Remakes: Should I register it

[Madbandit]

I'm working on a remake of a 1962 western that's a lot of people are not familiar with. Is it a good idea to register it as long as I note the original author/s?

[DevelopmentExec]

I'm working on a remake of a 1962 western that's a lot of people are not familiar with. Is it a good idea to register it as long as I note the original author/s?

Madbandit,

Unless you have retained the remake rights (purchase, option or a grant of permission of some kind from the copyright holder of the original) then you are violating the copyright of the original. If you have been granted permission, then yes you would want to make it clear that your script is based upon the original - and list the writers of the original.

If you haven't secured the rights, then technically you do not own the rights to the screenplay you are writing, because you do not own the underlying rights that it is based upon. Rights issues are somewhat complex and complicated - but if you write anything that is based on anything that is not in public domain (be it a movie, a book or news article you read, or someone's unpublished life story) - speak to a lawyer, preferably before you begin writing.

In this situation I would be less concerned about somebody ripping you off, than I would be about the repercussions of your own copyright violation.

It can be expensive to get the rights, and depending upon who owns the rights it can be difficult to retain them. It's much easier for an established writer or producer to attain remake rights from the studios, then someone with no credits or track record.

Dev

[Fox The Cave]

Don't ever write something you don't already have the rights to.

Ever.

[Ginosion]

You can just wait till 2012, thats when the copyright should end. But then again, thats when the world is suppose to end....
So unless you cough up a load of money, I'd say your out of luck.

[jonpiper]

If your remake is based on a novel that's in the public domain, and not on the original screenplay, you may not have to secure the rights for the novel. The 1962 screenplay could have been based on a novel or short story that no longer has protection.

The question is, I think, is the novel in the public domain, has its copyrite run out? You should of course contact an entertainment or copyrite lawyer and not go by what I say.

Oops, I was typing this when Ginosion's post was up.

[Ginosion]

Oops, I was typing this when Ginosion's post was up.

Actually mine was ment more as a joke. But still, check to see if there is a copyright loophole.

[dpaterso]

I'm working on a remake of a 1962 western that's a lot of people are not familiar with. Is it a good idea to register it as long as I note the original author/s?
I'm going 'way out on a limb here and assuming you've gained the necessary permissions from whoever owns the story and characters.

I'd certainly register the script before I sent it anywhere. And I'd credit the original author(s)' on the title sheet.

1962 isn't any indication that the property will become public domain in 2012, options and copyrights may be renewed by studios, prodcos and individuals.

-Derek

[nmstevens]

I'm going 'way out on a limb here and assuming you've gained the necessary permissions from whoever owns the story and characters.

I'd certainly register the script before I sent it anywhere. And I'd credit the original author(s)' on the title sheet.

1962 isn't any indication that the property will become public domain in 2012, options and copyrights may be renewed by studios, prodcos and individuals.

-Derek


It is very important -- and many people don't understand this -- that, for purposes of copyright, the "author" of a movie is not the director or the screenwriter but whoever owns the rights to the movie.

That is generally a corporation. The author of a movie produced by Warner Brothers -- is Time/Warner, Inc.

And the way in which copyright is granted to a corporation is different from the way in which it is granted to an individual. A corporation actually gets to hold copyright longer than an individual does -- at least for now (the laws are always being adjusted).

Under no circumstances should anyone presume that a movie made in 1962 is in the public domain.

The overwhelming majority of movies made -- even pushing back to the edge of the silent era -- are not in the public domain.

The issue is not who the writer of the novel is - because he has sold the movie rights -- and they are owned by somebody else. The people who made the movie.

That movie has been made -- so if you're talking about writing a movie sequel -- it's a sequel to that movie, not to the novel on which the movie was based.

And those rights -- the right to make a sequel or a remake, resides with whoever originally acquired the original movie rights.

I suppose you can write such a thing for learning purposes, but there's no point in registering it -- and it would no more be legitimate to copyright it than it would be to register a car that you didn't own -- because the sequel rights are owned by somebody else.

Copy Right -- the right to make and distributes copies of something.

If you don't own it, or haven't gotten permission from whoever owns it, you don't have the right to do it.

NMS

[jonpiper]

The issue is not who the writer of the novel is - because he has sold the movie rights -- and they are owned by somebody else. The people who made the movie.

NMS

NMS, I don't think the author of a classic novel written, say, pre-seventeenth century would have sold the movie rights. These are the kind of novels and plays I was thinking of. So I think any number of movies made from Hamlet, for example, could be made without purchasing rights.

Was the western in question based on a novel whose copyright was still in effect? If the novel was in the public domain at the time, can't anyone make a movie based on that novel?

[WriteKnight]

Movies made from stories in the public domain - Obviously Shakespeare, or Dumas - Victor Hugo to name a few - Yes, these can be made over and over again.

But be VERY carefull you are NOT making a sequel or remake of THEIR FILM version of the classic novel. (Their version of the plot or dialogue for instance... would have given them the derivative) An example would be the Gene Kelly Three Musketeers. That version has Madamoiselle Bonnecieu - the NIECE of M. Bonnecieux - instead of the wife. Obviously they wanted a 'sanitized' version. Likewise, the combination of the characters the Compte de Wardes and Rochefort in the Richard Lester version.)

The CHARACTER of Zorro for instance, has JUST become available in the public domain, though I think the family is still disputing that.

Here's an interesting article regarding the Zorro conundrum -

http://gbgames.com/blog/2007/03/zorro-the-public-domain-and-derivative-works/


And a list of 'public domain characters' - which does NOT address 'trademark' or 'tradedress' issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Public_domain_characters

[nmstevens]

NMS, I don't think the author of a classic novel written, say, pre-seventeenth century would have sold the movie rights. These are the kind of novels and plays I was thinking of. So I think any number of movies made from Hamlet, for example, could be made without purchasing rights.

Was the western in question based on a novel whose copyright was still in effect? If the novel was in the public domain at the time, can't anyone make a movie based on that novel?


Yes, but Shakespeare never sold the rights. The underlying rights are not current. The underlying rights in respect to a novel made into a movie are a different matter.

I will give you an example.

The recent remake of the Last of the Mohicans. The original novel, of course, is in the public domain. Had you, or anyone else -- say the makers of the recent remake, wished to go straight back to that original and remake it -- no problem.

But if you look at the credits, you'll see that it isn't simply based on the James Fenimore Cooper novel, but also gives credit to John L. Balderston, Paul Perez, Daniel Moore, and Philip Dunne -- as the source of the adaptation.

That's because the remake wasn't simply based on the novel. It was a remake of the 1936 United Artists film which contained numerous elements that didn't exist in the novel.

Even if the book, back in 1936, had been in the public domain -- the movie was not. And the elements *original to that adaptation* were independently copyrightable, separate from the novel.

That is why the remake of King Kong, which was *not* based on the RKO movie, but was instead based on a novel which had *separated rights* didn't contain certain classic scenes -- such as the attack on the elevated train.

That's because, while it was featured in the movie, it didn't appear in the book, and thus couldn't be used.

The original poster is talking about writing a sequel to an obscure *movie* -- not writing a sequel to a book.

I have no idea:

A) when the book was originally published. That the movie was made in 1962 doesn't tell us this. It could have been a recent novel or it could have been written eighty years before.

B) whether the book is currently under copyright. The overwhelming majority of books published in the vicinity of 1962 are and will remain so for quite some time.

C) how far the content of the movie is from the original book. Even presuming that the book is in the public domain, that would only entitle a new adaptor to material that is in the book, not to material that is unique to the movie adapation. New characters, new relationships, new situations or plot twists, all would be the intellectual property of the movie's copyright holder.

D) whether the original movie is still under copyright. However -- barring some very unusual circumstance, it almost certainly is, and any such rights would encompass remake and sequel rights.

To presume that an existing movie from the sixties is in the public domain -- or to presume that the novel upon which it is based is in the public domain without actively confirming that this is true before proceeding with an unauthorized sequel -- is completely unjustifiable.

Unless you're simply doing as a learning experience.

And if you want to do an adaptation or a sequel as a learning experience, it would seem to me that it would make much more sense to do one based on something that you know for a fact is saleable, because if it turns out well, and you can't sell it, you've learned something, but otherwise you've wasted your time. It's just something for the back of the drawer.

If, on the other hand, you've learned something and you've written something that's worth sending out and you can actually send it out -- then you can send it out.

NMS

[NikeeGoddess]

a 1962 western that's a lot of people are not familiar withdefinitely don't assume this. many of us movie freaks have seen everything that worth seeing and much more than that.

anyhoo - whatever your story is, forget the remake part. you can write your own story and it doesn't matter that it is similar in theme. write it with a personal take... your own unique voice and your own unique perspective.

[zeprosnepsid]

I'm working on a remake of a 1962 western that's a lot of people are not familiar with.


I hope it's Wild Gals of the Naked West! :)

[jonpiper]

The original poster is talking about writing a sequel to an obscure *movie* -- not writing a sequel to a book.
NMS

Madbandit said, I'm working on a remake of a 1962 western that's a lot of people are not familiar with.

I think Madbandit, the OP, should now tell us the facts concerning what he calls a remake.

Is it a sequel to the movie or a new version of the movie with many of the elements of the original movie?

Or is it a completely different take on a novel or play, which was and is in the public domain?

And, is it Wild Girls Of The Naked West?

[shutterspeed]

Actually, I now own the rights to Shakespeare's Hamlet.

[Bergerac]

What concerns me is that the OP is convinced that this 1962 Western is not familiar to "a lot of people". Who are the "lot of people"?

That's a big assumption. If it was made, film buffs know all about it and so probably do the majority of producers and directors both in the genre or not.

It can't be John Ford's THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE (1962), can it? That's not obscure, that's a classic.

However, the idea of adapting one of the original story writer's, Dorothy M. Johnson, 50+ short stories or 15+ novels of the American West is not a bad idea for a writing sample provided that the rights can be obtained. Westerns, though, as we all know, are a hard sell.

[aspiringwriter]

I have a similar question---I want to write the 1981 cult classic The Funhouse as re-make/re-telling...not the same story mind you, but with a different twist. I wonder how you check to see if the copyright has ended.

[kullervo]

I have a similar question---I want to write the 1981 cult classic The Funhouse as re-make/re-telling...not the same story mind you, but with a different twist. I wonder how you check to see if the copyright has ended.

It hasn't. Read through the thread again.

[nmstevens]

And just for everybody's general information on this subject:

http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/

[NikeeGoddess]

I want to write the 1981 cult classic The Funhouse as re-make/re-telling...not the same story mind you, but with a different twistif it's not the same story and has a different twist then forget about the funhouse and write your own. be original. problem solved.

[jonpiper]

if it's not the same story and has a different twist then forget about the funhouse and write your own. be original. problem solved.

But keep in mind that if yours is produced and earns big bucks, the lawyers will come into the picture to prove how you stole all those elements from Funhouse.

[zeprosnepsid]

Yeah, this sounds a lot like an 'inspired by' or 'homage' situation. Like Star Wars with the The Hidden Fortress and Reservoir Dogs with City On Fire.

There's kind of a thin line between copyright infringement and my film was inspired by this other film and has some similar characters and plot elements which I then made my own.

[IceCreamEmpress]

Don't write an adaptation, update, or remake of anything you don't have the rights to, unless you have absolutely rock-solid information the source material is in the public domain. You'll be wasting your time at best, and opening yourself to significant legal liabilities at worst.

And don't write a biographical screenplay about anyone who's still alive without securing their life rights (http://www.absolutewrite.com/screenwriting/life_rights.htm). Remember that even if you're writing about someone who's dead, you need to have life rights to the story of his or her survivors: a film about Kurt Cobain wouldn't be very interesting if it didn't depict Courtney Love or Dave Grohl or other people in the late rock star's life who are fiercely protective of their own life rights. Mark Litwak talks about these questions here (http://www.marklitwak.com/faq/life_story_rights.html). Yes, yes, the First Amendment says you can write about public figures. You'd probably win in court if you were sued. Do you want to take that chance, though?

[dpaterso]

Can't argue with any of the above.

What I'd like to see is an explanation of what's required when, just for example's sake, a film like The Departed (2006) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0407887/) is pitched and proposed, whose storyline is taken directly from another original movie (Infernal Affairs (2002) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338564/)). It's obvious that remakes and adaptations happen, often. What's not so obvious is where enquiries should be directed if a writer wants to apply for permission to use an owned/copyrighted property. If you wanted to adapt a novel, you'd write to the book publisher whose name is found inside the novel -- but what's the mechanism for tracking down who owns rights to an old film or screenplay whose prodco may not exist any more? Is there a central copyright or legal office, or a data repository that can be queried?

-Derek

[WriteKnight]

To follow your book analogy, to find the 'author' look at the copyright holder at the end of the film credits. Its listed plain as day. And the copryright office lists the Motion Picture Company as the 'author' of the film.

Now for the really older classic films, where the proco might not exist anymore (Think RKO) those movies were 'bought up' - say by Turner Broadcasting - so yeah, it can be a bit tricky. IMDB.com can help, looking at 'distributors' of Citizen Kane, you see Warner Home Video as the latest... so an educated guess would be to start with Warner.

[IceCreamEmpress]

What I'd like to see is an explanation of what's required when, just for example's sake, a film like The Departed (2006) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0407887/) is pitched and proposed, whose storyline is taken directly from another original movie (Infernal Affairs (2002) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338564/)).

That's an adaptation, and the original screenwriters for the Hong Kong movie have WGA credit along with the adaptor. Therefore, they got paid. One assumes the producers of the Hong Kong movie also got paid. The director was thanked in Martin Scorsese's Oscar speech.

On that topic, why on Earth was that movie called "Infernal Affairs" in English? It has nothing to do with either the movie or the original Cantonese title.

[kullervo]

...And even Shakespeare would have been nowhere without Ovid and Petrarch, but they were in the public domain...

A couple of points:

1. The very act of writing without the necessary rights is a copyright violation, even if you never show it to anybody, ever. The minute you do show it to anybody, you are at risk of receiving a bitter cease-and-desist letter.

2. The farce and homage excuses used to function, one studio to another, in the days before sequels took over the world. These days studios do not want someone else poaching on their preserve, certainly not an outsider.

[zeprosnepsid]

On that topic, why on Earth was that movie called "Infernal Affairs" in English? It has nothing to do with either the movie or the original Cantonese title.


From Wikipedia: "The Chinese title means "the non-stop path", a reference to Avici (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avici), the lowest level of hell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diyu) in Buddhism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism). The English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language) title combines the US law enforcement term 'internal affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_affairs_%28law_enforcement%29)' with a reference to Dante's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dante_Alighieri) Inferno (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Divine_Comedy)."

Dante's Inferno is the closest Western equivalent to their being 'levels' of hell.

[NikeeGoddess]

But keep in mind that if yours is produced and earns big bucks, the lawyers will come into the picture to prove how you stole all those elements from Funhouse.my point is to make those elements your own as well. or at least different enough that no one can really make this claim. there are so many flicks out there with similar elements anyway. the writer's guild has a formula to determine or suggest copyright infringement.

anyhoo - here you can find all those old (public domain) flicks that are available for rewrites.
http://www.publicdomaintorrents.com/ hit the movie categories on the left to search for titles.

[benbradley]

As an aside to this thread:
...And a list of 'public domain characters' - which does NOT address 'trademark' or 'tradedress' issues.
I was about to ask what 'tradedress' is, as neither Wikipedia nor m-w.com finds that word, but Google tells me it's actually "Trade Dress" and there is indeed a Wikipedia article on the topic as well as several law sites describing it, and (if you're into this stuff like I am) they provide some interesting reading. I've often heard of "look and feel" (as one site describes it), and of course seen 'knockoff' products in supermarkets that might or might not infringe on the intellectual property rights of national-brand products, but somehow I'd never seen the word(s) before. <Spock voice>Fascinating.</>

Again, it's two words - Trade Dress.

[kullervo]

When you sell a script you go through a process called Annotations, in which you go through the script element-by-element and declare where you got the idea for every character, setting, action, etc. You must either swear that everything is 100% original with you, or that you hold the rights. Yes, even to those "changed but inspired by" elements.

Once you have declared all this, you sign an agreement to hold the studio harmless for any and all claims to infringement. Which means that if anyone ever makes a claim against the movie, the legal responsibility to defend the studio against those claims is yours. They will mount a massive defense and bill you.

Getting a feeling for whether the writer in such a case will work again? Right. But it usually does not get that far. Studio people tend to recognize borrowings better than most folks, and are very paranoid about this.

And remember that, in the U.S., and with the exception of medical malpractice, anyone can sue anyone else at any time and for any reason.

[shutterspeed]

1. The very act of writing without the necessary rights is a copyright violation, even if you never show it to anybody, ever. The minute you do show it to anybody, you are at risk of receiving a bitter cease-and-desist letter.


Forgive, but this seems possibly to be an overgeneralization. Maybe you could explain this a bit further (offhand, I can think of several arenas that might have been overstepped: educational, satirical, etc. purposes).

[IceCreamEmpress]

From Wikipedia: "The Chinese title means "the non-stop path", a reference to Avici (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avici), the lowest level of hell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diyu) in Buddhism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism).

Yes. I would have chosen "Straight to Hell" or "The Road to Hell" or "Highway to Hell".

The English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language) title combines the US law enforcement term 'internal affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_affairs_%28law_enforcement%29)' with a reference to Dante's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dante_Alighieri) Inferno (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Divine_Comedy)."

I do understand where they got it (forgive me, I didn't make that clear above), I just think it's a horrible, horrible choice.

[WriteKnight]

"Trade Dress" - yes, sorry for the typo. I'm married to an I.P. Attorney, so I get a lot of legal Intellectual Property jargon through osmosis - ;)

Aside from the legal sign-off that kullervo mentions, the studios have legal departments and 'errors and ommissions' insurance that looks at how things like brand names, proper names, and possible copyright infringements might come into play. It's a mine-field for sure.

[kullervo]

Forgive, but this seems possibly to be an overgeneralization. Maybe you could explain this a bit further (offhand, I can think of several arenas that might have been overstepped: educational, satirical, etc. purposes).

Copyright attaches automatically to the production of a created work. Registering your copyright merely expands some of your legal rights under copyright. Because the copyright attaches at the moment of creation, so does copyright infringement.

[shutterspeed]

Copyright attaches automatically to the production of a created work. Registering your copyright merely expands some of your legal rights under copyright. Because the copyright attaches at the moment of creation, so does copyright infringement. Today 10:32 AM

Right. But my point was, I'm not so sure one would have to worry about copyright infringement simply by writing something based on a protected work. Isn't the copyright mainly to guard against commercialization and exhibition of a registered work? If no one sees the work, then no harm, no foul, eh?

I can also think of additional areas that would be protected for someone to use/adapt/write about a protected work: namely, the areas of education (fair use clause) and parody.

[kullervo]

1. It does not matter if anyone sees it, ever. The infringement is a fact the moment the work is executed.

2. Fair use and parody have been getting more and more restrictive over time. Fair use applies only to the use of a small portion of original material in its original execution, and depends on the nature of the use. Ten seconds of a movie used in a news broadcast will be fine due to the protection of speech in the public interest. The same ten seconds used during a broadcast television show will not be protected, since it is commercial speech. Parody is increasingly difficult. A studio now views many more movies and programs as having sequel or series potential. Allowing someone to make fun of a property essentially kills sequel potential. If there is a parody to be done, they will do it themselves.

Essentially, these issues must be addressed with an entertainment attorney on a case-by-case basis. Copyrighted material held by corporations is a complex issue. Congress often extends copyright for individual properties like Mickey Mouse and Goodnight Moon. Movie and television productions must also comply with international copyright laws. During World War II, Axis nations did not observe copyright on Allied nation productions. As a result, they have extended copyrights on those works for the duration of that war. There are also rights issues based on the nature of the use of a work. If you buy the rights on the song "Tea for Two," your price doubles if your characters dance along to the song.

Case by case. It takes an experienced entertainment attorney to even understand the depth and breadth of the issues involved.

[dpaterso]

Thanks for your answers and suggestions everyone, interesting stuff.

-Derek

[IceCreamEmpress]

It does not matter if anyone sees it, ever. The infringement is a fact the moment the work is executed.

Yes, but it's a tort, not a crime, so in the US at least, you aren't going to be held accountable unless the intellectual property holder chooses to do so through the civil court system.

Now I'm loving the idea of someone shouting "It's a victimless tort!" in self-justification.

[zeprosnepsid]

2. Fair use and parody have been getting more and more restrictive over time.

Fair use has actually gotten less restrictive in the past couple years. PBS news shows and documentaries as well as major Documentarians such as Michael Moore do not pay for the rights to anything and function under the fair use doctrine. A new set of guidelines has recently been drawn up in the documentary community by which many have decided to follow. In 2003, LA Plays Itself could not get distributed because it didn't pay for the rights to itself film clips. But in 2006, This Film Is Not Yet Rated did get distributed without paying for the rights for its clips, which has opened the door to more Distributors being open to buying and distributing fair use Documentaries.

This has nothing to do with writing a screenplay though. As you note, Fair Use only applies in certain situations -- where you are educating and informing the public. It used to only apply to the news, but it's been opening up a lot in the past few years when it comes to Documentaries.

But once again, this doesn't help anyone writing screenplays....

[shutterspeed]

Just for clarification purposes, since copyright law seems to be among the most misunderstood and asked about items.

Any chance the IRS had a hand in drafting copyright laws?

[nmstevens]

Just for clarification purposes, since copyright law seems to be among the most misunderstood and asked about items.

Any chance the IRS had a hand in drafting copyright laws?

Well, part of the reasons for the misunderstanding is that the law itself has changed over the last fifty years or so, and changed in significant ways.

Part of the reasons for those changes is that copyright law in the U.S. and in Europe are not the same -- thus for a long time things that were in the public domain here might very well still be under copyright in Europe.

That might not make much difference for a book, back in 1922. But once you get into the latter part of the twentieth century, and especially into the world of media that have substantial international presence and remain in constant release (especially after the advent of television) -- that situation became more and more problematic for everybody.

We needed to move in a direction of consistent international copyright -- and since European copyright laws were substantially more generous than ours -- our laws began to shift in the direction of granting longer copyright terms -- and also *back-granting* rights to those works that had gone into the public domain.

So you had a situation when works that had gone public actually reverted back to being under copyright (you want to talk about a mess).

As for exceptions -- they haven't changed much, but what constitutes a valid use of of one of those exceptions is always going to open to interpretation.

Carol Burnett always used to do those movie spoofs on her show -- which were obviously supposed to fall under the fair use parody exception.

Except in one case (I forget which) somebody sued, claiming that the parody took too much -- that it was too close to the original to qualify for the fair use exception and they won and the show had to pay.

So the line is never absolute and it is never obvious when you cross it -- until you do.

That, ultimately, is always what the courts are going to be for.

NMS

[dpaterso]

1. It does not matter if anyone sees it, ever. The infringement is a fact the moment the work is executed.
Question that's been niggling at me -- and if it's already been asked and covered in this thread, apologies -- how come it's OK to write specs for current TV shows, as writing samples?

-Derek

[kullervo]

Question that's been niggling at me -- and if it's already been asked and covered in this thread, apologies -- how come it's OK to write specs for current TV shows, as writing samples?

-Derek

That's one of those "that's the way it has to happen" exceptions. And everyone knows you can't go out and sell the episode to another production entity and have it made and profit by it.

[zeprosnepsid]

Question that's been niggling at me -- and if it's already been asked and covered in this thread, apologies -- how come it's OK to write specs for current TV shows, as writing samples?

It's because it's a writing sample you are not going to sell it. It's essentially private. It only becomes a problem if it's public/published or you make money from it.

But you can infringe on all the copyright you want as long as it's for private use.

And you can always write something based on copyright materials and show it as a sample. The guy who wrote Alien Vs. Predator didn't have the rights to either but sold it and the company got/had the rights. I don't suggest this, but it's possible.

*

I agree with NMS that it's gotten more restrictive. When Kevin Smith sold Clerks in 1994 it showed theatrically even though they never got the rights for all the trademarks and logos shown in the store (Doritos, Pepsi, etc...). They never got sued either. But a few years ago at Sundance, two very high profile movies got dropped for not having all their releases and paperwork. One was Strangers With Candy, which did get released by another distributor, but was dropped by it's original distributor because of this.

[Mystery Man]

I'm working on a remake of a 1962 western that's a lot of people are not familiar with. Is it a good idea to register it as long as I note the original author/s?

Why not simply take the idea that attracted you to the story in the first place and go in your own (different) direction with it?

[kullervo]

Why not simply take the idea that attracted you to the story in the first place and go in your own (different) direction with it?

This is really the best advice. Find the themes underpinning the story, and create your own.

[Mystery Man]

This is really the best advice. Find the themes underpinning the story, and create your own.

That's what I'm about to do with my next novel (after I finish the script I'm writing now). I got the idea from a twenty-year-old foreign movie which I've never seen but I've read reviews of and I'm going to take the basic plot and run with it in my own direction and make it all mine. That way you don't have to worry about copyright or anything like that because it's your own story with your own characters.

[zeprosnepsid]

Yeah, I do this a lot actually. And so do a lot of other filmmakers. There are only so many storylines in this world and plenty of people steal their basic concepts and then make it their own.