God I hope he gives them a good legal rogering. And it's always nice to cheer for someone actually protecting their intellectual property from unscrupulous bastards.
Quentin Tarantino Sues Gawker Over Hateful Eight Links
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
I'm not sure if he has a a really good case, but I sure hope he does. I'm certainly not a fan of Gawker or its affiliates. Even if there is no legal repercussions for this, helping to leak something like that is a pretty lousy thing to do.
In other news, crazy old has-been sues internet claiming First Amendment doesn't apply to people he doesn't like.
According to this article they published links, they didn't have the script on their servers. Get over it QT and sue the people that ACTUALLY leaked it.
According to this article they published links, they didn't have the script on their servers. Get over it QT and sue the people that ACTUALLY leaked it.
I think you've just insulted tabloid journalism. I've never heard of the National Inquirer publishing someone else's work in their magazine or on their website. Certainly not a full script.RaikuFA said:
Tabloids are shitty, don't get me wrong, but this... this is far worse.
I hope that Tarantino takes Gawker for everything.
I'm sure they'll just reach a settlement, but I hope he sinks Gawker.
Honestly, I don't think he'll ever direct any script but his own; IIRC a major part of his epic ego is that he writes his own movies.
Hold on, what? Yeah, he does a lot of blatant "borrowing" from other films, but his dialogue sucks? Have you seen Inglorious Basterds? >:|SonOfVoorhees said:
Honestly, I don't think he'll ever direct any script but his own; IIRC a major part of his epic ego is that he writes his own movies.
This is where I and just about everyone else who has ever enjoyed his movies will have to disagree with you.SonOfVoorhees said:
Yes, his movies are rip-off of others. His entire generation of directors, from Lucas to Spielberg to Tarantino, are ripping off older movies. They represent the film-nerds growing up and making films that harken back to those days. Star Wars, for example, was just the Hidden Fortress, and Indiana Jones is a massive homage to those b-movie action films from the past.SonOfVoorhees said:
Tarantino's shtick is he takes pre-established genres or ideas, and then effectively ramps them up to 11 to a comic-book ridiculous standard with the love that a person growing up on these films has. And his dialogue sucks?
That's to taste, of course, but dialogue is nearly always where he shines the best, usually inserting the everyday into the absurd (for example, the KKK complaining about their hoods) to make the absurd even more so. Another example; discussing foot massages before bursting into a room and killing people. It's usually silly and over the top, but it's quick-witted and amusing and just shines with genuine love of the medium and the genres he apes.
He'd likely never direct someone else's script, because they wouldn't write the film's how he likes them and with his sense of humour. The reason he is such a great director, and his movies are most definitely 'his' is because he has a hand in every part of the film and he knows precisely what he wants out of them.
He does have a legal case though- Gawker, by publishing links to the script on their website profited from his IP. You can bet there were ads all over that page.chikusho said:
In other news, crazy forum commenter thinks the first amendment gives media sources the right to profit off of other people's IPDoctorM said:
By posting links to the script on a page guaranteed to be filled with ads, they profited off of his IP, and that's illegal. If the people who actually leaked it are profiting from having done so, there's a case to be made against them as well.
To be blunt, I'm not even sure how much of an actual case Tarantino has here, but (and I'll happily admit I'm being petty here) anything that knocks Gawker down a peg or two is A-OK in my book. Everything about Gawker and most of it's subsidiaries just reeks of smug, condescending douchebaggery to me.
Also, do people actually consider Gawker journalism? I thought all Gawker did was link to articles other people and sites created and make snide remarks?
Also, do people actually consider Gawker journalism? I thought all Gawker did was link to articles other people and sites created and make snide remarks?
Before citing the First Amendment please try to read some Constitutional law. Lets start with the basics:DoctorM said:
Article 1, Section 8:
The first copyright law in the US was the Copyright Act of 1790, so this isn't some crazy new thing done to crush our liberty. It was written by the same people who wrote the first amendment with the understanding that FACTS CANNOT BE COPYRIGHTED. As such the government cannot block news from being provided nor can this be used to block criticism of the government which is one of the primary concerns of the first amendment.
As of now the US Copyright system is largely broken, few people here will contest that. However the DMCA Safe Harbor clause and the doctrine of Contributory Liability are some of the most sensibly written portions of this law and both of these were clearly violated. Also Fair Use claims fall flat on their face in this case as well.
If you aren't familiar with these a quick summary of them is that the DMCA Safe Harbor Clause states that provider or services or technology who allows general use access to a system that has non-infringing uses cannot be charged with the infringement of their users unless upon becoming aware of specific instances of the infringement they refuse to act to remove it provided this is possible. This is why you see content taken down from YouTube because of DMCA Takedown notices, once someone tells Google that a piece of content violates their copyright they need to take it down or they lose safe harbor protections. However, as long as they comply with this and do take down the content they are not liable for it.
The doctrine of contributory liability states that you can liable for copyright infringement even if you do not duplicate the copyrighted material yourself, but instead knowingly provide the means for others to infringe on a copyright unless in doing so you provide a significant non-infringing use. In Sony v Betamax that significant non-infringing use section came into play and ensured that we could record live TV and other programs despite the fact that this same technology allowed for the duplication of copyrighted material BECAUSE time shifting was considered a significant non-infringing use. In this case, there is no non-infringing use for a link that goes directly to infringing content on a news site.
In the United States fair use is decided based on a multifaceted test that asks:
1. The purpose and nature of the use (education use is highly regarded, profit motive is not).
2. The nature of the copyrighted work.
3. The amount and significance of the portion used in relation to the entirety of the work.
4. The effect the use has on the market for the work.
Gawkers does poorly on the first prong, because they're posting this for profit. The work in question is a screen play designed for a movie a medium where surprise and suspense are important elements so posting it in its original format is pretty bad. They used the entirety of the work without adding or removing anything, so they REALLY lose here. Finally the effect on the market for the work is unknown and really can't be judged. So yeah, not fair use.
So that leaves us with this case, where Gawker ignored a DMCA takedown notice thus removing their safe harbor protection, posted a link to a copyrighted work in its entirety and is left with no argument for fair use. Sorry, but they clearly lose here.
People can report on things just fine. Had Gawker merely reported on this, they wouldn't have used links to the full script as their article's main draw- that's not reporting. And if you check chimeracreator's post, you'll notice condition one of the fair use test, which gawker violated.chikusho said:
On the other hand, care to explain exactly how profitting from someone else's works is not illegal in this situation?