Farehnheit 9/11

[House of Mustard]

So I just read on CNN.com that Ray Bradbury is demanding that the film have it's title changed.  He said that he doesn't want to take legal action (but it sounded like he would if Moore doesn't change it).

There's a new Farehnheit 451 movie in the works, and a new edition of the book is scheduled for release in a couple months, so Bradbury's understandably upset.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

I dont know enough about copywrite laws, but since Moore didn't call it Farenheit 451 I dont see where Bradbury has a leg to stand on.

[Entsuropi]

Maybe the fact that Moore is a fat bastard has something to do with it.

And as I understand it, you can have a copyright on a particular name in a certain medium. Thats why 'Call of Cthulhu' is liscenced to Chaosium - as an RPG, they own that name, but they can't make an issue if a film of that name comes out. So the author could argue that 'fahrenheight' in a film medium is the copyrighted name of his new film.

House of Mustard, you got a link so i can check CNN's view?

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Even still the name is Farenheit 451, not Farenheit 911. Since Farenheit is a word in the public domain I dont see how he could do it. In addition would think that Moore is well within his rights to say its a parody or play on the original wording, which I think gets him a free pass.

Id hate to get sued because I use Princess in the title of my movie and that word happens to be used in Princess Bride, or Princess Mononuke.

[House of Mustard]

My knowledge of copyright law is also small, but the test for substantial similarity is "whether an average lay observer would recognize the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the copyrighted work."

Now, people parody stuff all the time, with simliar titles, so I don't know how that works...

[House of Mustard]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/21/bradbury.fahrenheit.ap/index.html

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

it looks like that is appealed under fair use laws...

[Entsuropi]

'Call of Cthulhu', the name and the story are also public domain Jeffe, just not in RPG's.

And you have to admit, when you look at the title it does make you think of Fahrenheight 451 instantly. This coming from someone who has not even read the book.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

'Call of Cthulhu', the name and the story are also public domain Jeffe, just not in RPG's.

But Call isnt, so if you made an RPG called Call of Cthunkulus you could probably succesfully avoid being sued. Especially if the actual content of the book was nothing like the other book.

And while Farenheight 911 may remind me of Bradburys book it doesnt make me think it is farenheit 451 and I think that is an important distinction.

[House of Mustard]

I don't know, Jeffe.  The substantial similarity rule doesn't appear to imply that the products get confused--just that they are recognizable.  I think the real question will be if Farehnheit 9/11 will damage the reputation/business of Farehnheit 451.  Given that the new edition is coming out, as well as a movie, Bradbury might have a pretty good argument.  (Since Moore's movie is so controversial, he's attaching his political views to Bradbury's book.  If people don't read 451 because they didn't agree with 9/11, then that's a legitimate concern.)

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

That would be true if F911 didnt support the world that Bradbury predicted, but it kind of does, a sharper more authoritarian distopia if you will. I mean the political views of Moore and the world created in F451 are very similar.

Parodies and Homages often win court cases because of the free speech button anyway. Its why you can still buy Bored of the Rings.

Actually im most surprised by Bradbury, since he's an anti-materialist. Or, was.

I dont see F911 doing any damage to Bradburys Legacy.

[House of Mustard]

Except that the movie is more about the Bush administration and Iraq War than about dystopia.  Personally, I love books about that topic (1984,etc.), but I think that Moore is a big fat idiot.

Personally, long before I knew the subject matter, I dismissed 9/11 simply because Moore's Bowling For Columbine was so politically charged and yet completely false!  I think that it's Moore's reputation that Bradbury is afraid of, not the subject matter.  He doesn't want a celebrity extremist (known for his false accusations and blind political agenda) associated with his masterpiece.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

can you back up completely false? That seems like a big claim to make.

[House of Mustard]

I'll have to dig around for the actual info.  I read it all once, but I can't remember where I found it.  Even Moore admits that he was "loose with the facts."  In fact, on David Letterman last week he described his infamous Oscar speech (where he said "A fictitious president got us into this fictitous war under fictitous circumstances...") and said that, at the time, he didn't actually KNOW that the evidence was untrue--he just assumed it was.  He likes to make accusations, and hopes that they're true.

But I'll dig for the link and post it.

[Entsuropi]

Check the web, Jeffe. He spliced several different speeches, from different locations, into one and pretended it was a single speech as part of a anti-NRA part of the movie.

The bit where he opens a bank account and gets bullets on the spot? He had that set up. Normally they give you a voucher to get them from another shop.

Throughout the movie he deliberately misled and lied, often to the people he was filming, in order to doctor his 'evidence' for his viewpoint.