Austin Powers: Goldmember controversy

This is why you have to make certain everyone receives their bribes in a timely fasion.


What were they thinking?

 

One of two things is going to happen here:
This is either a very well done publicity stunt to get some free pub for both MGM and Universal, or MGM realizes that they have Universal by the balls on this one. Universal is probably in the right on this one (although this is questionable parody) but even if they are absolutely sure they are right it is doubtful they will contest it in court. That would end up delaying the end of the movie so much that an out of court settlement becomes cheaper and easier.

In short this is a very minor squabble that will have no effects re the public at large.

 

Parodies can absolutely not be sued for copyright infringement. This is a settled issue of case law. Like Dylan, I think this must be a publicity stunt.

 

For those of you who didn't read the whole article , here's your answer:

<B>Similarly, MGM and UA would have loved to put a stop to the use of "The Spy Who Shagged Me," but when they registered a protest with the MPAA in 1997, New Line countered the suit and won. <I>This time, New Line apparently failed to go through the proper channels in its counter and, for now at least,</I> does not have the right to use the "Goldmember" title. </B>

 

Major:

Doesn't matter, afaik. If it's a parody, it's legal. I don't think they need some sort of "certificate" saying it's a parody. Possibly, Hollywood has devised some sort of internal "code," but it would still hold up in a court of law.

Similarly, that's why all those fan-created parodies of different movies can't be sued, regardless of what they say. Or the Star Wars porno movie.

There was almost a very interesting case last year that would have cleared up the last remaining questions regarding this. Right now, parodies are legal regardless of circumstance. However ,derivative works are not.

Dmitri Nabokov, Vladimir Nabokov's son, almost had a huge legal battle with the author of Lo's Diary concerning whether it was derivative or an independent work of creative fiction. He ended up settling with her, provided she donated half the profits to charity, but it was a disappointment to anybody who's interested in that section of the law.

 

<B>Doesn't matter, afaik. If it's a parody, it's legal. I don't think they need some sort of "certificate" saying it's a parody. Possibly, Hollywood has devised some sort of internal "code," but it would still hold up in a court of law.

Similarly, that's why all those fan-created parodies of different movies can't be sued, regardless of what they say. Or the Star Wars porno movie.
</B>

I'm sure it's legal in terms of the law-sense of it. The problem is that if the MPAA doesn't approve it, they can simply not rate it and/or do various other things to screw it over. So while it may be legal in the outside world, it still has to pass the MPAA's possibly stricter standards as well. Note that it was ruled inadmissible, rather than illegal:

<I>Variety reports the title of the upcoming third installment of the hit comedy franchise "Austin Powers in Goldmember" has been ruled "inadmissable" by the Motion Picture Assn. of America (MPAA)</I>

 

Time for New Line to hire Alan Dershowitz.

 

<i>its United Artists unit and Danjaq have always been notoriously humor-impaired when it comes to the Bond franchise: they have been known to sic hard-hitting Hollywood litigator Pierce O'Donnell on auto companies that had the temerity to use a well-dressed spy as the subject of a TV ad.</i>

Good grief. It isn't as if they are parodying Citizen Kane or Schindler's List. It's freakin' James Bond!

 

oooooooh. Damned cartels .

 

However, this is a trademark dilution case, not a copyright infringement case. Like Major alluded to, this also being battled with the MPAA right now, not in the courts.

As far as parody goes, there have been many cases over the years in which judges have accepted various parodies as fair use. The most definitive ruling, though, came in the 1994 case Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, in which 2 Live Crew was being sued over their "parody" of Roy Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman". The US Supreme Court here clearly established parody as a potential fair use. From that ruling:

Parody presents a difficult case. Parody's humor, or in any event its comment, necessarily springs from recognizable allusion to its object through distorted imitation. Its art lies in the tension between a known original and its parodic twin. When parody takes aim at a particular original work, the parody must be able to "conjure up" at least enough of that original to make the object of its critical wit recognizable.

The idea of "conjuring up" the original work has become both a basis for protection, and a limitation. You can use enough of the original so that the target of your parody is obvious, but you can't simply copy the original, hoping to benefit from its success, and then throw in a few jokes in order to gain protection. Commercial parodies are just as entitled to this protection as non-commercial ones, as well.

What all of this means is that there is at least enough of a case here for MGM to go to court. They would probably lose but the release for Goldmember would be delayed by a large amount of time. Also this is New Line Studios here, which ain't the most cash-rich studio. They were in danger of going bankrupt before the success of LOTR. And while the expected success of the 2nd and 3rd movie bodes well for the studio, one great movie ain't gonna give them that much cash...

This is why I very much think that even if this isn't just a publicity stunt (which I am 75% sure it is) that within two weeks there will be a small blurb saying the New Line and MGM have settled for an undisclosed amount and no one will care...