|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Apr 12, 2005 21:39:53 GMT
[glow=red,2,300]It's never as straightforward and clear cut as that. Copyright laws change from country to country and things that are copyrighted in some countries are not in others. Some things are public domain in Australia for example that are still under copyright in England. There are dirty tricks involved in the legal process too, one favourite in Australia is for big multi-nationals to take legal action in American courts using American laws against small Australian companies. The Australian company might be in the right according to Australian law but if they can't afford representation in the USA the company then asks our Government to enforce the decision of the American court in Australia! Our current Government seems to be particularly compliant in this so often American copyright is riding roughshod over Australian! It's a very complicated issue (as Charles has explained ad nauseum) and as I was told by the scriptwriter a few years ago at least one Paramount version (90% accurate to the book starring Tom Cruise) of War of the Worlds was unable to be made because of Jeff Wayne's copyright on it! So to say Hines was being nai've is itself nai've. One could just as easilly say that as Paramount could not get a film made in the 90's because of Jeff Wayne then they shouldn't have tried now. [/glow] I've got an interview in an old edition of SFX magazine where Jeff says that he'd like to see both a big screen version of the book and his musical. I don't think Paramount would ever have considered filming TWOTW properly as it's not set in America.
|
|
|
Post by Bayne on Apr 12, 2005 21:49:57 GMT
[glow=red,2,300]Peter Briggs (Hellboy) script was set in Victorian England. It had the martians made a bit more physically active and scary-looking from what I've heard, their machinery was more modern sci-fi looking and the script included some ideas from the original draft of Wells book left out of the final novel that made it more 'cinematic'. Otherwise it was dead-accurate.
I expect the current one is set in America because of Speilbergs own preferance, remember he did publicly criticise the director of Harry Potter 1 for not changing Harry into an American! He also criticised him for being accurate to the book! [/glow]
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Apr 12, 2005 21:51:05 GMT
I've got an interview in an old edition of SFX magazine where Jeff says that he'd like to see both a big screen version of the book and his musical. Well that's what your getting, in the shape of the JW film.
|
|
|
Post by Gnorn on Apr 12, 2005 21:53:51 GMT
When such things are brought to court, sometimes one wonders if the big companies do this because out of love for the (original) work and their project, or to protect their income and make sure the only people profitting from such a production is the company itself... the latter ofcourse being the case. Money is all that counts, not the love of WotW.
-Gnorn
(This message is Copyright (C) 2005 by Gnorn. This message (as a whole or in parts) may not be used, duplicated or quoted without prior permission of the intellectual owner of this Copyright. Violation of this Copyright will lead to prosecution of the violator.)
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Apr 12, 2005 21:56:08 GMT
When such things are brought to court, sometimes one wonders if the big companies do this because out of love for the (original) work and their project, or to protect their income and make sure the only people profitting from such a production is the company itself... the latter ofcourse being the case. Money is all that counts, not the love of WotW. -Gnorn There, see I copied, so what you going to do big shot, take me to court, go on I dare yah ;D
|
|
|
Post by Gnorn on Apr 12, 2005 21:59:58 GMT
There, see I copied, so what you going to do big shot, take me to court, go on I dare yah ;D I'm talking to my lawyers as I type this... Expect a subpoena realy soon... -Gnorn
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Apr 12, 2005 22:02:15 GMT
Bugger!
Can we settle out of court, how does a £5, packet of Walkers Cheese & Onion crisps, Mars Bar and a Tango Orange grab yah?
|
|
|
Post by Gnorn on Apr 12, 2005 22:08:47 GMT
Bugger! Can we settle out of court, how does a £5, packet of Walkers Cheese & Onion crisps, Mars Bar and a Tango Orange grab yah? Change that to 5 Pounds, pack of Rothmans, cup of coffee, and a 6pack of beer, and we'll settle! -Gnorn
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Apr 12, 2005 22:10:19 GMT
Done, and you have been ;D
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Apr 12, 2005 22:18:01 GMT
Well that's what your getting, in the shape of the JW film. I'll have to find the article but the way I remember it was that he wanted to see Wells book and his musical as separate entities.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Apr 12, 2005 22:28:10 GMT
The only way Hines can win is if Paramount does not have valid copyright or license, and apparetnly they do. Many on this forum talk about the copyright issue as though it were simple, or cut-and-dried. It's not. It's much more complex than what is said on the H.G. Wells website. Even if Paramount had 100% of the film rights to the property-- and they don't, apparently Jeff Wayne has some of the rights-- this doesn't mean Pendragon can't make, distribute, or sell their film. It just means they would have to have Paramount's permission to do so. Mr. Hines claims to have a letter from Paramount giving them permission, so it would appear that's his position. But I don't think anyone on this forum is a party to whatever private negotiations or out-of-court settlement went on, or perhaps is still going on, between Paramount and Pendragon. Nor do we know if any such went on between Jeff Wayne and Pendragon. So I don't think anyone on this forum can speak authoritatively on the subject. So please, lets keep in mind that all we can do is speculate.
|
|
|
Post by HTT on Apr 13, 2005 9:08:03 GMT
[glow=purple,2,300]It would be interesting to hear Spielbergs take on this. I remember years ago, SS said loved the WOTW novel, and would love to see an original version - there was even rumour he did a student film/clip in his youth for his own amusement. As far as I know, SS has never mentioned the Pendragon version - does he even know about it, or is he too busy concentrating on his movie?
As SS is so respected, perhaps someone could have a word in the old shell-like, and ask him to get paramount to ease up a little, and give the little guy a chance. After all, it won't make much of an impact on their product.[/glow]
|
|
MarkG
Full Member
Posts: 116
|
Post by MarkG on Apr 13, 2005 14:16:41 GMT
Even if that's true, it's pretty well established that contracts in the movie world -- particularly those between big, rich companies and small independent producers -- are best written on toilet paper, so that they at least have _some_ use.
|
|
|
Post by HTT on Apr 13, 2005 15:45:03 GMT
[glow=purple,2,300]This is what Tim officially said about this letter:[/glow][glow=purple,2,300]So, prior to Tom Cruise picking it up, Tim was given permission to make his movie - no mention of distribution at this point. Later, Paramount committed to invest in WOTW with Cruise. More than likely, Tim is clinging to the original letter issued by an (inexperienced/new) attourney, whereas Paramount have taken into account further developments - or Paramounts attourneys have not been communicating with each other.
As we don't know all the ins and outs, let's leave it there.[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by Marztok on Apr 16, 2005 4:56:42 GMT
The rights issue is not that complicated: Paramount has the movie rights where the book is still protected by copyright. This means: almost everywhere except in America...
Timothy Hines claimed from the onset that he had from Paramount "something in writing" that gave him the right to make this picture - one assumes this also means he can distribute it...
Now we are left to wonder if Mr. Hines misinterpreted the content of this illusive "something in writing" from Paramount...
One thing is for sure: if Hines did not get permission from Paramount to release his film worldwide, then yes, Paramount could block its distribution elsewhere in the world.
As for American distribution, well, just read the Forbes article.
At this point, I'd rather forget all about this. One day, maybe the DVD will be in store. Then, I'll buy it. In the meantime, I am not waiting around for it !
One thing for sure, I am NOT going to spend a dime on the Paramount version.
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on Apr 16, 2005 7:16:30 GMT
I cannot believe the naivate of Tim Hinds. Everything i have read on here illustrates a man so blinkered its untrue, does he really believe that Paramount will let him do whatever he likes on the basis of a letter?
It goes sooo far deeper than that. I dont know the ins and outs but looking at all the evidence above suggests that hes so out of touch as to be virtually incompetent.
|
|
|
Post by Gnorn on Apr 16, 2005 10:11:14 GMT
We can discuss this copyright issue to death, but as long as we don't know the exact content of the Paramount letter, we can't say for sure what exact rights Mr. Hines has been given by them. So claiming Mr. Hines is naive is just as wild a guess as to saying he has rights for a worldwide release. We don't know what right were granted by Paramount. Only Paramount and Mr. Hines knows. And as repeatedly asked for by the moderators, let's not go into this copyright issue any further.
-Gnorn
|
|
|
Post by mctoddridesagain on Apr 16, 2005 12:27:29 GMT
Yes, the copyright issue is dead territory and pointless to discuss.
However, ignoring the possible ins and outs of a copyright tussle of which we have no inside knowledge, even apart from this there is plenty of evidence which does nothing other than portray Timbo as a deluded incompetent, all of it fostered by his own behaviour.
Quite why anyone should expect a man who has displayed rank ineptitude in every other aspect of this whole sorry venture to suddenly have established his legal rights in detail with regard to copyright is beyond me.
|
|
Selkirk
Junior Member
Ladies and gentlemen: the star of these broadcasts, Orson Welles
Posts: 17
|
Post by Selkirk on Apr 16, 2005 14:34:23 GMT
I realize I am about to over simplify things here, but what bothers me is that this kind of thing - the big company bullies the little company; the little company pisses and moans about being a "victim" - goes on in the first place. As it has already been stated, the ones who really lose out are the fans.
As an author, I fully understand the legal entanglement we so affectionatly call copyright laws - which makes some lawyers drool and sends other running for cover.
However, there is enough WOTW to go around. Yes, there is only ONE WOTW, and it belongs to it's creator. That doesn't mean that others can't or shouldn't tell the story, and even add their own twist. Look at 'A Christmas Carol.' How many versions are out there - some classic, others not so. I love Jeff Wayne's cd, and I also love Orson Welles' broadcast - which was my first intorduction to WOTW. Same story, two vastly different styles. Variety: what a concept.
I also realize that it comes down to $$$$$, and that's an issue in itself. Greed is an ugly thing. It would be interesting to ask authors and writers that if they had known the pathetic little tug and pull their work would later be caught in, would they have written it in the first place?
So, my bottom line, if there is one: WOTW is a great story. It will be told in spectacular ways and in some not so spectacular ways. I, like the rest of us, will be the one who decides for myself based on my tastes and expectations. JUST LET THE STORIES BE TOLD! Who knows how many new minds might be opened up to a timeless novel via different versions.
|
|
|
Post by dudalb on Apr 18, 2005 18:47:33 GMT
The fact remains: Paramount, by arrangement with the Wells estate, owns rights to WOTW as does Jeff Wayne. That makes it different then "A Christamas Carol", which is in total and complete public domain. "Just Let The Stories be Told!" I wonder if people who say this have the same attitude when it comes to their own copyrighted material. I really doubt it.
|
|