Paramount sues to stop new book in ‘Godfather’ series

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by crossi

I just want a lot more competion to the big six so an author can shop around more for better deals.

You do realize that is exactly what Puzo did, right?
He shopped around and got a very juicy deal. The reason Paramount gave him that juicy deal was for the derivative rights.

It isn't all that different from MGM buying rights to James Bond so they can make Bond movies that aren't based on any of the books. The main difference seems to be that Puzo signed away *all* derivative rights, if Paramount is to be believed.

Believe Paramount or not, but do consider Puzo himself didn't farm out any derivatives while alive. It is just as easy to believe the estate is looking to test the clause in court to see if any money shakes loose.

[Sil_liS]

This part makes it sound like without the agreement in its current form the film wouldn't have been made:

The agreement paved the way for the legendary Francis Ford Coppola film in 1972, as well as two movie sequels.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Believe Paramount or not, but do consider Puzo himself didn't farm out any derivatives while alive. It is just as easy to believe the estate is looking to test the clause in court to see if any money shakes loose.

You know, after reading so many posts about how copyright needs to extend far, far beyond the life of the author to protect the interests of those that they leave behind, it seems that they are now considered some kind of vultures that try to make money out of the work that someone else has done.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

You know, after reading so many posts about how copyright needs to extend far, far beyond the life of the author to protect the interests of those that they leave behind, it seems that they are now considered some kind of vultures that try to make money out of the work that someone else has done.

I see what you mean. Whenever MR gets into the argument dealing with lifetime+forever on copyright - you always hear the cries of "it helps protect the families" of the author after death. But now the author's family is the problem? Why should copyright get extended for such a long period of time when it leads to the family being shut out of the author's creation? Because what we seem to be heading for is "studios and publishers get complete control over other people's work" not "protection of the author and family."

[tubemonkey]

Copyright should protect the owner; family or not.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by plib

Personal opinion? The world needs more authors, and less lawyers. (I won't even mention politicians )

Relevance, counsel?

[carpetmojo]

Actually, the world needs more good authors......

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

You know, after reading so many posts about how copyright needs to extend far, far beyond the life of the author to protect the interests of those that they leave behind, it seems that they are now considered some kind of vultures that try to make money out of the work that someone else has done.

That is a bit harsh.
Human nature (generally) wants to get as much as you can as easily as you can. The Cartland estate is certainly milking their legacy for all it's worth and they hardly are the first or will be the last. If you own something you are perfectly free to exploit it.

The Puzo estate obviously thinks they have rights to exercise while Paramount thinks they don't. The available data doesn't prove either is wrong just as it doesn't prove either is right. For all we know, they both own chunks of the copyright.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

That is a bit harsh.
Human nature (generally) wants to get as much as you can as easily as you can. The Cartland estate is certainly milking their legacy for all it's worth and they hardly are the first or will be the last. If you own something you are perfectly free to exploit it.

The Puzo estate obviously thinks they have rights to exercise while Paramount thinks they don't. The available data doesn't prove either is wrong just as it doesn't prove either is right. For all we know, they both own chunks of the copyright.

The argument for extending copyright beyond the life of the author was for the benefit of the family of the author. If it no longer serves that purpose, why is the extension necessary?

[nogle]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

The argument for extending copyright beyond the life of the author was for the benefit of the family of the author. If it no longer serves that purpose, why is the extension necessary?

As a thought experiment, contemplating copyright being for the life of the creator/author and passing to the public domain immediately upon death creates some interesting scenarios.

If corporations could not hold a copyright, only a license, it would be in the interst of a licensee to keep the author/creator alive. This could include contractual obligations to refrain from hazardous activities and treat medical conditions. It could also create an incentive for the licensee to provide health benefits. It could create an incentive to keep an author on life support.

Converesely, rival publishers or in the case of unlicensed works, create an incentive to shorten the life of an author/creator so that the work would pass to the public domain.

Although all these incentives have some validity now, the extension beyond death are far enough in the future to not be meaningful to a publisher.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

This part makes it sound like without the agreement in its current form the film wouldn't have been made:

Puzo wrote only one book in that series, subsequently signed the deal with Paramount, and was involved in the screenplays for the movie sequels.

The deal could have easily been structured along more traditional lines. But it wasn't, and those were the auspices under which all three movies were made.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

You know, after reading so many posts about how copyright needs to extend far, far beyond the life of the author to protect the interests of those that they leave behind, it seems that they are now considered some kind of vultures that try to make money out of the work that someone else has done.

The Puzo estate aren't necessarily "vultures." They're just allegedly violating the contract.

Again, Puzo himself voluntarily signed the deal. Copyright is very flexible, and in most nations includes lots of provisions for the transfer of copyright. His estate is still "provided for" in the sense that they still receive payments deriving from the series.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

The Puzo estate aren't necessarily "vultures." They're just allegedly violating the contract.

Did you also read what I quoted?

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Believe Paramount or not, but do consider Puzo himself didn't farm out any derivatives while alive. It is just as easy to believe the estate is looking to test the clause in court to see if any money shakes loose.

He made it sound like the estate is ignoring the wishes of the author and the benevolence of Paramount just to see "if any money shakes loose".

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Again, Puzo himself voluntarily signed the deal. Copyright is very flexible, and in most nations includes lots of provisions for the transfer of copyright. His estate is still "provided for" in the sense that they still receive payments deriving from the series.

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.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

The Puzo estate aren't necessarily "vultures." They're just allegedly violating the contract.

Again, Puzo himself voluntarily signed the deal. Copyright is very flexible, and in most nations includes lots of provisions for the transfer of copyright. His estate is still "provided for" in the sense that they still receive payments deriving from the series.

Exactly.
Copyright deals are contracts and there is usually room for interpretation/debate.
All we really know is the estate thinks it owns enough of the copyright to be able to commission sequels and Paramount begs to differ. Given that we're apparently not talking about a standard screenplay/book adaptation contract there might be enough gray area for both sides to believe they're in the right.
No need for heroes or villains or legislation.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Copyright should protect the owner; family or not.

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.