When Hollywood takes your ideas and calls them their own...

[Staffan]

Recently, a court case was filed claiming the life +70 years rule was unconstitutional, but thus far courts have rejected this argumemt stating the constitution only requires copyright laws to have a limited time - 70 years is limited even if it is lengthy!

IANAL, but I think the argument wasn't against extending the copyright limit per se, it was against doing so retroactively. As in, how does changing the copyright term for things already made aid in promoting the arts, and if you allow them to extend the term retroactively it becomes essentially unlimited.

 

[Bagpuss]

For Example, a Werewolf/Vampire cross uses the same name and the picture very much matches the description of such creaturesin WoD, the vampires formal laws use much of the same terminology as those of the Camarilla in the WoD.

Problem is 'Abomination' WW term for the cross between a vampire and a werewolf is so close to the normal usage of the word that its not really a name as such. I mean most people would call it an abomination if some scientist genetically crossed human DNA with wolf DNA to try and produce some hybrid creature. That's the excepted use of the word abomination, not a trademarked name or IP.

Same with the term Eldar, my dads my eldar, if someone is older than you vampire or not they are an eldar its the excepted use of the word.

They didn't use 'Clans' or any of the WW Clan names, they didn't mention a Masquerade, or laws Domain and hospitality.

A full details of the suit are here. Its full of stupid stuff like...

57. In World of Darkness, vampires "have the strength of ten men." In Underworld vampires "have the strength of ten men."
58. In the World of Darkness, vampires are divided by age distinctions, any older vampires are more powerful and are able to rule of younger vampires. In Underworld, vampires are divided by age distincitions, and older vampires are more powerful and are able to rule over younger vampires.

97. In World of Darkness silver weapons harm werewolves, in Underworld silver weapons harm werewolves.

Replace Underworld for Buffy and they can sue them as well! Or better yet Replace WoD with BS's Dracula and Underworld with WoD and he'ld have a case if he wasn't dead.

Whats worse is 57 isn't even true most vampires in WoD don't have the Strength of ten men, at least not most of the time.

97 Please?

The lawsuit also mentions the word embrace the film actually uses the line 'turn him'.

When it gets onto the 'Love of Monsters' story (around point 100) their case does get a little stronger. But some key differences...

First White Wolf are claiming that Selena is a copy of a Black Hand character called Lucita. Yet in Love of Monsters a Male vampire "Pembroke" falls in love with a female werewolf "Sian" Lucita doesn't even appear.

There are however some striking parallels, but then TheLove of Monsters, and Underworld could both easily be inspired by Romeo and Juliet in a vampire/werewolf setting, of course they are going to be similar.

Ones that stand out however are...

114. In The Love of Monsters, Sian and her children are killed by both vampires and werewolves, while her vampire lover is forced to watch her and his newborn children die. In Underworld, Sonja is killed by her fellow vampires while her werewolf lover is forced to watch her and his unborn child die.
115. In The Love of Monsters, the offending vampire is killed by sunlight. In Underworld the original offending vampire (Sonja) is killed by sunlight.

Looks pretty strong at first, until you look again. For a start Pembroke & Sian die, which would equate to both Selena or Michael dying, neither of them do and neither are they having a child. White Wolf are originally claiming Selena and Michael are like Pembroke and Sian, yet other than them being in love and from opposite sides of a ongoing war there the parrallels stop.

(Hmm being in love and on opposite sides of the fence, I'm sure I've seen a play about that somewhere).

Then they claim actually the parallels are with Sonja and Lucian, and yet both Pembroke and Sian die in that story but only Sonja dies in the film at that point, the werewolves death is unrelated. Also Sonja never gives birth in the movie but in the book they refer to 'children' pural. All thats ignoring the fact the sexes have swapped sides.

They neglect to mention that in Underworld vampires aren't undead, they actually have a heart beat. Where as in World of Darkness they have no heart beat. Or that in Underworld Werewolves are immortal as well where as in World of Darkness they have a normal lifespan.

 

[Cergorach]

Actually, Underworld does use the word Clans and Clan.

 

[Bagpuss]

Actually, Underworld does use the word Clans and Clan.

I only recall hearing 'bloodlines' and families mentioned.

 

[jaerdaph]

Here's a "horror" movie/comedy that nobody can claim was ripped off from them:

http://www.bubbahotep.com

I saw this last night - very, very funny!

 

[jaldaen]

Actually, Underworld does use the word Clans and Clan.

I don't remember that... though I do remember the use of "coven" and "covens"...

Joseph

 

[Cergorach]

I don't remember that... though I do remember the use of "coven" and "covens"...

Joseph

The beginning of the movie, i would have quoted it, if i hadn't already deleted it from my HD... Erm... I wasn't supposed to say that... *grins evily*

 

[jaldaen]

The beginning of the movie, i would have quoted it, if i hadn't already deleted it from my HD... Erm... I wasn't supposed to say that... *grins evily*

Was it in Selene's exposition dialogue? It wasn't obviously used throughout the rest of the film though... I'll just have to see it again when (and if) it comes out on DVD. ;-)

Take Care,
Joseph

 

[The Sigil]

Which is the reason jury nullification is on the question list for every juror survey I or any other attorney has written for a case. Want to get thrown off a jury? Admit you believe the doctrine of jury nullification is possibly appropriate for the case at hand.

Nothing wrong with it, but you just used one of my pre-emptives

LOL. Of course, I think that a truly "random" jury pool is the only option for the proper representation of a cross-section of a community and the pre-emptory challenges are immoral at best. IMO, you should draw jurors 1-12, the judge asks them if any of them have religious/moral compunctions that would keep them from being a fair juror in the case, and replace anyone who says yes, and that's it. No pre-emptory challenges to allow the attorneys to "shape" the jury pool to their liking.

As for the rest of your post I agree with much of it, but remember the law has to draw the line somewhere in the gray. Thus, we rely on the judgment of fellow citizens with a framework of guidelines. The creators of our constitution certainly thought intellectual property was very important - it is one of the named powers of Congress to create laws protecting trademarks and copyrights.

As mentioned before, the phrase often omitted in such arguments is "for a limited time." Of note is that each time in the last several decades that the "limited time" is about to expire, it has been extended. It seems obvious to me that the current formula is, in effect:

DURATION EXPIRATION DATE = C+ N + Y where C is the creation date, N is death date of the author, and Y is come constant.
IF C + N + Y <= NOW + 2 years
THEN Y = Y + 20

Which is, in effect, perpetuity.

The laws as originally drafted were in the gray area. Now, it is quite clearly out of the gray and well into the black, since it is no longer "limited times." Even so, I have to think lifetime + 70 years is so far into gray as to be indistinguishable from black.

Having gone off into the political, I'm surprised WW isn't expecting a suit from WotC for appropriating the term "turning" undead - obviously, WW infringed that from WotC/TSR... LOL.

OT - That reminds me, I've always wanted to know... how many pre-emptory dismissals do you get in a case? I was on a jury and saw the defense dismiss what seemed to me like an awful lot of jurors using them (I think I was at around #50 in the "line" for jury duty and was in the box at one point - it was a murder trial with a capital punishment charge so many jurors excused themselves on religious/moral grounds - and I was dismissed with a pre-emptory from the defense; the prosecution used four or five then stood pat with the jury while the defense seemed to use at least a dozen more after the prosecution stopped using them - to say nothing of the four or five the defense used while the prosecution was alternating with them in dismissing jurors).

--The Sigil

 

[jmucchiello]

OT - That reminds me, I've always wanted to know... how many pre-emptory dismissals do you get in a case? I was on a jury and saw the defense dismiss what seemed to me like an awful lot of jurors using them (I think I was at around #50 in the "line" for jury duty and was in the box at one point

I believe it varies by jurisdiction and also depends on whether the trial is criminal or civil. As for being #50, the judge can excuse people without either side asking to dismiss. Also, both sides have unlimited dismissals with cause. If I may drift political, when "jury selection consultant" became a job title, any fairness the jury system had went out the window.