Paramount sues to stop new book in ‘Godfather’ series

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

A discussion about copyright law, what it was intended for, who it protects.

It protects the owner of the copyright.
We don't know who the owner of the copyright here is, because it depends on the contract.

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

"Hire"

wow i cant believe i typed that.

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

His son inherited whatever rights Puzo had over this. Seeing the contract doesn't change that. If Puzo had some copyright over this, his son inherited it.

and since you haven't seen the contracts, you don't know the 'whatever' of those rights.

what part of that do you not understand?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

and since you haven't seen the contracts, you don't know the 'whatever' of those rights.

what part of that do you not understand?

We do know that he wrote another book after the contract was signed, so he had the right to do that. What part of this do you not understand?

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

We do know that he wrote another book after the contract was signed, so he had the right to do that. What part of this do you not understand?

The part where you think you know what those rights were.
Maybe he wrote it with the express agreement of Paramount that he could write that one book. That means absolutely nothing at all when considering rights the estate has to write another book now.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

The part where you think you know what those rights were.
Maybe he wrote it with the express agreement of Paramount that he could write that one book. That means absolutely nothing at all when considering rights the estate has to write another book now.

An agreement that Paramount didn't mention? An agreement that would go against the official purpose of copyright: to support creation?

What makes you think that this agreement exists?

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

An agreement that Paramount didn't mention? An agreement that would go against the official purpose of copyright: to support creation?

What makes you think that this agreement exists?

I don't.
I don't know what agreements or contracts exist or existed between Puzo, his estate and Paramount.
That is why I don't think we can make any conclusion about what rights the estate have.
You don't know anything about any agreements or contracts exist either, but for some reason you do think you can draw conclusions.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

I don't.
I don't know what agreements or contracts exist or existed between Puzo, his estate and Paramount.
That is why I don't think we can make any conclusion about what rights the estate have.
You don't know anything about any agreements or contracts exist either, but for some reason you do think you can draw conclusions.

It's not for some reason, it's because of empirical evidence. Puzo did write another book after the initial contract which Paramount didn't contest.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

It's not for some reason, it's because of empirical evidence. Puzo did write another book after the initial contract which Paramount didn't contest.

So what?
What does that have to do with whether the estate can release a book now?
We don't know, because it depends on the contract.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

So what?
What does that have to do with whether the estate can release a book now?
We don't know, because it depends on the contract.

It has everything to do with whether the estate can release a book now.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

It has everything to do with whether the estate can release a book now.

No, it doesn't. It really doesn't.
We have no idea what agreements were in place between Paramount and Puzo regarding that book.
It is possible that they would allow for another book. It is possible that they wouldn't. Without knowing what they were, we cannot say either way.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

It's not for some reason, it's because of empirical evidence. Puzo did write another book after the initial contract which Paramount didn't contest.

That evidence doesn't necessarily mean what you think it does. It would not be unusual at all for a contract to only allow someone to publish a sequel if they get the permission of the copyright holder. The fact that Puzo published a sequel doesn't mean that he had the absolute right to do so.

In fact, the goog reveals this:

Hollywood Reporter broke the fascinating story, in which Paramount - which owns the Godfather copyright - is suing to prevent any more books from being published in the hit series. Paramount had previously agreed to allow the estate to publish a single sequel - Mark Winegardner's The Godfather Returns - in 2004.

http://www.craveonline.com/film/arti...father-sequels

Which suggests that Paramount owns the contract and has the power to decide whether to permit a sequel or not.

But what really matters is what the contract says.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

In fact, the goog reveals this:

http://www.craveonline.com/film/arti...father-sequels

Did you notice that the article didn't mention "The Sicilian", the sequel that was written by Puzo?

[Dulin's Books]

But it does mention that the estate had to have Paramount agree with publishing that book. So if you want a conclusion it would seem the estate already knows the answer- they need paramount's permission.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

But it does mention that the estate had to have Paramount agree with publishing that book. So if you want a conclusion it would seem the estate already knows the answer- they need paramount's permission.

It doesn't say that they had to have Paramount agree with publishing that book, just that they did. They had no agreement for the one that followed, but it was still published. If they didn't have any part of the copyright in this matter, then it makes no sense that they would be the ones to choose the writer.