Comments on: Court Finds For Fox In ‘Watchmen’ Case, Rules Against WB http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/court-finds-for-fox-in-watchmen-case-rules-against-wb.php A Website About Movies Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:57:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Rob_Hunter http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/court-finds-for-fox-in-watchmen-case-rules-against-wb.php/comment-page-1#comment-126431 Rob_Hunter Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:25:09 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=27052#comment-126431 I'd disagree... there's nothing suggestive about my tone above at all. At least not directed at any singular party. Usually I'm filled to the brim with tone, I know, but I have no personal interest in the case or the film so this time I'm utterly toneless. That said, I'm a strong believer in copyright law and if Fox proves to be the owner of those rights than they're on the right side. If I were to have an issue with Fox it would be with their timing. Watchmen has been in various stages of production for years now, but Fox waited until WB was sufficiently deep enough financially before filing their claim. That's business in Hollywood I realize, but it's still kind of shitty. I'd disagree… there's nothing suggestive about my tone above at all. At least not directed at any singular party. Usually I'm filled to the brim with tone, I know, but I have no personal interest in the case or the film so this time I'm utterly toneless.

That said, I'm a strong believer in copyright law and if Fox proves to be the owner of those rights than they're on the right side. If I were to have an issue with Fox it would be with their timing. Watchmen has been in various stages of production for years now, but Fox waited until WB was sufficiently deep enough financially before filing their claim. That's business in Hollywood I realize, but it's still kind of shitty.

]]> By: JMoney http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/court-finds-for-fox-in-watchmen-case-rules-against-wb.php/comment-page-1#comment-126433 JMoney Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:25:09 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=27052#comment-126433 Despite what you may think, Copyright law is pretty much set, the owner of the rights to copyrightable material has the exclusive right to distribute that material for their lifetime plus 50 years (or it may now be 70 years in the US). So yeah Fox sat on the rights for 20 or so odd years, but that was their right, they had plenty of more time to sit on the material, the WB should have been more thorough in their investigation into who owned the rights, if anyone is to blame in all this, it's whatever lawyer the WB ordered to look into this before they started making the movie. Despite what you may think, Copyright law is pretty much set, the owner of the rights to copyrightable material has the exclusive right to distribute that material for their lifetime plus 50 years (or it may now be 70 years in the US). So yeah Fox sat on the rights for 20 or so odd years, but that was their right, they had plenty of more time to sit on the material, the WB should have been more thorough in their investigation into who owned the rights, if anyone is to blame in all this, it's whatever lawyer the WB ordered to look into this before they started making the movie.

]]> By: Alericc http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/court-finds-for-fox-in-watchmen-case-rules-against-wb.php/comment-page-1#comment-126435 Alericc Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:25:09 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=27052#comment-126435 I have to agree with Rob. Fox knew what they were doing, they are trying to make money on someone else's effort. But that is why they are a sleeze bag Hollywood characture of the old adage. I have to agree with Rob. Fox knew what they were doing, they are trying to make money on someone else's effort. But that is why they are a sleeze bag Hollywood characture of the old adage.

]]> By: JMoney http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/court-finds-for-fox-in-watchmen-case-rules-against-wb.php/comment-page-1#comment-126436 JMoney Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:25:09 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=27052#comment-126436 Your tone seems to suggest that Fox is doing something wrong here and screwing over WB. If a judge says they own copyright then it was the WB who was the wrongdoer. It's their own fault for not fully investigating who owned the rights to the movie before going forward. Fox is not bending WB over, they are simply getting their legal share of the distributive rights to the movie. Your tone seems to suggest that Fox is doing something wrong here and screwing over WB. If a judge says they own copyright then it was the WB who was the wrongdoer. It's their own fault for not fully investigating who owned the rights to the movie before going forward. Fox is not bending WB over, they are simply getting their legal share of the distributive rights to the movie.

]]> By: Nish http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/court-finds-for-fox-in-watchmen-case-rules-against-wb.php/comment-page-1#comment-126437 Nish Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:25:09 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=27052#comment-126437 At the end of the day, the people that run the studios need to make money. Its a sad truth that seems to result in decent movie-goer folk like us being bent over and shafted repeatedly. Maybe someone could make a movie out of this saga. Give a traditional Christmas message where their stone cold hearts melts (I never got that phrase, surely melting someone's heart is freaking heart attack?) and decide to show the movie early. For free. I've watched too many christmas movies this year. At the end of the day, the people that run the studios need to make money. Its a sad truth that seems to result in decent movie-goer folk like us being bent over and shafted repeatedly. Maybe someone could make a movie out of this saga. Give a traditional Christmas message where their stone cold hearts melts (I never got that phrase, surely melting someone's heart is freaking heart attack?) and decide to show the movie early. For free. I've watched too many christmas movies this year.

]]> By: rejectnation http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/court-finds-for-fox-in-watchmen-case-rules-against-wb.php/comment-page-1#comment-126448 rejectnation Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:25:09 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=27052#comment-126448 I agree with you, JMoney. There are a lot of people out there vilifying Fox in this case -- because it's easy to hate on Fox -- but in reality the court's ruling states that WB did the wrong. Either way, so many people are concerned with what effect this might have on the release of the film. I think Rob makes a good point above in a roundabout manner -- if Fox and WB can't play nice on this, fans will be in for a world of hurt. And in order for them to play nice, it looks like WB is going to have to bend a little and open up that checkbook. I agree with you, JMoney. There are a lot of people out there vilifying Fox in this case — because it's easy to hate on Fox — but in reality the court's ruling states that WB did the wrong. Either way, so many people are concerned with what effect this might have on the release of the film. I think Rob makes a good point above in a roundabout manner — if Fox and WB can't play nice on this, fans will be in for a world of hurt. And in order for them to play nice, it looks like WB is going to have to bend a little and open up that checkbook.

]]> By: JMoney http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/court-finds-for-fox-in-watchmen-case-rules-against-wb.php/comment-page-1#comment-126449 JMoney Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:25:09 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=27052#comment-126449 I think they mean melt the ice that has frozen the heart, not the actual heart I think they mean melt the ice that has frozen the heart, not the actual heart

]]> By: Ronnie_S http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/court-finds-for-fox-in-watchmen-case-rules-against-wb.php/comment-page-1#comment-126452 Ronnie_S Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:25:09 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=27052#comment-126452 Money for money's sake. We won't see this movie in March. Money for money's sake. We won't see this movie in March.

]]> By: JMoney http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/court-finds-for-fox-in-watchmen-case-rules-against-wb.php/comment-page-1#comment-126454 JMoney Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:25:09 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=27052#comment-126454 "translates into ransom money that WB will be paying Fox" "If WB refuses to bend over on this" I'm sorry I misinterpreted, I guess these two statements gave me the impression you were attacking Fox. Although, my opinion on who is the wrongdoer is based on the circuit judge actually knowing what he's taking about. I'm not an expert in American law but aren't your judges elected officials at the lower levels? and perhaps this judge isn't an Intellectual Property expert, so maybe he is just trying to get these two sides to the table to get a deal so the movie can be released. IP is all about balancing the rights of the owner of the material versus the desire of a large distribution of Intellectual Property like movies for the public's consumption. Perhaps this judge is leaning more towards the public's side than the WB's "translates into ransom money that WB will be paying Fox"

"If WB refuses to bend over on this"

I'm sorry I misinterpreted, I guess these two statements gave me the impression you were attacking Fox.

Although, my opinion on who is the wrongdoer is based on the circuit judge actually knowing what he's taking about. I'm not an expert in American law but aren't your judges elected officials at the lower levels? and perhaps this judge isn't an Intellectual Property expert, so maybe he is just trying to get these two sides to the table to get a deal so the movie can be released. IP is all about balancing the rights of the owner of the material versus the desire of a large distribution of Intellectual Property like movies for the public's consumption. Perhaps this judge is leaning more towards the public's side than the WB's

]]> By: Rob_Hunter http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/court-finds-for-fox-in-watchmen-case-rules-against-wb.php/comment-page-1#comment-213596 Rob_Hunter Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:25:00 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=27052#comment-213596 I'd disagree... there's nothing suggestive about my tone above at all. At least not directed at any singular party. Usually I'm filled to the brim with tone, I know, but I have no personal interest in the case or the film so this time I'm utterly toneless. That said, I'm a strong believer in copyright law and if Fox proves to be the owner of those rights than they're on the right side. If I were to have an issue with Fox it would be with their timing. Watchmen has been in various stages of production for years now, but Fox waited until WB was sufficiently deep enough financially before filing their claim. That's business in Hollywood I realize, but it's still kind of shitty. I'd disagree… there's nothing suggestive about my tone above at all. At least not directed at any singular party. Usually I'm filled to the brim with tone, I know, but I have no personal interest in the case or the film so this time I'm utterly toneless.

That said, I'm a strong believer in copyright law and if Fox proves to be the owner of those rights than they're on the right side. If I were to have an issue with Fox it would be with their timing. Watchmen has been in various stages of production for years now, but Fox waited until WB was sufficiently deep enough financially before filing their claim. That's business in Hollywood I realize, but it's still kind of shitty.

]]> By: Rob_Hunter http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/court-finds-for-fox-in-watchmen-case-rules-against-wb.php/comment-page-1#comment-213597 Rob_Hunter Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:25:00 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=27052#comment-213597 I'd disagree... there's nothing suggestive about my tone above at all. At least not directed at any singular party. Usually I'm filled to the brim with tone, I know, but I have no personal interest in the case or the film so this time I'm utterly toneless. That said, I'm a strong believer in copyright law and if Fox proves to be the owner of those rights than they're on the right side. If I were to have an issue with Fox it would be with their timing. Watchmen has been in various stages of production for years now, but Fox waited until WB was sufficiently deep enough financially before filing their claim. That's business in Hollywood I realize, but it's still kind of shitty. I'd disagree… there's nothing suggestive about my tone above at all. At least not directed at any singular party. Usually I'm filled to the brim with tone, I know, but I have no personal interest in the case or the film so this time I'm utterly toneless.

That said, I'm a strong believer in copyright law and if Fox proves to be the owner of those rights than they're on the right side. If I were to have an issue with Fox it would be with their timing. Watchmen has been in various stages of production for years now, but Fox waited until WB was sufficiently deep enough financially before filing their claim. That's business in Hollywood I realize, but it's still kind of shitty.

]]> By: JMoney http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/court-finds-for-fox-in-watchmen-case-rules-against-wb.php/comment-page-1#comment-213598 JMoney Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:25:00 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=27052#comment-213598 Despite what you may think, Copyright law is pretty much set, the owner of the rights to copyrightable material has the exclusive right to distribute that material for their lifetime plus 50 years (or it may now be 70 years in the US). So yeah Fox sat on the rights for 20 or so odd years, but that was their right, they had plenty of more time to sit on the material, the WB should have been more thorough in their investigation into who owned the rights, if anyone is to blame in all this, it's whatever lawyer the WB ordered to look into this before they started making the movie. Despite what you may think, Copyright law is pretty much set, the owner of the rights to copyrightable material has the exclusive right to distribute that material for their lifetime plus 50 years (or it may now be 70 years in the US). So yeah Fox sat on the rights for 20 or so odd years, but that was their right, they had plenty of more time to sit on the material, the WB should have been more thorough in their investigation into who owned the rights, if anyone is to blame in all this, it's whatever lawyer the WB ordered to look into this before they started making the movie.

]]> By: Alericc http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/court-finds-for-fox-in-watchmen-case-rules-against-wb.php/comment-page-1#comment-213599 Alericc Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:25:00 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=27052#comment-213599 I have to agree with Rob. Fox knew what they were doing, they are trying to make money on someone else's effort. But that is why they are a sleeze bag Hollywood characture of the old adage. I have to agree with Rob. Fox knew what they were doing, they are trying to make money on someone else's effort. But that is why they are a sleeze bag Hollywood characture of the old adage.

]]> By: JMoney http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/court-finds-for-fox-in-watchmen-case-rules-against-wb.php/comment-page-1#comment-213600 JMoney Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:25:00 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=27052#comment-213600 Your tone seems to suggest that Fox is doing something wrong here and screwing over WB. If a judge says they own copyright then it was the WB who was the wrongdoer. It's their own fault for not fully investigating who owned the rights to the movie before going forward. Fox is not bending WB over, they are simply getting their legal share of the distributive rights to the movie. Your tone seems to suggest that Fox is doing something wrong here and screwing over WB. If a judge says they own copyright then it was the WB who was the wrongdoer. It's their own fault for not fully investigating who owned the rights to the movie before going forward. Fox is not bending WB over, they are simply getting their legal share of the distributive rights to the movie.

]]> By: Nish http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/court-finds-for-fox-in-watchmen-case-rules-against-wb.php/comment-page-1#comment-213601 Nish Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:25:00 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=27052#comment-213601 At the end of the day, the people that run the studios need to make money. Its a sad truth that seems to result in decent movie-goer folk like us being bent over and shafted repeatedly. Maybe someone could make a movie out of this saga. Give a traditional Christmas message where their stone cold hearts melts (I never got that phrase, surely melting someone's heart is freaking heart attack?) and decide to show the movie early. For free. I've watched too many christmas movies this year. At the end of the day, the people that run the studios need to make money. Its a sad truth that seems to result in decent movie-goer folk like us being bent over and shafted repeatedly. Maybe someone could make a movie out of this saga. Give a traditional Christmas message where their stone cold hearts melts (I never got that phrase, surely melting someone's heart is freaking heart attack?) and decide to show the movie early. For free. I've watched too many christmas movies this year.

]]> By: rejectnation http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/court-finds-for-fox-in-watchmen-case-rules-against-wb.php/comment-page-1#comment-213602 rejectnation Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:25:00 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=27052#comment-213602 I agree with you, JMoney. There are a lot of people out there vilifying Fox in this case -- because it's easy to hate on Fox -- but in reality the court's ruling states that WB did the wrong. Either way, so many people are concerned with what effect this might have on the release of the film. I think Rob makes a good point above in a roundabout manner -- if Fox and WB can't play nice on this, fans will be in for a world of hurt. And in order for them to play nice, it looks like WB is going to have to bend a little and open up that checkbook. I agree with you, JMoney. There are a lot of people out there vilifying Fox in this case — because it's easy to hate on Fox — but in reality the court's ruling states that WB did the wrong. Either way, so many people are concerned with what effect this might have on the release of the film. I think Rob makes a good point above in a roundabout manner — if Fox and WB can't play nice on this, fans will be in for a world of hurt. And in order for them to play nice, it looks like WB is going to have to bend a little and open up that checkbook.

]]> By: JMoney http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/court-finds-for-fox-in-watchmen-case-rules-against-wb.php/comment-page-1#comment-213603 JMoney Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:25:00 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=27052#comment-213603 I think they mean melt the ice that has frozen the heart, not the actual heart I think they mean melt the ice that has frozen the heart, not the actual heart

]]> By: Ronnie_S http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/court-finds-for-fox-in-watchmen-case-rules-against-wb.php/comment-page-1#comment-213604 Ronnie_S Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:25:00 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=27052#comment-213604 Money for money's sake. We won't see this movie in March. Money for money's sake. We won't see this movie in March.

]]> By: JMoney http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/court-finds-for-fox-in-watchmen-case-rules-against-wb.php/comment-page-1#comment-213605 JMoney Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:25:00 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=27052#comment-213605 "translates into ransom money that WB will be paying Fox" "If WB refuses to bend over on this" I'm sorry I misinterpreted, I guess these two statements gave me the impression you were attacking Fox. Although, my opinion on who is the wrongdoer is based on the circuit judge actually knowing what he's taking about. I'm not an expert in American law but aren't your judges elected officials at the lower levels? and perhaps this judge isn't an Intellectual Property expert, so maybe he is just trying to get these two sides to the table to get a deal so the movie can be released. IP is all about balancing the rights of the owner of the material versus the desire of a large distribution of Intellectual Property like movies for the public's consumption. Perhaps this judge is leaning more towards the public's side than the WB's "translates into ransom money that WB will be paying Fox"

"If WB refuses to bend over on this"

I'm sorry I misinterpreted, I guess these two statements gave me the impression you were attacking Fox.

Although, my opinion on who is the wrongdoer is based on the circuit judge actually knowing what he's taking about. I'm not an expert in American law but aren't your judges elected officials at the lower levels? and perhaps this judge isn't an Intellectual Property expert, so maybe he is just trying to get these two sides to the table to get a deal so the movie can be released. IP is all about balancing the rights of the owner of the material versus the desire of a large distribution of Intellectual Property like movies for the public's consumption. Perhaps this judge is leaning more towards the public's side than the WB's

]]> By: Hage http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/court-finds-for-fox-in-watchmen-case-rules-against-wb.php/comment-page-1#comment-123971 Hage Fri, 02 Jan 2009 07:08:03 +0000 http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/?p=27052#comment-123971 why wait till only now? why wait till only now?

]]>