Interesting observations about Fahrenheit 9/11

[still_one]

I live in Northern California, and when I tried to buy tickets through Fandango for Fahrenheit 9/11, the theaters offering online sales indicated they were sold out on Fandango. I hope that is accurate.

Another interesting story.

I heard Ray Bradbury is upset and wants Michael Moore to change the movie title from Fahrenheit 9/11 because it closely resembles his book Fahrenheit 451. I hope Moore does not cave in to that nonsense. This is like Fox trying to sue Frankin for the word "Fair and Balnaced".

[DEMVET-USMC]

1. As far as I know you cannot copyright a word,phrase,or title. Do Not Cave

in to this nitpicking nonsense Michael Moore. Knowing Mike he won`t. I expect the GOP got to Bradbury some way, payoff or such. Sorry to see that fine author lowering himself to such crap. It will only help sell Moore`s movie and be so much free advertising. Those dipshit Republicans cannot stop Mike Moore and do not learn from past experience. ...Oscar

[still_one]

2. I agree, this smells neo-con all over it

I feel Moore will hang tight. Just like fox they will only get their ass burnt...

[DEMVET-USMC]

3. YOU GOT IT RIGHT BUDDY ! These pigs think they are clever but

their plans are falling apart. They have lost the control they once had and it gets worse for them day by day and hour by the hour. They are shitting their pants and cannot stop the PEOPLE. THIS IS ONE TIME WE WILL WIN ! ! ! ...Oscar

[Eric J in MN]

4. It would be great if Ray Bradbury sued.

Al Franken's book might not have been number one without the lawsuit by Fox (at the urging of Bill O'Reilly).

If Ray Bradbury sues Michael Moore, it will give the news media an excuse to mention a couple of celebrity names every night, as the case progresses.

[T Town Jake]

5. Not really...

...Bradbury's being obnoxious about the matter, true. But on artistic grounds, he's absolutely right. Had this been a pro-GOP film Bradbury would be equally outraged that his title had been "lifted" without his consent. It's an artistic, not a political, dispute.

[Eric J in MN]

6. On artistic grounds, he's wrong.

If you write a book, and you're lucky enough for the book to become famous, then 50 years later, someone may create another work of art with a title which is a takeoff on your title.

Art builds on art.

Bradbury is wrong.

[T Town Jake]

11. "On artistic grounds"....

...you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Write a novel, get it published, see it become world-famous and enduring, then get back with me in fifty years while people are still reading it...perhaps then I'll take you seriously.

[Swamp Rat]

14. BS dude!

I AM an artist/musician/writer. I agree with Eric J in MN, "art builds on art."

Bach used to "steal" music from his contemporaries ALL THE TIME. So did Shakespeare. So did MANY great painters/philosophers, etc. This notion about copyright in publishing is a 19th century invention, and inhibits creativity.

I also agree that "it would be great if Ray Bradbury sued." Moore would just get more free advertising, plus in court Bradbury would not have a leg to stand on.

I'm sad to hear Bradbury is doing this... this is very sad.

[T Town Jake]

17. "I AM an artist/musician/writer."

Ummmm, okay...you're a writer like whom? Ray Bradbury? Langston Hughes? F. Scott Fitzgerald? Toni Morrison? A musician like...whom? Ray Charles? John Lennon? Jimmy Hendrix? An "artist" like whom? Whistler? Monet? ...<snicker>..."BS," indeed...

[Swamp Rat]

18. YEAH!

Ha ha ha ha ha!!! I am an artist like all of those great people because I appropriate and incorporate their work into mine.

You really shouldn't talk like this to people you don't know.

Sheesh! Get off your high horse, or you might fall off and break something.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

39. I seemed to have missed your point

Could you spell it out a little more clearly, please?

Thank you.

[merh]

37. Welcome to DU Swamp Rat

I am glad another southern is here. I am also glad that F 911 is showing in your lovely city. It is not playing anywhere in MS so I will be visiting the big easy.

Again welcome. :toast:

[Swamp Rat]

50. Thanks

Sorry to hear about no showings in MS... not even in Oxford or Hattisburg?

Well, I was surprised to see that it will show in Harahan, Jefferson Parish (David Duke country). It will also play in Canal Place (Landmark Theaters), which is in the French Quarter. Please come here and enjoy yourself before AND after the movie. There's LOTS of excellent restaurants in the area and plenty of entertainment. ;-)

When "Bolling" came out, I took car loads of people on numerous ocassions. It was a blast!

[merh]

51. No show in MS , not even on the gulf coast with all of its casinos.

I love the city and will enjoy the visit, thanks.

[Arianrhod]

28. I'm a writer.

Titles and character names cannot be copyrighted.

[girl gone mad]

7. Moore didn't "lift" anything.

Fahrenheit is a name and therefore can neither be copyrighted nor trademarked.

To make a case, Bradbury would need to prove that Moore's film could be confused with Bradbury's book and that actual financial damage was being done as a result. No sane person will mistake Fahrenheit 9/11 for Fahrenheit 451, and Bradbury's book sales will probably increase significantly because the title will remind people that the book exists.

And Bradbury's offense strikes me as more than little disingenuous considering that he himself "lifted" titles whole cloth from other writers.

[Dookus]

8. Yes...

Bradbury, who published a book called "I Sing the Body Electric" has no right to bitch.

[Journeyman]

9. Thanks, Dookus. . .

I love Whitman so I'll be sure to use this.

[T Town Jake]

13. He has every right to...

..."bitch" in this specific case. Every right. His work product as an author is being appropriated without his consent. The "he did it first!" bilge is third-grade recess logic - not a cogent argument.

[Eric J in MN]

32. Are you against Mad Magazine for printing movie parodies without

Are you against Mad Magazine for printing movie parodies without the directors' consent?

[Dookus]

44. No it is not...

Titles are not protected.

[Eric J in MN]

31. Dookus - good point. Did you catch that or

Dookus - good point. Did you catch that or did someeone else?

If Ray Bradbuary wrote a short story, "I Sing the Body Electric," with EXACTLY the same title as a Walt Whitman poem, what right does he have to criticize Michael Moore for merely doing a takeoff on an existing title?

[Dookus]

45. I just did a simple

google search for Ray Bradbury titles and saw that one.

[T Town Jake]

10. Okay...so how about this?

...I write a play/novel about two teenagers who fall desperately in love with each other, even though their respective family's are sworn enemies. Things go bad, and they end up killing themselves after thinking the other one had done it first. I then title my play/novel "Juliet2004." Would William Shakespeare have any grounds for protest?
By your standard, No. And that strikes me as ridiculous and silly.

[charlie]

16. Who's being silly?

You're conflating plagiarism with riffing on the title of an iconic work. Moore hasn't been accused of lifting the plot of F451.

[Swamp Rat]

19. Thank you!

I agree with you Charlie. I like to "riff" on other great artists too, like Coltraine for example. It sure is easy to criticise, isn't it...

[charlie]

22. Especially

when we're talking about riffing on a mere title. This isn't a recast of King Lear, Hamlet, R&J, Homer's Odyssey, etc, all of which have been done innumerable times, it's a just cheeky reference to a known title. God knows, we've seen endless variations on The Unbearable Lightness of Being, How Stella Got Her Groove Back, and yes, even Romeo and Juliet.

[nostamj]

33. ha! by your standard

Shakespeare could sue for West Side Story!

p.s. Shakespeare stole that plot anyway

[disinfo_guy]

36. nope, Shakespeare would have no grounds to complain

first of all, he's dead - very dead - and second of all, his work is public property now. Legally copyrights are supposed to exist for a "limited time" and the specific time period can and is changed at will by Congress. But this "controversey" doesn't even rise to that level - at best Farehnheit 911 is a parody of a title that itself isn't copyrightable.

Artistically Bradbury can complain all he wants but he's being hypocritical, he's exproriated titles and plots and characters all throughout his career.

[Rooktoven]

41. What if they called it "West Side Story"?

Shakespeare must have been pissed off in his grave...

[mike1963]

52. It pains me as a fellow Okie (Ft. Gibson lake) to say this, but you really

are totally off-base on this one. :eyes:

[T Town Jake]

15. "Moore didn't "lift" anything." <snicker>...

"Fahrenheit is a name and therefore can neither be copyrighted nor trademarked"....

Yep, and so are the "names" Romeo & Juliet free of this legalistic "copyright" exactitude you seem to have. But would anyone object if some modern-day author wrote a best-seller about two teenagers deeply in love whose families hated each other so much that it eventually drove them to suicide, with the names "Romeo" and "Juliet" part of the mix? <snicker, again>
I know I would. And most of the literary world would be right behind me. Get real.

[girl gone mad]

24. Romeo and Juliet is in the public domain..

so I think you need to find a better example. I seem to recall a recent film titled "Romeo + Juliet" which borrowed heavily from the Shakespeare play. In fact, not only did it borrow Will's plot, every line of dialogue was taken straight from the original. They did not have Shakespeare's permission, and nor did they need it.

Regardless, your argument is essentially irrelevant, since as others have pointed out, Moore is not accused of copying bradbury's plot, nor of borrowing copyrighted material from Fahrenheit 451 in any way.

[gander2112]

30. You are reading my mind

I was just going to reply that R&J (and for that matter ALL Shakespeare) is now in the public domain.

Still, my wife, the screenwriter (largely unknown outside of many awards at competitions), informs me that it is true that titles of works, and character names are not protected.

Ray Bradbury has a right to bitch and moan, but he has little legal recourse. Of course, had congress not seen fit to extend the copyright eligibility, F451 would be in the public domain by now. I believe originally a copyright was for 25 years, and one extension or 25 years was allowed in the advent of the original creator being alive.

Ironically, much of the impetus for extending the copyright eligibility came at the request of Disney faced with losing the exclusive rights to Mickey Mouse (TM).

Geoff

[Eric J in MN]

34. The first US copyright law was for 14 years, with

The first US copyright law was for 14 years, with the chance for one 14 year renewal.

So originally, all art became public domain within 28 years.

An artist had 28 years to try to profit from a creation, and then other artists were free to use it, publisher's could print it without royalties, etc.

[Ms. Clio]

40. No, I'm the one who is snickering after reading this thread

Looks like this argument is down for the count.

[disinfo_guy]

42. you would "object" to a modern version of Romeo and Juliet?

You would object to a new novel using that plot and character names? Why? It could be interesting?

[Straight Shooter]

35. Excellent rebuttal, girl gone mad

Moore ought to hire you for his team.

:thumbsup:

[charlie]

23. I'm glad you're tight with Bradbury

Me, I don't know what he would think of a pro-GOP reference to one of his works:

What do you think of President Bush?

He's wonderful. We needed him. Clinton is a shithead and we're glad to be rid of him.

http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2001/08/29/bradbury/index2.html

Tell Ray I said HI for me, please.

[w13rd0]

25. Given that interview...

...I really don't give a fuck what Bradbury has to say.

[charlie]

27. Note the date

Ray apparently dug Dubya Mark I. The apologizing-to-the-Chinese for one of our spy planes getting in the way of their artillery, Ehime-Maru-destroying, Enron-protecting, presidential-records-FOIA-disappearing, sub-50s-approval president, not the steely eyed two-fisted humdinger that the rest of the electorate came to love after 911. In other words, he liked the vacuous venal boob before circumstance shoved him down the rest of our throats.

[Champ]

12. I hope he doesn't either

But the title name will not change the fact that so many of us want to see that film and I think it will impact the next US Presidential Election, either good or bad we will all have to wait and see.

[lazarus]

20. The Sound and the Fury

Title of a novel by William Faulkner.

Also, from Macbeth:

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

I guess ol' Faulkner was just a hack, eh?

The Wizard of Id, comic strip. Didn't rip off the Wizard of Oz at all, did it?

The point is, if he had a legal case, he'd have already gotten the lawyers on it. He's known this was coming out for months, just like the rest of us.

He's trying to steal some publicity from Moore, because he's an old freeper hack nobody pays attention to anymore. Of course, it's not working, he's just helping Moore.

[Gore1FL]

21. He can be upset,

But has no legal recourse to force a change. I've written several plays where the titles spoofed something else:

Camelot 5
The Blue, the Gray, and the Ugly
Undead Again

as examples... Titles cannot be copyrighted. Parody is well within the law.

If Bradbury is truly upset, the best he can hope for is Moore chanign the title on his own.

[Columbia]

43. I'm sure he knows that

He is upset because he was not asked beforehand, which does not seem like too much to ask really.

If Mike wants really good publicity, he would make a public apology and change the film's title to reflect Bradbury's wishes. I bet even more people would see his film then.

[Cronus Protagonist]

26. If I were Bradbury, I would take it as a compliment

When someone uses your work to illustrate a point, it calls the referenced work into play as a reference or a parody. If it were a parody, I would be able to understand why Bradbury could be miffed a little, but it's a satirical reference using Bradbury's title and therefore his earlier work as a fulcrum upon which Moore balances his newer work.

And them ever fattening royalty checks must be looking good right around now.

So one has to wonder what Bradbury's true motives are, and AFAIK it basically comes down to his love for fascism and fascists, in the personage of George Bush and the expression of his administration. I'll never buy or read any of his work again. And I was a BIG fan too.

ANYBODY BUT BUSH

Click here for "ANYBODY BUT BUSH", and other fair and balanced yet stunning buttons, magnets and stickers

[LeahMira]

29. Selling out in some middle Atlantic states also.

I live in Northern California, and when I tried to buy tickets through Fandango for Fahrenheit 9/11, the theaters offering online sales indicated they were sold out on Fandango. I hope that is accurate.

Theaters in this area are claiming to be about 3/4 sold out, but afternoon shows are easier to get, if you're able to go then.

I heard Ray Bradbury is upset and wants Michael Moore to change the movie title from Fahrenheit 9/11 because it closely resembles his book Fahrenheit 451.

Hasn't Farenheit 451 been out long enough that the copyright has expired? Or does it go until the author's death?
What amount of an idea can be recycled without infringing on a copyright? I thought (for some unknown reason) that 1/3 of the total had to be different.
What's Ray Bradbury's problem? Does it have anything to do with not liking what Michael Moore has to say in the film, or is it just the idea that Moore lifted from him (which is understandable really). He doesn't see that as a tip of the hat to himself?

[Eric J in MN]

38. For books published between 1923 - 63, the total length of the

For books published between 1923 - 63, the total length of the copyright is 67 years.

Farenheit 451 was published 50 years ago.

For books published after 1978, it's the life of the author plus 70 years.

So if a book or song is published today by an author who is 30, and he lives to be 85, then it won't be in the public domain until 2129.

It's ridiculous. Congress originally set the maximum copyright to be a total of 28 years.

[vetwife]

48. Someone needs to tell Old Ray 451 and 911 are not the same numbers therefo

How could he replicate something. Farenhight 911 and
451 are NOT the same title. If he is going by (using) whole or in part clause. Is he gonna sue all the Weather Stations as well.
I know plenty of movies of the same name and songs for that matter. The content would have to be similiar and unless Old Brad in his book slammed Truman or Roosevelt...there is no case. You cannot copyright a word that is displayed on every weathr broadcasting station plus public domain and then claim that was not used as a part of. The numbers don't add up and the content is different.
that is like saying 1st Degree is an infringement ..Balogny...Moore did not steal or infringe on copyrights because of the reasons stated. They are really grasping now !

[Dookus]

46. copyright doesn't apply at all here

You can't copyright a title.

How many books have been called "My Life"? More than one, for sure, and a new one is coming out this week.

Believe it or not, I can publish a book called "To Kill a Mockingbird" or "The Sun Also Rises"

Bradbury is just being a pill, especially when, as noted above, he's published a book with the exact same title as a Walt Whitman poem.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

47. Titles don't fall under the copyright rules. Please see the following....

<http://www.smountain.com/m_copyrt.htm>

Excerpt:

"What is Not Protected by Copyright?

Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:

*Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performance that have not been written or recorded)

*Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographical ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents.

*Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration.

*Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists taken from public documents or other common sources.

[efhmc]

49. Gee, I was going to argue that he was dead but DU always knows.

He's obviously not.