Paramount sues to stop new book in ‘Godfather’ series

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

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?

I don't know, and don't care. Since there was no dispute over it, it's not relevant.

Puzo and Coppola co-wrote the screenplays, thus they hold the copyrights to the screenplays, unless part of the deal they signed includes a transfer of those copyrights to Paramount. They were not employees or independent contractors, they were not script doctors, and they were not writing secondary texts such as PR copy for the films.

The only thing that matters is the contracts Puzo signed with Paramount, and whether it includes the rights as they describe it. It's up to a court to figure that bit out.

This is not about author's rights; the author is dead. This is not about the injustices of copyright; the Puzo estate is not contesting royalties. This is not about upholding any legacies; the Puzo estate's recent books are apparently substandard in quality. It's not about copyright length; once copyright is terminated, no one -- including the estate -- has control, as it will be in public domain.

It's just a contract dispute.

[Dulin's Books]

the screen plays would have been work for hire. Since the article states the rights were sold in 1969 and Sicilian was written in '84 he either had permission or it was work for hire. I dont know that it makes a difference as far as the issue with the Estate is concerned.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

the screen plays would have been work for higher.

"Hire"

"Work for hire" is a fairly specific arrangement, which involves the content creator being an employee, or having a contract which specifies that their content is done specifically for an employer; e.g. writing PR copy for a movie.

Screenplays usually aren't work for hire. The studio may employ or contract a script doctor, who makes minor modifications to the script, and afaik that's typically work for hire.

However, when Coppola and Puzo wrote the Godfather sequel screenplays, that's a standard copyright arrangement.

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

I dont know that it makes a difference as far as the issue with the Estate is concerned.

It might, it might not. It's not relevant, because what matters is the contract Puzo signed after the first book and before the first movie.

The point is that this is not some social injustice of the big company and the meek little writer. It's that Puzo voluntarily signed a contract, and it's up to the court to determine the full implications of the wording of the contract.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

I don't know, and don't care. Since there was no dispute over it, it's not relevant.

It's relevant because there was no dispute over it. Whatever rights Puzo has were transferred to his estate. If he had the right to write a sequel after the initial agreement then his estate has the right to authorize a sequel.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Whatever rights Puzo has were transferred to his estate.

He allegedly signed over control of the characters to Paramount. Thats all that matters -- whether Paramount does or does not have the rights to control the "Godfather Universe."

So if that's what the contracts say, then Paramount is correct. It's up to the courts to decide the meaning of the contract, assuming it gets that far. Regardless, yet again this is merely a garden-variety contract dispute.

Feel free to volunteer your legal services to the Puzo estate.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

He allegedly signed over control of the characters to Paramount. Thats all that matters -- whether Paramount does or does not have the rights to control the "Godfather Universe."

But he wrote a sequel after that. Did he have the right to write it? Paramount obviously didn't contest it.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

But he wrote a sequel after that. Did he have the right to write it? Paramount obviously didn't contest it.

It may have been part of the original contract that he had the right to do more books in his lifetime or he may have had permission from Paramount. Since we don't have a copy of the contract we don't know.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

It may have been part of the original contract that he had the right to do more books in his lifetime or he may have had permission from Paramount. Since we don't have a copy of the contract we don't know.

The story in the article isn't exactly based on certainty, but the book is supposedly based on an unpublished screenplay by Puzo. Do you think that Puzo's son has the right to have it published?

Paramount believes that the Puzo estate is getting ready for a third sequel novel and is going to court to make sure that doesn't happen. The book is reportedly titled The Family Coreleone and scheduled to be released in July.

The story tells the tale of Vito Corelone's rise to power in Depression-era New York. There's some word that the work is adapted from an unpublished screenplay owned by the Puzo family and could be presented as a prequel to The Godfather. Some legal observers question Paramount's hold over the work.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

The story in the article isn't exactly based on certainty, but the book is supposedly based on an unpublished screenplay by Puzo. Do you think that Puzo's son has the right to have it published?

It depends on what the contract says.
There is no general philosophical rule being debated here, it is a contract dispute. It will depend on the wording of the contract, which none of us have read.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

It depends on what the contract says.
There is no general philosophical rule being debated here, it is a contract dispute. It will depend on the wording of the contract, which none of us have read.

[Sil_liS]

I don't see the point of saying variations on "we don't have the contract so we don't know". If you don't want the conversation to continue, you can just stop posting.

The facts are: Puzo wrote a book and sold the/some rights to Paramount. After that he co-wrote the screen play for the movie and after that he wrote another book. He died and his son wanted other books written. Paramount agreed, and a sequel was published. The same author published another sequel that didn't have much success, but Paramount didn't contest at the time.

Now Paramount is taking Puzo's son to court based on the rumor that another book is being written based on an unpublished screen play written by the original author. While there is no guarantee that this book will be good, it is at least supposed to be based on the writings of what people might call an excellent author, so it doesn't really make sense that Paramount would accuse Puzo's son of tarnishing "The Godfather".

The rumored screen play was in the hands of Puzo's son, and it is likely that he owns the copyright to it. Is he allowed to have it turned into a book and published?

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I don't see the point of saying variations on "we don't have the contract so we don't know". If you don't want the conversation to continue, you can just stop posting.

And yet, the only sensible answer to...

The rumored screen play was in the hands of Puzo's son, and it is likely that he owns the copyright to it. Is he allowed to have it turned into a book and published?

Is that we don't know, because it depends on the contract.
What else can be said?

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

It's relevant because there was no dispute over it. Whatever rights Puzo has were transferred to his estate. If he had the right to write a sequel after the initial agreement then his estate has the right to authorize a sequel.

unless you have seen the contract(s) you have zero way of knowing any of that.

case in point: the judge/jury will decide.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

And yet, the only sensible answer to...

Is that we don't know, because it depends on the contract.
What else can be said?

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

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

unless you have seen the contract(s) you have zero way of knowing any of that.

case in point: the judge/jury will decide.

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.