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:
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."

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 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."

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.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Arsik Vek (profile), Nov 30th, 2012 @ 8:16am

    Hmm, so if the porno version is a near identical representation of the book, and Universal was doing a movie version of the book, does that mean Universal is getting into the porn industry?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Vidiot (profile), Nov 30th, 2012 @ 9:44am

    Punish those infringers

    Looks like someone needs a very special spanking.

    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 chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Lirodon, Nov 30th, 2012 @ 9:45am

    But you know what I love? Whenever a film company gets the rights to make a film based off a book, it always seems like that they pretty much take over property rights related to it so they can sue others over it like they own the entire franchise (see for instance, Summit going crazy over any mentioning of a word associated with a novel involving vampires)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 30th, 2012 @ 9:49am

    Pretty sure Mike Masnick loves infringement more than sex.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Chris Brand (profile), Nov 30th, 2012 @ 10:03am

    Where's the infringement ?

    Sure sounds like they used ideas from the book, and even dialogue, but they didn't copy the book, or distribute it, and I don't think a movie counts as a translation. Obviously, lawyers can argue anything, but I really don't think that copyright was intended to stop people making movie adaptations of books that they don't own the rights to - seems to me that the movie and the book are two very different expressions of the same ideas.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      jupiterkansas (profile), Nov 30th, 2012 @ 10:24am

      Re: Where's the infringement ?

      Unfortunately it's well established that copyright includes the right to adapt, or even use the characters, in another medium, unless it is a parody. It's difficult though, when what you're adapting is already a parody.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Nov 30th, 2012 @ 3:15pm

      Re: Where's the infringement ?

      "I really don't think that copyright was intended to stop people making movie adaptations of books that they don't own the rights to "

      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 chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Christoph Wagner (profile), Nov 30th, 2012 @ 10:08am

    So to recap: 50 shades of grey was a porn parody of Twilight. It became something else. Now the movie "50 Shades of Grey" is a movie adaption of "50 Shades of Grey". And one so close that they actually use the book as script as far as it's possible.

    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 chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), Nov 30th, 2012 @ 10:26am

    Thrust that double-edged sword.

    I thought it was mostly unclear whether porn was even really covered by copyright. Maybe now we can find out?

    Plot twist: Universal is the porn company.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Cory of PC (profile), Nov 30th, 2012 @ 10:30am

    I don't know... I remember seeing a different porn parody of Twilight out there... and that was parodying Twilight directly. And I do remember it was part of a joke: "It's a better love story than Twilight."

    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 chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Desco (profile), Nov 30th, 2012 @ 10:38am

    Title??

    One of the hallmarks of "porn parody movies" is they change the name to a 3rd-grade-clever rhyming pun like "Schindler's Fist", "Bonin' the Barbarian", "Ate Men Out", "Cockodile Dundee", "Hairy Peter Made the Philosopher Moan", etc, etc. Universal might have an argument since they called it "Fifty Shades of Grey" and acknowledged it is "A XXX Adaptation" of the books.

    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 chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Baldaur Regis (profile), Nov 30th, 2012 @ 10:45am

    By lifting exact dialogue, characters, events, story, and style from the Fifty Shades Trilogy...
    So. Lawyers for Universal Studios are asserting that porn directors actually read their source material. They assert that a porn movie - a porn movie - runs over two and a half hours. They further put forth the baffling idea that a porno can contain scripted dialogue.

    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 chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    MahaliaShere (profile), Nov 30th, 2012 @ 11:12am

    It's all right for one entity to remix already existing ideas, package and resell them, but anyone else doing the same? Copyright. Infringement.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Watchit (profile), Nov 30th, 2012 @ 11:25am

    It's not like they're competing with Universal directly... unless Universal studios has been making porn and no one told me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Nov 30th, 2012 @ 12:48pm

    Universal is just mad that someone else made the kind of adaption that they wouldn't have the guts to do themselves.

    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 chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 30th, 2012 @ 1:25pm

    Man, this is excellent news! I can't wait to take a trip to Universal Studios Florida. That 50 Shades ride... Wow!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 30th, 2012 @ 3:12pm

    Mike, why are you referring to the porn movie as a parody?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 1st, 2012 @ 9:15am

    Would be funny if Smash claimed they actually came across the *original* fanfic several years ago and had been working on adapting it for a movie loong before 50 Shades came out... lol

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    dina, Dec 3rd, 2012 @ 9:08am

    Lol. The porn parody's dialogue is actually better than the original! haha.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Chris Forsyth, Dec 18th, 2012 @ 12:10am

    teal-deer version--Universal gets mad because someone else makes a better film adaptation of fanfic porn than they did.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This