materials" or "the "Godfather" works"?

What is the case at hand about? The original book? The sequel "The Sicilian
" by Mario Puzo? The authorized sequel "The Godfather Returns" by Mark Winegardner? The now contested "The Godfather's Revenge" by Mark Winegardner?

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

What is the case at hand about?

the case in hand is over whether the estate has the right to commission a new work based in the Godfather "universe" without permission from Paramount. Its about whether Mario Puzo, at the time of his death, retained any rights to the Godfather "universe" and if he did whether those rights have been passed to his estate.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

the case in hand is over whether the estate has the right to commission a new work based in the Godfather "universe" without permission from Paramount. Its about whether Mario Puzo, at the time of his death, retained any rights to the Godfather "universe" and if he did whether those rights have been passed to his estate.

But after his initial agreement with Paramount he co-wrote the screenplay and another book. Did he need Paramount's permission to write The Sicilian?