|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
#1
07-14-2007, 11:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Copyright of the Living Dead: What the Sam Scratch is going on here?!
Hello, all! I'm something of an avid horror fan (I don't attend conventions and the like, but I'm always in the mood for a good slasher or monster of the week flick), and I'm a bit confused about the issues surrounding the various "Dead" series. Which ones are official and/or legally made?
There seem to be dozens upon dozens of movies that have "...of the Dead," "...of the Living Dead," or some variation thereof tacked onto the end of their titles. After reading the information on Wikipedia, I've come up with the following answer to which ones are official/legal, but I would like for anyone more knowledgeable on the subject to proofread it. Alright, as I understand it, all of the films made by George A. Romero and John A. Russo are official and have legal backing by whoever owns the copyright. This would include Night/Dawn/Day/Land/Diary and the Return series, as well as Russo's Children, a sequel to his 30th Anniversary edition of the original. The high-profile remakes are official as well, meaning Night/Dawn/Day and the upcoming Army (I suppose they just lump that in with the remakes because it's a sequel to a remake?). Day 2: Contagium is official despite Romero's/Russo's protests because the company making it had the rights to Day of the Dead. I still have questions, though. How were all the dozens of unofficial "Dead" movies made without consent from Romero/Russo or the company that made the official movies? Are they all illegal? Or does the original film's status as public domain make them legal? Exactly which movies besides Night '68 have legal backing? I'm still fairly lost. Last edited by johnboy3434; 07-14-2007 at 11:38 PM. 
|
|
#2
07-15-2007, 02:10 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
guess you can't copyright partial names, if you could you might copyright "the"
|
|
#4
07-15-2007, 05:11 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
**nevermind**
__________________
|
|
#5
07-15-2007, 07:35 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
i guess nobody has exclusive rights to the word dead in a movie title. check out the internet movie database if you wanna make sure you're only watching movies by a specific director
__________________
top 10 movies 1. event horizon 2. ju on 3. suspiria 4. the exorcist 5. ringu 6. tcm 7. exorcist III 8. the omen 9. haute tension 10. creep 
|
|
#6
07-15-2007, 08:11 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Titles themselves are not copyrightable. I could go out tomorrow and make a film called "Night of the Living Dead" and I don't need anyone's permission. If I used elements from the original film, however, I'd be asking for a plagarism suit.
__________________
Lee Widener, Author Website  Cartoon Artwork, Underground Art, Other Weird Stuff 
|
|
#7
07-15-2007, 01:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wait... so I could make a film about a guy trying to start a line of breakfast cereals and name it "The Lord of the Rings?" Wow. I didn't know that. Are you sure? Well, if there's no legal distinction between the traditional canon and the countless ripoffs, then how do fans determine which films are official "Dead" films?
I looked on IMDb to see if there is any consistency among the production companies that make the "Dead" films so I could come up with some sort of litmus test, but no dice. You'd think it'd be easy to find out whoever owns the rights to these things.
|
|
#8
07-15-2007, 02:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
george is a true independant, sorting out finances for his own films normally without studio interference. night/dawn/day were produced through his laurel company. land/diary ae through romero-grunwald
|
 |
|
|
