Somewhat disjointed about what the suit about the Watchmen movie really entail ? You ’re not the only one . Luckily , former amusing editor and copyright constabulary prof Andrew Steven Harris is utterly place to pick asunder the suit and put it into real world term so that even Alan Moore could empathize what ’s go on . Firstly , if you do n’t have a hint what ’s going on despite reading all about the case , Harris wants you to cognize that that ’s okay :
It does n’t help oneself that this case involve both copyright – one of the most complicated area of law , because it ’s about property that does n’t physically subsist – and Hollywood contract bridge , which were invented by jacket - strapped lunatics clenching nubs of plumbago between their teeth as they scrawled out Cthulhu - summoning rituals on the cushioned wall of their asylum cell . Think the Watchmen graphical novel was complex ? That Rorschach was sick ? That Ozymandias ’s architectural plan present the mazy schema of a delusional megalomaniac ? Ha ha ha . You ’ve never read a Hollywood contract bridge . Watchmen is a Johnny DC pop - up Word compared to a Hollywood contract .
Where we should all be focalise our attentions now is the most recent ruling to refuse Warner ’ movement to dismiss , apparently :
[ W]hat does happen occasionally , however , is that the court of justice will reign on something that really affects the bearing of the character down the line . For object lesson : if the authenticity of a written document is in dispute , the judge might rule that , pretending the written document has been proven 100 % authentic ( as the rules of the motion postulate him to do ) , it would be overpowering evidence that one side is right ( or wrong ) . Then the attorney know that the real target of the test will be turn up whether that document is unquestionable or not . There ’s something similar ( dissimilar in specific , but along the same theme ) that come about here . The court ruled in a means that at least on the surface appears to give added staying king to the veracity of Fox ’s claim . Again , the details are wearisome , but the decision helps provide a trail function for the Blair Witch journeying that the rights to the film have acquire – and for Fox , that ’s a very good matter . Said another room : the opinion itself ( rejecting the motion ) is n’t all that notable ; but the content of the ruling looks like it gives Fox a helluva lot to work with .
A wad of body of work with towards what end , though … ? Stopping release of the motion-picture show , or something else ? Harris plumps for the latter :
[ F]ans should be boost that nothing about this litigation will realistically keep the movie out of theaters next year . At the end of the day , Fox wants money ; it does n’t want an unreleased and unreleasable pic canister . And , yes – while it ’s true that Fox has also file for an injunction to shut down the film ’s release , that too should give the devotee no alarm . It is , like Fox ’s other maneuvers , just a negociate manoeuvre ; a successful injunction just represent the fastest room since God invented light of become a settlement offer on the board .
Ultimately , then , there ’s nothing for anyone who is n’t a Warners employee ( or entertainment lawyer ) to worry about – do May next year , everyone can look on the Watchmen as planned … unless a gargantuan foreigner appears in the heart of Manhattan in the meantime or something . The world will look up and say “ litigate us . ” And I ’ll look down and whisper , “ okay . ”[Andrew Steven Harris ]
20th Century FoxWarner Bros.
Daily Newsletter
Get the best tech , scientific discipline , and polish news in your inbox day by day .
tidings from the future , deliver to your present tense .
You May Also Like
