DARK SHADOWS FORUMS
Members' Mausoleum => Calendar Events / Announcements Archive => Calendar Events / Announcements '25 I => Calendar Events / Announcements '11 I => Topic started by: Mysterious Benefactor on November 11, 2010, 09:00:23 PM
-
Austin Live Theatre: Upcoming: Fan-Produced webseries 'Dark Shadows,' beginning in January 2011 (http://austinlivetheatre.blogspot.com/2010/11/upcoming-fan-produced-webseries-dark.html)
The trailer doesn't exactly give that much of an indication of what what it will be like. But it might be worth a look once it gets going...
-
Hi MB thanks for the link how cool is that! You are one in a million!
Love Anne [hall2_kiss]
-
I checked in on this today just to see if there have been any new developments and was quite surprised to discover that apparently they've already posted the first ep even though it was indicated that it wouldn't come out until January.
Check out: Dark Shadows: The Web Series (http://www.darkshadowswebseries.com/)
Or go directly to the YouTube video: Dark Shadows The Web Series Episode 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfsuGdmCHoQ)
I must say it's much better than I was expecting. And that's not to slight the people involved, but one never knows what to expect with these sorts of Web Series.
Here are a few observations thus far:[spoiler]Fans who certainly know who they are will no doubt be thrilled to hear the new Liz utter the retort "Because I chose to do so." [santa_wink]
It's great that Art Wallace gets his due. [santa_thumb]
The casting seems quite good. [santa_thumb]
Apparently the new Maggie is so talented that she can prepare instant sandwiches. [santa_grin]
Love the portrait of the Collins ancestor with the powdered wig. [santa_wink][/spoiler]
Some things that are different from the original series:[spoiler]Sarah's Ghost is already at Collinwood before the arrival of Barnabas - but she was also already at Collinwood in the '91 series.
David seems older than 10 - but that just means that his pranks can be all the more, uh, advanced. [santa_wink][/spoiler]
All in all I'm really looking forward to Ep #2 on January 14th...
-
I continue to be intrigued by how things will play out with this series. It's interesting how they're combining elements from both the very first original DS eps, with Vicki's arrival at Collinwood, along with those from around Ep #195, with the second installment's introduction of Jason and Willie and their arrival at Collinwood. It's also nice to see them using music from the original series as well as the '91.
If you haven't checked out the first two installments, I really suggest that you do...
-
The production values are amazing!
But I expected better acting from members of a live theatre company.
Still, I'm intrigued too.
I think I'll give them some coverage in Scary Monsters & Videoscope Mags--supportive coverage of course.
Efforts like these help keep DS alive.
-
I really should be working, but I just looked at the first ep. This definitely has some possibilities! They're moving the story along in some interesting ways. Guess I'll treat myself to ep. 2 with lunch.
-
The webseries is really good and a lotta fun! It's interesting that they intend to use totally different actors/actresses to perform the 1795 characters (I imagine save Barnabas [and Vicki, if they go that sent-back-in-time route]), rather than using the ones doing the current-day characters.
Gerard
-
I too am intrigued, but I wish the writing had been a bit more original. It relies too heavily on memorable quotes from the orignal. Still, there's a great deal to like about it so far.
-
Any way we can move this thread to the current "Current Talk" folder? Although I'm still trying to get used to the idea of Carolyn as a brunette, I'm really enjoying the Web series and I'm just afraid it'll get lost here.
-
The Web series isn't "official" DS, so talking about it can't be on the Current Talk board. But the topic shouldn't get lost here. In fact, if there's enough interest in the series, this topic can be stickied so that it will always display as one of the first topics at the top of the board just like the topic devoted to the Big Finish audio dramas does...
-
Ah, I get it--thanks! That sounds fine to me. I'm still learning the ways of this corner of the DS universe.
-
Episode 3 is now up and definitely has features of interest, including some interesting special effects. Willie is pretty funny. Roger is a slightly different take on the character--I'm curious to see how this role will develop. Some of the acting is still a bit stiff, but I suppose they'll grow into the roles as they go on. Nice use of green screen throughout!
A couple of awkward but endearing moments in the script when some characters don't seem sure which comes first, bedtime or dinner. Sort of takes me back....
-
Thanks for the heads up. I had looked on Friday but it wasn't up yet.
Some interesting twists that are different from the original series. And yes, that is an interesting special effect. The series is starting to develop its own identity...
-
Just for a lark I have just watched episodes 1 and 2. Carla Daws as Liz and the actor who plays Roger seem pretty good. The production really needs some help with pacing though. It all seems under-rehearsed and sometimes dodgy.
The Willie makes me think of Craig Slocum. And the Jason sways and pirouettes so extraordinarily that I am reminded of a line in The Man who came to dinner about ZaSu Pitts--my apologies for going all esoteric again.
G.
-
And now I watched episode 3. Mrs. Johnson in this version appears to be British. Perhaps she'll get the movie Stokes line about the Bromwells in Cadogan Square?
G.
-
I thought the acting improved tremendously with episode 3, with Liz & Willie being the best. Mrs. J in a fat suit was hilarious!
Loved the portrait effect.
I'm really digging this, so I hope the makers don't have trouble eith the Curtis estate.
-
I'm glad to know Mrs. J. is in a fat suit!
Jason seems to be settling into Collinwood quite nicely, thanks to dopey Roger. I wonder if we'll get to see a reiteration of Biker Buzz!
-
Went to website they have all been marked private. Interesting??
-
Seems the series is no more. [snow_sad]
On the home page, it read:
'Unfortunately, we will no longer be producing Dark Shadows The Web Series. Representatives of The Dan Curtis Estate, while complimentary of our achievement, have asked that we pull our videos and we wish to be fully compliant with them. '
& the youtube videos have been removed.
Damnit, KNEW I should had saved them while they were still online!
-
Well, it was fun while it lasted. Yet another sign that the suits who work for DCP have ZERO sense of humor--did they actually see these little treats as a serious attempt at a remake?
It's kind of tragic that we'll never get to see the main guy play Barnabas since it all seems to have been his idea...
G.
-
You know, I honestly wondered if this might happen - but I thought it would have happened soon after the first video was released and certainly by the second. When the third was allowed to come out, I thought perhaps they were going to look the other way - but I suppose it just might have been that they hadn't gotten wind of it yet. Oh, well. But regardless of what any of us may think, they were certainly well within their rights to put a stop to it...
-
Maybe they could change the names of the characters and continue it that way. I know, the vampire can be Grenville Hawkes. Willie could become Jaime Summers, and they could call the series Hawke's Harbor...
-
[pointing-up] [wink2]
-
How very sad. I thought it was very creative and lots of fun!
-
I just don't get the corporate mind. Yes, of course, DCP is well within its legal rights to go after anyone and anything that it considers an "infringement" upon its material. But, for crying out loud, get the stick out of the patoot. These were fans that were creatively giving another tribute to the company and its work and wasn't making a penny of money from it. This is something called free publicity. It not only keeps current and long-time fans interested (and thus making them want to go out and buy more DCP products) but opens the market up to possible first-timers who will then check out the "real thing" and purchase DCP stuff and at no cost whatsoever to the business. And whatever happened to "imitation is the highest form of flattery?" Exactly what is in the heads of the DCP heads? If you want to keep and gain customers, treat them right; if you want to lose them, treat them like criminals. Does DCP have a full-time member on its staff that does nothing but google "Dark Shadows" all day long looking for stuff so it can go after them with threats?
Gerard
-
I strongly suspect that someone saw this topic here or similar ones and/or articles on other Web sites and informed someone connected with the Curtis estate. That's all it takes (and someone tattling about YouTube videos that use footage from the MPI DVDs is also how MPI finds out and has them pulled). And unfortunately for the Austin group, that person had a very different opinion of the existence of the Web series than what a lot of us might have. It's not like we shouldn't have seen this possible reaction from the Curtis estate because we're not the first fandom to have a Web series/tribute pulled for infringement - and we surely won't be the last...
-
One of the reasons DS is so far below Star Trek in popularity is because DCP has a long history of crushing fan produced tributes that might otherwise have raised the show's profile.
A stupid, self destructive, policy if you ask me.
-
Though it's not just when it comes to DS. Very few intellectual property holders are willing to look the other way these days - especially when fans are posting their stuff on Web sites like YouTube that can potentially give it a great deal of exposure. I'm sure there are many different reasons for having fan tributes squashed, and we can't be certain what the Curtis estate's reasoning is. Though in other cases one reason that seems to come up frequently is the fact that, even though the fans may not be making money off of it, neither is the intellectual property holder. It's often the case that money and self-interest trumps everything else. And even though Gerard makes an interesting point that fan stuff can actually bring greater expose to the original and potentially generate revenue for it, that rarely seems to be a persuasive argument...
-
I strongly suspect that someone saw this topic here or similar ones and/or articles on other Web sites and informed someone connected with the Curtis estate.
Zooo, zomeone here is zee mole, eh? Now, who could it be? Letz zee. Hmmmmm. You all look zo zuzpeezhoiuz. Well, I think...oui...yez, zat's it! It eez none other than..................da-da-da-DAAAAAAAA!
Gerard
-
Perhaps if Dan Curtis Productions doesn't stamp out everything like this, then when something comes along that is truly objectionable (for whatever reason) then they will have lost their legal standing to complain. Sort of like those public paths through estates in England that people take care to travel once a year to keep them public.
And now Gerard's absolutely certain that I'm the mole.
-
Perhaps if Dan Curtis Productions doesn't stamp out everything like this, then when something comes along that is truly objectionable (for whatever reason) then they will have lost their legal standing to complain.
Interesting point because, if they overlooked some and not others, it could possibly undercut their stance when they wanted to stamp out those others. The people involved in them would certainly be asking why did you allow those others to exist but not us.
One thing, though, that probably should be mentioned again is that for all intents and purposes, DCP doesn't exist. Nowadays it's simply the family/estate, Jim Pierson, and maybe a phone number - but I don't even see a phone number included in any of the listings for the production companies involved in the Depp/DS film (whereas there are phone numbers for GK Films, Infinitum Nihil, Tim Burton Productions, and Warner Bros. Pictures) - and perhaps that's due to the fact that DCP was dissolved after DC's passing. And if you note, the notice posted by the Austin group says representatives of the estate asked them to end the series.
-
Perhaps if Dan Curtis Productions doesn't stamp out everything like this, then when something comes along that is truly objectionable (for whatever reason) then they will have lost their legal standing to complain. Sort of like those public paths through estates in England that people take care to travel once a year to keep them public.
It's understandable to want to be consistent to prevent confusion or finger pointing, but copyright rights don't work this way. The owner of a copyrighted work can be as consistent as she or he chooses to be.
What happened to Austin Live Theater is very unfortunate because their work was obviously borne out of pleasure and love. But their productions could be viewed as competition for the Big Finish Productions, and that juggernaut Warner Bros. should probably also be considered.
-
their productions could be viewed as competition for the Big Finish Productions, and that juggernaut Warner Bros. should probably also be considered.
Yes, and there's certainly that...
-
At the Web Series' Facebook page, there's chat about a petition to DCP to allow it to continue.
-
Sadly, I wouldn't think that will make much headway - particularly if, as Midnite suspects, the estate believes the series was competition to something like the Big Finish audio dramas, and especially if Warner Bros. was involved in any way with the squashing. But I do wish them luck because obviously I was enjoying the series...
-
DS Fan Tim Goss just posted an open letter to Jim Pierson.
We'll see......
-
True, a petition won't make any difference. The argument could also be made that fans are getting their DS fix through current offerings - the audio dramas, for instance.
Through the years (decades, actually) fans have published zines and photos from the series without any issues from DCP (as it existed then) and DCP would have been within its rights to shut down those zines but they looked the other way. The only time I've known the company to pull anything generally relates to DS videos and other licensed products.
Lydia - I'm sure you aren't "mole"-material, lol. There does exist a naivete among fans that what they post here and on other message boards isn't seen by MPI, and others with a vested interest in DS products and distribution. Doesn't it make sense such entities would read message boards having to do with their market?
-
It was a good watch. Too bad we didn't get to see what happened. I don't agree with the decision to have it removed, as it certainly wasn't anywhere near competing with the current products, and probably would have worked in favor of the Warner project, considering that, if it achieved a following on Youtube, said "new" viewers would most likely add to the box office figures. I thought the cast was getting there, and Liz was always rather good. But, if nothing else, this short-lived web series proved two things: 1. No voice will ever be able to replace Joan Bennett's strong one, even if the delivery of lines is good. 2. Jason McGuire should have an Irish Brogue - always. There are no exceptions to this rule.
-
There does exist a naivete among fans that what they post here and on other message boards isn't seen by MPI, and others with a vested interest in DS products and distribution. Doesn't it make sense such entities would read message boards having to do with their market?
Just by way of a reminder, two of the forum's members are directly connected to MPI and through the years they have commented directly here on the forum about MPI's products and complaints against MPI. And more than once when certain situations have come up we've also mentioned that we're aware that the forum is read by more than simply those associated with MPI. We realize that can sometimes come across as us exaggerating who reads the forum, but quite honestly we're not...
-
Once, a long time ago, I was told by someone in marketing in some fandom that one key reason certain copyright infringements are nipped in the bud is to prevent the proliferation of the activity. One person or group infringing doesn't seem like anything to get excited about but others who see the activity, and that it's allowed, get the idea to try their own project(s) and more ambitious see that and get their own ideas - soon a whole lot of people are engaged in the infringing activity and it's a much bigger deal than the one or two individuals or groups engaging in the infringement.
-
How disapointing; I just saw this thread but apparently even the episodes already produced are dead. Many estates (for instance the Tolkein estate) allow non-profit fan films and don't see this as a threat to multi-million dollar official projects. Corporations are given disproportionate "rights" in our society, I think, and many of them are simply not hip to how internet projects like this can bring attention to their products.
-
CBS not only looks the other way with regard to Star Trek fan films, in one case they actually gave great latitude by approving a plan for the producers to recoup some of their money. Star Trek-Of Gods and Men was allowed to be distributed on the web. The creators were also permitted to give away DVDs to anyone who bought autographed items and other memorabilia at inflated prices. For example, I might expect to pay $25 for Walter Koenig's autograph. They charged something like $45 and made $20 profit minus the cost of the DVD on the deal to repay themselves. You can check their web site for what they have to offer. If you are a Trek fan and enjoy the film, it's a pretty good deal. You even get to watch the movie before you buy. After all of this, the 11th Trek film managed to "live long and prosper" in the theaters and do very well on DVD. I doubt the Curtis estate would've suffered much harm from the DS web series.
-
What rubs me the wrong way is the fact that the script for the new movie was written by a man that got his start by taking a something that was public domain and changing it to fit his needs. It could be said that if Seth Grahme-Smith hadn't written "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" that someone else would have written the script that Burton and Depp like so much. That being the case it makes them look just a little two faced to complain that someone is now doing something based on DS. I want the new movie to be a hit and to bring new fans to DS but this leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I have lost alot of my respect for these two. Kinda of makes it feel that this is all about the money and nothing else. It makes it look like they're more about cashing in than being DS fans.
-
I guess we can expect DCP or who ever to file charges against SNL or any other comedy group that does a skit poking fun at the movie whenever it comes out. Right?
One thing I know to be a fact, you kick a dog everyday and in time it's going to bite back. Fans, even lifelong fans can do the samething if Depp, Burton, DCP, or whoever did this keep it up. Oh, when I movie fan bites back, they stay home.
-
I was just contacted by DCP and was asked to change my dog's name. They said that if I keep calling him Barnabas they will file a law suite against me......This is a parody and is not to be taken seriously. [snow_smiley]
-
I guess we can expect DCP or who ever to file charges against SNL or any other comedy group that does a skit poking fun at the movie whenever it comes out. Right?
Actually, no, because parody falls under the fair use exception.
-
Humor is very subjective. What you find funny I may not. I have never seen humor in anything that Jim Carrey does, does that mean it isn't a parody? No. It seems to me that as long as you put a disclaimer on it that says "This is a parody and is not to be taken seriously" you're covered. I think it was Larry Flint that did a "parody" interview with Jim Baker about his "first time" being with his mother. Flint had a disclaimer on the interview so small you had to look for it, that stated it was "a parody and not to be taken seriously". The courts agreed with Flint. If you do a DS video and you don't use any footage from the show why not just call it a parody?
At this point I wonder if they are going to jack up the price of the fest this year.
If he isn't careful JP could end DS fandom for alot of people and I don't think that's what he wants. At least I hope it isn't.
-
Midnight - Could they stop fans from using names and photos from the show on facebook pages?
-
Well, using a copyrighted photo from any source violates Facebook's terms and rules anyway.
-
We all know what facebooks policy is, I think, I'm wondering what you think the chances are that DCP will ask that they pull those pages. From what I've been told they have complained about the use of The Carey Mansion on t-shirts on photos, even when they were photos that were not used in the show.
-
With the T-shirts featuring the Carey Mansion, I suspect it was less an issue that fan photos of the house were used than that "Dark Shadows" or "Collinwood" was also printed on the shirts. Even though they were often shirts that were done specifically for the Fests or for a private fan gathering, and MPI doesn't do those sorts of shirts, they were still seen by DCP and/or its representatives (and probably MPI) as competition to MPI's officially licensed T-shirts.
-
I'm wondering what you think the chances are that DCP will ask that they pull those pages.
I can only speculate, and my guess is that it's not very likely the current owners would do anything about them.
-
It's not often acknowledged, but Pierson has looked the other way for years while fans not only posted their fan fiction (another derivative work) but even self-published, illustrated and sold it.
-
Fanzines have used photos from the series since 1975 and I have never heard of DCP making an issue of it.
We all know what facebooks policy is, I think, I'm wondering what you think the chances are that DCP will ask that they pull those pages.
-
It's not often acknowledged, but Pierson has looked the other way for years while fans not only posted their fan fiction (another derivative work) but even self-published, illustrated and sold it.
True. And the fact that Depp had to negotiate/secure the rights from DC's estate to do the DS film is a good indication that most if not all the copyrights for DS continue to be in full force. Certainly the intellectual property copyright is in force - and that would have been the one that would have affected the Austin group's version the most. But it does seem to be the case that so long as fans produce and distribute things that don't compete with officially licensed material, the copyrights holder (which would be the estate at this point) is willing to look the other way.
-
And before Pierson the self-published, sold fanfic was going on.
For what it is worth, Pierson isn't necessarily the one person to make decisions regarding the DC estate. I have heard from reliable sources that the heirs and other long-time representatives are involved in most decisions.
Nancy
It's not often acknowledged, but Pierson has looked the other way for years while fans not only posted their fan fiction (another derivative work) but even self-published, illustrated and sold it.
-
What rubs me the wrong way is the fact that the script for the new movie was written by a man that got his start by taking a something that was public domain and changing it to fit his needs. It could be said that if Seth Grahme-Smith hadn't written "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" that someone else would have written the script that Burton and Depp like so much. That being the case it makes them look just a little two faced to complain that someone is now doing something based on DS.
I don't really understand the logic of this argument. It's precisely because Pride and Prejudice is in the public domain that Grahame-Smith was fully entitled to create a derivative work and was not violating copyright law. Dark Shadows is not in the public domain, thus the videos in question are in violation of copyright law. There's no inconsistency here whatsoever.
-
I do think that is a bit of a stretch. [snow_wink]
Taken into perspective, it's only a handful of fans who try to create DS-related videos and other items that actually get noticed and pulled by reps of the DC estate. If the product is there - fan created or otherwise - fans will watch it or read it. If a fan-created product gets pulled, the fans will watch or read something else, usually a licensed product that is available. It's all good. The fans aren't getting the shaft.
But there will always be fans who claim they are but don't think for a minute that giving away or selling someone else's property is giving that someone else the shaft. I often wonder how fans think production companies like MPI or even DCP pay their bills, pay their employees and make a living. I've heard it called "greed." I don't consider it greed for me to demand my paycheck for services rendered or if someone else uses my property especially without my permission. But for some reason, production companies and those in the entertainment industry who make their living entertaining or providing entertainment in some form don't deserve to be compensated for each time their work or property entertains someone or an audience. I simply do not understand that logic. [snow_huh]
It sucks when a cool fan-created DS product gets pulled but the reality is more fan-created DS products are left alone rather than pursued by DCP or the estate. The fans who have produced DS-photo rich zines and stories over the decades are very grateful that they have been allowed to do so.
As to whether or not the fest rates go up - it would be totally fair if they did. For anyone who has been to or knows what other media conventions charge at the gate, the DS fest rates are practically rock bottom and have been for years.
Nancy
If he isn't careful JP could end DS fandom for alot of people and I don't think that's what he wants. At least I hope it isn't.
-
I agree. The irony is that DS got much of its momentum using stories that were in the public domain!
I don't really understand the logic of this argument. It's precisely because Pride and Prejudice is in the public domain that Grahame-Smith was fully entitled to create a derivative work and was not violating copyright law. Dark Shadows is not in the public domain, thus the videos in question are in violation of copyright law. There's no inconsistency here whatsoever.
-
First let me say that I don't like the idea of public domain to being with. I'll never understand why Someone like Grahame-Smith can put his name next to Jane Austen on her book just because we past a date and he added to few lines to it is crazy. I don't know if Austen's estate is still around or not but the idea that Grahame-Smith could get paid for something that he didn't write is nuts and 80% of that book is the original Pride and Prejudice. Yes, it's legal but just because it's legal doesn't make it right.
While DS is dervative of many classic works I've yet to see his name appear next to Stoker or Shelley. Most stories are dervative of some other story. Most writers are inspired by what others write. That's very different from taken a finished book, changing it and adding your name to the front cover.
I'm ok with DCP, JP, or whom ever stopping people from writing fan fiction, fan films, t-shirts, or whatever they want. I do think they should keep in mind that without the fans they would be making this new film or having fest. Yes, they need to pay bills and eat, no one is says that they don't need to. I just think that if the fans feel like they are being taken advantage of that it won't be good for anyone, fans or anyone.
-
The sad thing is that within 24hrs after the movie is released I can go buy it on DVD for under $10.00 and it'll be as good as any DVD you'd buy in a store.
You see the powers that be can ask a fan to stop and they will because they want the best for DS. Those who are not fans will sell they illegal copies and won't even slow down. They don't care and they won't start.
-
Actually, the sadder thing about DVDs like that is that the people who buy them know they're breaking law but, in plain English, the don't give a shit. Not to mention that they don't give a shit that they're depriving everyone involved with the films of their rightful royalties from the actual DVD releases.
If the buyers didn't purchase the illegal DVDs, the sellers wouldn't have any customers. So, every buyer is just as much to blame as every seller. Probably even more so because buyers are supporting the sellers by buying their illegal products...
-
Well said, MB.
-
You see that's the thing about public domain, you fail to fill out the right sheet of paper or you fill it out wrong and it doesn't matter if everyone in the world knows you put all the work into creating it. It's then legal for someone to do whatever they want with it. It happed to the Stoker family with Dracula and to Romero with Night of the Living Dead. Everyone knew who's work they were but paperwork mistakes caused them to loose their copywrites. Legal or not that's wrong.
IMHO if a fan of Romero has a choice of buying a copy of Night... that Romero will profit from and one that he won't, they should always buy the one that Romero will profit from. If someone from the Stoker family does a forward to Darcula a fan should buy that release because the Stoker family will then be able to profit from Stoker's work. If anyone were to change one of these classics so that they can profit from Romero's or Stoker's hard work they would be wrong but within the law. I would not want to support them just like I don't want to support someone selling illegal DVDs.
If I support Seth Grahame-Smith I fill like I'm supporting someone that, were it not for one piece of paper, would be selling someone else's work that he had made slight changes to without them wanting him to. If the paperwork got screwed up on the release of the new movie, would you then be ok with those bootleg DVDS? I wouldn't be.
-
Did you know that at one time it was legal to hunt and sale the skins of red people in America. That's where the term "redskins" comes from. It was still legal to kill them until the early 1900s.
Did you know that rape was legal in America if your skin wasn't white?
Did you know it was illegal to have sex in any way other than the missionary position? You could be sent to jail for it even if you were legally married. This was still the law in some states in the 1990s!
Again, just because it's the law doesn't make it right.
-
I understand the principle you are talking about but in essence you are comparing apples and oranges in terms of how a law affects people.
The public domain issues your talking about occur basically because the author is long since dead and heirs are not identified or have made claim to the property in question. If an author has been dead over a hundred years their work is in the public domain just because it's no longer reasonable or possible to identify receivers of copyright payments. Once a spouse or immediate family have passed on, and a hundred years pass, it seems a little silly to try and make payments on property when the author can't even enjoy or receive payment. Dan Curtis had children and other reps with long standing vested interest in the DS property.
Screenwriters and others who adapt stories long since in the public domain usually acknowledge the source by saying their new work is based on a story by so and so, etc. They aren't doing anything wrong or immoral. They aren't alone in building upon an existing story, adding and twisting around things to create a new work/new idea. Existing ideas provide plenty of fuel for the fertile imagination, to seize upon the first idea and add another idea to that, and this is true in any business in the world not just the entertainment business.
I do also have to say that the legal issues you pointed out are horrible wrongs perpetrated on fellow human beings, devastating crimes against humanity. In this particular topic, we are talking about a freaking movie. That's all it is - a movie. If it's an awful movie, fandom will continue. If it's a great movie, fandom will continue. Lives will not be ruined in either case.
If indeed the DS fandom ended tomorrow and there was no where to discuss it and no way to by anything related to DS, the world would go on and I think most of us would manage to live the rest of our lives rather happily. I believe the focus should be on what fans CAN do creatively to celebrate DS and not what they can't do. Fanzines like the one Taeylor is starting is a good example. He will undoubtedly be using DS photos and short stories based on existing characters but won't be bothered by DCP. That kind of project is rarely ever bothered by those legal folks. The people who make DS products available to fans have every right to decide what they want to see done with their property. To bitch and moan about what they want to do with their own property is rather unseemly. People who do that really don't have any right to complain, IMO.
I guess this is going off topic somewhat so I'll rest my case now, lol. [snowball]
Again, just because it's the law doesn't make it right.
-
I don't think anyone should be rewarded too much for 'allowing' fan-fiction; it will go on in the far corners of the internet whether they want it to or not. And yes, I do think it is greedy for billionare warner brothers to take action to stop nonprofit youtube fan-films made by a few amatuers trying to have a good time. They and the Curtis estate already made their money, and I don't think the massive corporate profits of Hollywood need to be protected in that way. I also don't think I'm so much in agreement with everyone else that the descendants of an author or etc. should be enabled to live off the proceeds of their ancestors work and do nothing hundreds of years later; if it is moved into the public domain, no one should be profiting off of it at all. When you release something into the public to that extent, and indeed make your money off the 'cult' status of a fan community, it doesn't only belong to you. I'm sure that Richard O'brien doesn't consider Rocky Horror to 'belong' to him in the sense that he needs to stop all those damned people reinacting the play at midnight showings in order to protect his property. Copyright practice, if not law, is changing irrevocably due to the internet; people can either work with it and succeed or work against it and fail.
-
Of course, in this particular case it really doesn't matter what any of us think because the Austin group's DS series is gone and for better or worse, depending on whether one is looking at it from DC's estate's POV or the POV of those of us who enjoyed it, the most likely scenario is that it won't be coming back...
-
Nancy - George Romero made Night Of The Living Dead in 1968 and he is very much alive. He lost the copywrite on the film because the title was changed from Night Of The Flesh Eaters. He lost his copywrite because of where the copywrite sysblem was located. It was decided that only the title had a copywrite.
The Stoker family lost their copywrite while Bram's wife was still alive. Strange how that happened about the same time that Hollywood wanted to base a movie on it. It was also lost because of a paperwork error.
It may be the intent of the copywrite laws to allow people to enjoy something after the estate has passed that that isn't always how it works out.
I hope DCP makes enough money from this new movie to want to make many more.
Oh and keep in mind that when all of those other activites were legal most people were ok with them because it wasn't illegal. If Night of the Living Dead had been the only money making movie that Romero had ever made, it would have been life changing to loose the copywrite.
-
As far as I know, bootlegged DVDs on street corners look like crap and are often so out of focus as to be unwatchable.
Anyone stupid enough to buy one deserves to get ripped off.
-
I know where you can buy bootleg DVD that are so good you can't tell they are bootlegs. I've tried turning people in for selling them but no one seems to care.
-
tragic bat - so you're saying that if you created something that made enough money to take care of your kids and grandkids after you're gone, you'd be ok with the government taking it from them.
-
You're right MB, it is gone and I will try not to get too heated in my response.
borgosi, my statement was about whether descendants hundreds of years later should still be raking in vast amounts of wealth from their ancestors literary work by controlling the copyright, and no, I don't think they should. I beleive in such things entering the public domain. I also have always known bootleg releases of films still in theatres to be of terribly low quality, not a replacement for the real thing.
-
So if you wait long enough you should be able to take something that doesn't belong to you. I believe that time shouldn't make a crime legal. I believe that taking something that does not belong to me to be wrong and that the passage of time sould not change that. It makes no difference if it's a book, a song, a movie or a house. If a family shouldn't be able to own a book for hundreds of years why shouldn't that apply to a family home? Or anything else? You said descendants hundreds of years later shouldn't be able to profit from literary work, if it should apply to that why not everything?
Bootleg DVDs are only as good as the source. Some are low quality some are so good you can't tell they're bootlegs. I guess one reason not to buy them is that in most cases you don't know how good the copy is until you get it home.
-
borgosi, are you saying that Shakespeare's works shouldn't necessarily be in the public domain? I've got to give that some thought.
-
I'm saying if it his family were around they should at least be asked before he's life work is used for something. I'm saying that NO ONE should have to right to add to his plays and claim a writing credit new to his on his plays. I'm all for Westside Story and not for King Lear and The Vampire by William Shakespeare and Borgosi. I would be all for a new story inspired by King Lear by Borgosi with a completely different title. I shouldn't be able to claim that I wrote a play with Shakespeare or to even give that appearence.
-
So if you wait long enough you should be able to take something that doesn't belong to you. I believe that time shouldn't make a crime legal. I believe that taking something that does not belong to me to be wrong and that the passage of time sould not change that. It makes no difference if it's a book, a song, a movie or a house. If a family shouldn't be able to own a book for hundreds of years why shouldn't that apply to a family home? Or anything else? You said descendants hundreds of years later shouldn't be able to profit from literary work, if it should apply to that why not everything?
Borgosi, this is definitely the most extreme take on intellectual property that I have ever seen. Ever. Copyright (and that's what it is, copyright), in western societies, has always been seen as something that was granted by the government for a limited period of time, in order to provide benefits to both the creator and the public. Copyright allows the creator to realize gains from the creation. The limitation on the duration of copyright has two purposes: one, it allows the public eventually to be able to freely incorporate previously-created material into new works; second, it is incentive for the creator to create new works and not just laze around (and even his descendants to laze around!) forever because of the good fortune to have created one fabulously successful work.
-
I am a complete idiot on the subject, but a professor told me one time its only copyright infringement if you are trying to pass something off AS the original work. But if its called Dark Shadows, I guess that would be a problem. How about just call the damned thing "Shadows in the Darkness"?
Its really to bad that WB won't be fan-friendly with this DS thing. Paramount has looked the other way for years while Star Trek fans make their own feature-length epics... As long as they don't make anything monetarily off those things, that is!!
-
It should probably be mentioned that there's no indication that Warner Brothers had anything to do with the Austin group's DS series being pulled. As sara Monster posted back in reply #18, the only thing the group posted was that representatives of the Curtis estate asked it to be pulled. The involvement of WB and/or MPI and/or Big Finish in the estate's action has all been speculation. And while it's not out of the realm of possibility that the estate took WB, MPI and Big Finish into account with its decision because they're involved with various official DS products, there isn't anything to indicate the estate consulted with any of those entities. It's just as possible that the estate acted completely alone.
-
Copyright (and that's what it is, copyright), in western societies, has always been seen as something that was granted by the government for a limited period of time, in order to provide benefits to both the creator and the public. Copyright allows the creator to realize gains from the creation. The limitation on the duration of copyright has two purposes: one, it allows the public eventually to be able to freely incorporate previously-created material into new works; second, it is incentive for the creator to create new works and not just laze around (and even his descendants to laze around!) forever because of the good fortune to have created one fabulously successful work.
I agree with you; it is the right to copy, and it is called intellectual property for a reason; because it isn't a physical house or acreage; it exists rather all over the place in perhaps millions of widely distributed copies. Most of Shakespeare's plays would never have been written if endless copyright laws were in place during his time; as most of his works were derivative, being drawn from old literature that he brought into the medium of theatre. The copyright for Oscar Wilde's work ran out in recent years, and because of that there have been a lot of new movies made from his plays, even lesser known ones never filmed before; I think that is a great thing. Wilde's works, like Shakespeare, Shelley, and the Bronte's are historical cultural resources, not belonging to any one person. And that is good, because people are free to interact with them, translate them, and reimagine them as they wish.
-
We will never agree about this and that's ok but I'll never understand how it's ok for Seth Grahame-Smith to get paid 100% of the writers fees for a book that he only wrote about 15% of when the writer of the other 85% ( or their estate if they're still around ) gets nothing.
-
We will never agree about this and that's ok but I'll never understand how it's ok for Seth Grahame-Smith to get paid 100% of the writers fees for a book that he only wrote about 15% of when the writer of the other 85% ( or their estate if they're still around ) gets nothing.
Yes, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. I personally see nothing wrong with Grahame-Smith creating a derivative work, giving credit (in the form of first billing on the title page) where due, and reaping all of the monetary rewards because the creator of the original work no longer holds copyright according to the customs of nearly all societies in the world (and has been dead for nearly 200 years to boot). Our society would be very culturally impoverished (not to mention exponentially more litigious than it already is) if there were not duration limits on copyright.
-
I guess the difference is that imho if you use 85% of the original work it isn't derivative it's coping. If it is so close to the original that you have to list the original author it isn't derivative. Horror of Dracula is derivative of Dracula. Curse Of Frankenstein is derivative of Frankenstein, but if it's 85% of the original book it's no longer derivative it's a copy. If something is a derivative it has been changed. Seth Grahame-Smith added to the original and he included Jane Austen's name because had he not it would have been plagiarism. That should tell you something.
-
Seth Grahame-Smith added to the original and he included Jane Austen's name because had he not it would have been plagiarism. That should tell you something.
The inclusion of Austen's name on Seth Grahame-Smith's book had to do with the fact that he used exact phrasing from Austen. There's a cottage industry of fiction derived from Austen's novels, including books like Mr. Darcy, Vampire, that don't give a byline to Austen because they don't use her exact words.
If you have an interest in the topic of plagiarism and intellectual property rights beyond posting about it here, let me recommend Thomas Mallon's Stolen Words. He discusses the psychology of the plagiarist, and he has an interesting final chapter about a lawsuit involving Earl Hamner's Falcon Crest series. Hamner was accused of ripping off Anita Clay Kornfeld's novel Vintage. Ultimately, Hamner won the case because it was demonstrated that both works relied on standard characters and plot devices associated with the family saga, and earlier works were actually cited as a shared inspiration.
In the case of Austen and some of the horror texts, films, etc. that have been mentioned in this discussion, one or two works eventually inspired a whole genre once they were allowed to come into the public domain. If you don't allow derivative works to exist at some point, then the arts would've died centuries ago.
-
I have no trouble with derivative works. My problem with the Seth Grahame-Smith's book and books like it is about him using Jane Austen's work word for word. Truth is I'm not even a Jane Austen fan. I don't want to see this done to classics that I do love. I think we all know that when something makes money people copy it. What's next "Dracula In Love" by Bram Stoker and Stephine Meyer? "Frankenstein's Children" by Marry Shelley and Rob Zombie? I just believe that if a writer, any writer is going to write a book / short story / screenplay derivative or inspired by another story they should at least write the whole story in their own words. I don't think it's to much to expect a writer to write all of the books he is going to profit from.
-
While I find this topic interesting and engaging, wouldn't it be more to the point to concentrate on what we can do to save the DS Web Series? It's a longshot, but perhaps a letter campaign, a SNAIL MAIL mountain, would be effective. Is there somewhere we can write to the estate of Dan Curtis? I recommend respectful letters that concede their right to shut it down but ask humbly that they generously reconsder. One could also point out all the other franchises that have video projects associated with them. If someone has an address, I'll shoot off a letter Monday.
It's often hard to gauge exact meaning on the internet. My first sentence was intended to be taken literally. It was not a criticism of anyone's point of view on the topic of plagiarism or intellectual property rights.
-
I would think, at the very least, it
While I find this topic interesting and engaging, wouldn't it be more to the point to concentrate on what we can do to save the DS Web Series?
See, I would think that, at the very least, their efforts should be shared. Perhaps at the Fests? Afterall, there are other fan made videos already being shown, right? Also, I had briefly contacted the Youtube channel where they were hosted & was told they had actually filmed up through episode 5. Could be a nice addition to the other movies shown each year.
-
If the name were to be changed and the names of the characters were changed. Maybe the estate would be ok with it. Maybe if you could only get the series by e-mail.
The theater group, if they still want to do it, would have to take to the estate and decide on a plan of action.
We could write letters all day but until the two parties talk to each other nothing is going to happen. Do we know for sure that the estate told them to stop? All we have is their side of the story. Maybe it was costing them to much. Maybe they don't have the time to keep doing it. Maybe some of their actors just quit.
I think DCP or it's estate has a long record of allowing fan produced stories, fan zines, songs, toys, and other items. Maybe someone could contact the estate and get their side of this. I think that would be the place to start.
-
If you want to discuss a campaign to save the Web Series, that's a different story.
Thanks, because that would also be on topic. [thumb] If a poster has something new to add that isn't about Austin Live's webseries, provided it does relate to DS, please start a separate topic for it. And it's extremely important to remember that any debate must remain within the guidelines that you all agreed to when registering:
3. Debate should be kept on a non-personal basis. Flaming and name-calling will not be allowed. It is never appropriate to attack, criticize, or condemn another poster. Retaliation, sharp reproof and cynicism are to be avoided. Disagreement is a natural occurrence, but as stated above, should be done in a respectful manner. Likewise, these disagreements should not be continued beyond the normal limits of interesting discourse. Argument for argument's sake is not welcome.
-
As much as I'd like to see the webseries keep going I have ask myself if normal people, those who haven't followed this show 40 years after it went off the air, may not go see the new movie after seeing a webseries? Could this webseries cut into the box office of the new movie? If it did could that cause us not to get sequels? If it could I say "No More!"
I want the new movie to be very big. I want it to set box office records. I'm against anything that could prevent that. I'm hoping that they didn't wait to long to make the movie. If it comes out at the end of this wave of vampire movies and shows it could fail no matter how good it is. I'm hoping that doesn't happen as well. DS is the original vampire love story and it should be the biggest and best.
-
This was already done back when the producer of the webseries got the cease and desist notice. THe producer posted on the web series site the news the web series had to stop. He also shared the fact he had spoken to Jim Pierson, it was a nice, friendly conversation, Jim was "complimentary" of the web series but the decision was to pull it. The producer was quite classy about it in his post to his viewers.
Nancy
I think DCP or it's estate has a long record of allowing fan produced stories, fan zines, songs, toys, and other items. Maybe someone could contact the estate and get their side of this. I think that would be the place to start.
-
The discussion about the ebook on Amazon has been split into a separate topic:
Amazon book / was: Re: Austin Live Theatre: Fan-Produced DS webseries ...
-
While it would be nice for the remaining webisodes or even everything that was done to be shown at a Fest, for this reason:
THe producer posted on the web series site the news the web series had to stop. He also shared the fact he had spoken to Jim Pierson, it was a nice, friendly conversation, Jim was "complimentary" of the web series but the decision was to pull it..
it probably isn't ever going to happen. It could easily stir up the whole why can't the series continue issue all over again, and if I was Pierson, I wouldn't want to do that.