RSS
Universal Studios Sues Over Porn Parody Of '50 Shades Of Grey'; Ignoring 50 Shade's Own History As Fan Fiction
from the fan-fiction-begets-fan-fiction dept
Over the past few years, there's been a lot of porn parody movies created. Porn studios have realized that it's an effective way to differentiate themselves from "everyday porn." While some have wondered about the legality of these things, very few have bothered to take the producers to court, recognizing that parody is generally considered protected under fair use. However, apparently Universal Studios has decided that enough is enough and has sued the maker of a porn parody of the book 50 Shades of Grey, Smash Pictures. 50 Shades, of course, is that insanely (seriously: insanely) popular erotic novel, and Universal is arguing that the flick hits a little too close to home, so to speak, and isn't a "parody" so much as it's just an adaptation of the book, which Universal holds the rights to. Specifically, the lawsuit, filed by Universal and "Fifty Shades Limited," uses the claims from the director that the movie is "very true" to the book to suggest it isn't a parody at all:
Universal may very well have a case here. At the very least, it raises some questions about how one creates a "porn parody" of an already pornographic novel. And, that's especially true when the language in the novel is barely above the level of your typical porn script already. The complaint has over four pages of dialogue comparison between the original book and the porn flick and... well... it's not exactly fine literature.
Still, the thing that strikes me about this -- and which isn't mentioned in the filing at all -- is that Fifty Shades, itself, actually came out of a "pornographic adaptation" of the Twilight series. In fact, while those behind Fifty Shades have sought to erase this history, it does seem like a relevant point. Fifty Shades was pornographic Twilight "fan fiction," which was later rewritten to scrub it of references to Twilight. While Fifty Shades' author, EL James, her agent and publisher all like to claim that the Twilight fan fic James wrote and the eventual Fifty Shades book are really different works, someone compared the two using a plagiarism checker and found them to be 89% similar.
And, of course, out of that form of "infringement," something else came about. Seems pretty hypocritical (but, really, all too typical) to try to stop other adaptations/extensions of the work now that you're profiting off of the same sort of thing.
box for the First XXX Adaptation promotes the infringing work as "[b]ased upon" the Fifty Shades Trilogy and as "[putting] the kinky fantasies that you only imagined into vivid color." According to a Smash Pictures executive's interview with L.A. Weekly, the First XXX Adaptation is "very true to the book," with the script written "to be as close to the series as (director Jim PowersJ can get." Due to the popularity of the Fifty Shades Trilogy, Smash Pictures expects that the First XXX Adaptation "just might be our biggest film to date."Universal also seems pissed off that the studio is selling a "Fifty Shades of Pleasure: Play Kit & Movie" that has not just a DVD of the porn flick, but "various adult novelty items used in the Fifty Shades Trilogy."
By lifting exact dialogue, characters, events, story, and style from the Fifty Shades Trilogy, Smash Pictures ensured that the First XXX Adaptation was, in fact, as close as possible to the original works. Beginning with the First XXX Adaptation's opening scene and continuing throughout the next two and a half hours of the film, Smash Pictures copies without reservation from the unique expressive elements of the Fifty Shades Trilogy, progressing through the events of Fifty Shades of Grey and into the second book, Fifty Shades Darker. The First XXX Adaptation is not a parody, and it does not comment on, criticize, or ridicule the originals. It is a rip-off, plain and simple.
Universal may very well have a case here. At the very least, it raises some questions about how one creates a "porn parody" of an already pornographic novel. And, that's especially true when the language in the novel is barely above the level of your typical porn script already. The complaint has over four pages of dialogue comparison between the original book and the porn flick and... well... it's not exactly fine literature.
Still, the thing that strikes me about this -- and which isn't mentioned in the filing at all -- is that Fifty Shades, itself, actually came out of a "pornographic adaptation" of the Twilight series. In fact, while those behind Fifty Shades have sought to erase this history, it does seem like a relevant point. Fifty Shades was pornographic Twilight "fan fiction," which was later rewritten to scrub it of references to Twilight. While Fifty Shades' author, EL James, her agent and publisher all like to claim that the Twilight fan fic James wrote and the eventual Fifty Shades book are really different works, someone compared the two using a plagiarism checker and found them to be 89% similar.
And, of course, out of that form of "infringement," something else came about. Seems pretty hypocritical (but, really, all too typical) to try to stop other adaptations/extensions of the work now that you're profiting off of the same sort of thing.
I have a business...
Why 50,000 Monthly Active Users Weren't Enough To Stop This Company From Pivoting, With Spun Co-Founder Scott Lindenbaum
To Understand The Data Move It Closer
I have an idea...
Founders, Funders, Farmers, Fools, And Family
75 Questions To Help You Write An RFP For Website Design
I’m looking for policy...
Developers On Patents: Ron Garret of Awun
Developers On Patents: Five Employees, Six Lawyers
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Punish those infringers
Hey! New plot line! Infringers receive punishment at the hands of oversexed rights holders.
And there's a cameo role for OOTB.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Where's the infringement ?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
If I understood this right so far I wouldn't say they forgot the origins of 50 shades. You can agree or disagree with the rules as they are, but IMO this is pretty clear cut in favour of Universal (never thought I'd write that or even defend them, I feel dirty now).
If they did an actual parody of 50 Shades things would be different.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Where's the infringement ?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Thrust that double-edged sword.
Plot twist: Universal is the porn company.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
So if I were to find either the actual Twilight porn parody or the 50 Shades movie, I'll probably take Twilight. Either way, it's going to be a lonely night...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Title??
But seriously... How difficult could this be:
Filthy Shades of Grey?
Fifty Shades of Gay?
Fifty Shags a Day?
Fisty sh
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Punish those infringers
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
This goes way beyond the typical snorting-coke-off-a-stripper's-ass legalese and into the murky twilight world of tinfoil underwear and submitting legal documents written on bar napkins. Intervention is called for.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Thrust that double-edged sword.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Market Harm?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Thrust that double-edged sword.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Their adaption will probably have watered down bondage scenes and a murder mystery thrown in to distract from the sexual material.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I mean in frequently.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Thrust that double-edged sword.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornographic
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Thrust that double-edged sword.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzmtYkPCQgg
I guess my age is showing.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Where's the infringement ?
In fact, that is precisely what the copyright act is intended to cover. It's the right to prepare derivative works. I'm wondering what your beliefs to the contrary are based on.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Parody
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Pair-O-DDs'
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Market Harm?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment