The Insanity Of Making A 'Wizard Of Oz' Film In Today's IP Climate
from the goodbye,-yellow-brick-road dept
It's always tough to root for the underdog when neither of the involved parties deserves that title. So, rather than pick one, we'll just discuss the overweening ridiculousness of copyright law. It's a subject that never goes out of style, thanks to our legislators' willingness to continually extend copyright protection terms.
As was covered much earlier in the year, Disney is producing its own "Wizard of Oz" movie, titled "Oz the Great and Powerful." While Frank L. Baum's books are definitely in the public domain, filmed depictions of Baum's characters are mainly the property of Warner Bros. WB attempted to head off this incursion into its domain by filing a trademark application on "The Great and Powerful Oz," but it was a week too late and is now (presumably) several billion dollars short (H'Wood mathematics, yo).
Having failed to block Disney's entry into the Oz arena, Warner has now busied itself with watching each development for any slip-up that could land it a tasty settlement -- or an injunction. To that end, Disney has placed its own legal team on the set to ensure that none of the characters or elements in the Disney film bear too much resemblance to Warner's property. The sheer amount of highly detailed micromanagement needed to avoid the rights holder's litigious wrath borders on OCD-hellish insanity.
Striving for a visage different from the one Margaret Hamilton made famous, Howard Berger, an Oscar-winning makeup artist, “was finally able to come up with a shade of green which satisfied Disney’s legal team,” SlashFilm.com reported after a visit to the set. According to Disney’s production notes Mr. Berger named his custom color Theostein — a conflation of the witch’s name before she turns wicked, and Frankenstein.When something as minimal as a move left or right on the Pantone chart could potentially trigger some legal action, you know you've reached some sort of watershed mark in IP protection. It's highly doubtful our founding fathers had a "shade of green that satisfies a legal team" in mind when they set about trying to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts."
Nor were they particularly concerned with innovative hairdos.
About 40 dwarfs were cast in “Oz the Great and Powerful” as Munchkins... They still have weird hair, but Disney lawyers nixed at least one style as too similar to one from the original movie. It was tweaked in postproduction using computers.True, there are many things the founding fathers couldn't possibly have considered over two hundred years ago, but what's going on here is resembles nothing more than gerrymandering Baum's legacy in order to avoid a costly turf war -- over something that should be in the public domain.
It's a rare day when you find yourself commiserating with one of the biggest IP thugs of all -- Disney. Baum's original work is now a minefield, and anyone hoping to utilize this public domain title now has to contend with a powerful legal team protecting a 74-year-old film. But, I suppose, if you're going to choose someone to walk across an IP minefield, it might as well be Disney. It makes perfect karmic sense.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, frank l. baum, lawyers, oz the great and powerful, public domain, wizard of oz
Companies: disney, warner bros.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I hope Warner still finds something..
This is just PERFECT!
To everyone who thinks copyright works as it is...
Well...
This article is pretty much proof that it's broken.
You don't need any other examples, just this one.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I hope Warner still finds something..
You are both wrong. It's all perfectly fit with [insert name of founding father that was a lawyer here]'s ideal of a better world for his profession colleagues. The lawyers earned a lot of money so clearly copyright works fine. Freetard.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I hope Warner still finds something..
You mean the lawyers getting paid to comb through all this on both sides? Hell they don't even have to go to court. Plus if there is a hairdo they think should be changed, they have the power of "copyright" to tell the directors, producers, and hair stylists how to do the Munchkin's hair!
Since when is copyright about letting lawyers have control over culture works?!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I hope Warner still finds something..
Let them Eat Each Other Up !
Unleash the Dogs of War.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Fact!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Again, if hampers duplicating crap, what's the down side?
Heck, I could argue that copyright tends to force innovation because duplicating old crap is too complex.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again, if hampers duplicating crap, what's the down side?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Again, if hampers duplicating crap, what's the down side?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again, if hampers duplicating crap, what's the down side?
Of course now you realize that ours is a stupid argument. Sacrificing basic rights for the sake of a potential advantage for a small segment of the population is not something we should be aiming for.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again, if hampers duplicating crap, what's the down side?
You could argue that the Earth is the center of the Universe too...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again, if hampers duplicating crap, what's the down side?
> innovation because duplicating old crap is too complex.
Please tell me why it is then that so much Hollywood product is remakes of sequels of remakes of decades old TV shows?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Again, if hampers duplicating crap, what's the down side?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
because they own a copyrestrict they don't need to innovate?
but everyone else must be forced to?
everything's wrong with this picture
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
here let me see, open photoshop and pick a green that's slightly more gray than the last green
oh buddy, that's some serious innovation right there
hey, what happens when everyone's already claimed a shade of green? and when everyone's claimed a shade of every color in the spectrum?
let me guess: innovate by making/using colors the human eye can't see
i'm getting a shade of Ultraviolet copyrestricted in advance, i better not be seeing anyone using it
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again, if hampers duplicating crap, what's the down side?
Disney has been duplicating Mickey Mouse for ages, if they didn't have copyright protection they would have had to constantly make new characters to stay ahead of the curve as people re-imagine their old stuff they need to stay original, current and relevant.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again, if hampers duplicating crap, what's the down side?
You're welcome.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again, if hampers duplicating crap, what's the down side?
A key concept in innovation is doing something new, better, or more efficiently.
Having graphic artists redoing a dwarf's hair is not efficient. They could be working on some awesome special effects shot or working on a better movie.
Having lawyers sit around a movie set to nix director decisions is not efficient. The lawyers could be more efficient by, oh, dying at the bottom of the ocean or something.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again, if hampers duplicating crap, what's the down side?
'Innovation' that forces a new shade of green, now THAT'S what the world needs more of.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
here let me see, open photoshop and pick a green that's slightly more gray than the last green
oh buddy, that's some serious innovation right there
hey, what happens when everyone's already claimed a shade of green? and when everyone's claimed a shade of every color in the spectrum?
let me guess: innovate by making/using colors the human eye can't see
i'm getting a shade of Ultraviolet copyrestricted in advance, i better not be seeing anyone using it
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again, if hampers duplicating crap, what's the down side?
The comedy value is getting better at last!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
So many fitting parables...
You made your bed, now lay in it.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So many fitting parables...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes. And the Supreme Court upheld the extensions.
Welcome to the United States of Steamboat Willie.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Heaven forbid
Heck, if it was me, I'd be trying to get in on the deal and re-release the original and encourage setting up double features.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Heaven forbid
That would be not only sensible but EPIC and could generate tons of money out of a 74-yr-old movie. That's why it's not happening. Instead file sharers will be sued for downloading the old version to check out and remember it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Heaven forbid
"But..But...If they are not a member of your immediate family it is a public screening that we did not authorize. Arrest them officer, and their little dog too."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Heaven forbid
Oh, and I have no doubt they will do some form of updated release of the original, even if it's not necessarily theatrical. They're just greedy and want income from both sides.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Why *should* we commiserate with Disney?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why *should* we commiserate with Disney?
http://threewordphrase.com/bed.htm
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
All the hassle and legal fees involved in getting around their own monster of greatly extended copyright terms can't possibly be as much money as they earn from Mickey Mouse these days.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I didn't have the heart to tell him about Rule 34.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Look! The makeup industry is totally reliant on IP to make money! Some grocery stores sell makeup, so we can add them to the list...oh, wait, they are already on it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Bob on Mar 6th, 2013 @ 10:58am
And I think that Disney is playing with fire with having a green skinned, black dress and pointy hat wearing wicked witch of the west. That's very different from the witch in the original books, and while much of that is roman a clef witch stuff, all together in the context of a movie about the land of Oz, it's dangerous. I would not have advised them to go ahead with that.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Bob on Mar 6th, 2013 @ 10:58am
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
SPOILERS!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Remakes, remakes, remakes...
Because really...How many times does "The Wizard of Oz" need to be redone???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptations_of_The_Wizard_of_Oz
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Remakes, remakes, remakes...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Remakes, remakes, remakes...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
An additional bit of irony
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130305/ENT02/303050378/1034/ent02/MPAA-chief-atten d-Oz-screening-Royal-Oak
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An additional bit of irony
This film was shot mostly at a Pontiac, MI sound stage.
I would like see a full report on the impact to the local economy along with the overall profit/loss sheet for this movie a year from now.
I want to know if any of my tax dollars were given as incentives to shoot this movie in my state and whether they were worth it or not. I highly doubt it will be since none of the local businesses that I have contact with were even aware they were filming this movie.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
This is one reason they are spending so much time remaking remakes.
Personally, I'm not going to a remake. I already know how it ends. Special effects and computer graphics do not tell or make the story.
It's just another method to increase the costs so that the movie never breaks even, with all that creative accounting.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Wicked (the musical) walks the same tightrope
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong Baum Book
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
The book itself is in the public domain, but visual elements particular to the 1939 movie are still under copyright, thanks to Disney!
You can see a 4-part comic book adaptation of the original novel issued in 1956 (when the book went into public domain) at this blog...
http://atocom.blogspot.com/2013/03/reading-room-wizard-of-oz-part-1.html
...and follow the links for the rest of the story.
You'll see...
...how the movie combined several different characters (the Good Witches of the North and South and the Queen of the Mice) into Glinda the Good Witch!
...plot points, incidents (like attacks by wolves and bees sent by the Wicked Witch), and races like Quadlings and Winkies left out of the movie!
...different visuals for the characters (The Wicked Witch of the West is short, has only one eye, and needs a magic cap to control the flying monkeys)!
BTW, the adaptation concludes on Thursday.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
They give the body but keep the soul
I get that, legally, Disney can make the perfectly reasonable argument that they're basing it off the book (which is in the public domain), just like the one Warner Bros made back when dinosaurs walked the earth, so they're in the clear on that.
But under what bizzaro, Twilight Zone, parallel dimensional logic does a company get to claim all rights to filmed depictions of characters from a book which has been freed into the wild blue public domain?
Wouldn't it make more sense if a body of work enters the public domain, it should enter entirely. Not this "oh, you get the body, but we get to keep the soul for Infinity-1 years" silliness.
The only semi-plausible argument I could see being made here is that people could mix up Disney's version of the characters with WB's version of the characters from TWWOz, and that seems like a rather weak argument to make.
Could anyone who has a better insight on this legalese logic please explain it to me?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They give the body but keep the soul
But put her in a movie now and people will wonder why she doesn't look like the green witch. But copying the green witch would infringe, since any original material in a derivative work (such as a different visual appearance for characters in a movie as opposed to the original book) is copyrightable.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They give the body but keep the soul
Visual elements unique to the 1939 movie version including...
Ruby Slippers
Green Wicked Witch
Anthropomorphic Lion
Makeup designs for Scarecrow/TinMan/Munchkins, etc.
are copyrighted (and now trademarked, since they're on a variety of licensed merchandise).
Using similar designs is a violation.
Doing designs based on the original OZ book illos is NOT a copyright or trademark violation!
It's like the situation with Frankenstein, Dracula,and several other monsters.
The original stories are public domain.
However, the makeup/visuals created for the 1930s-40s Universal movies are so imbedded in our pop culture, that it's hard (but hardly impossible) to do a Frankenstein or Dracula movie/tv show/comic without infringing on Universal's copyrights or trademarks.
For example, look at Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula" for a successful "re-do".
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
This is perfect
It's as farcical as DVD's that always come with the legal warning that things said by the actors, etc. are not necessarily the views of the studio. The entertainment business would be far better of if all the lawyers were removed and they focused on creating the best entertainment.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is perfect
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I am making the assumpion that neither will be public domain... ever, as this seems to be the way things are going.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
So kind of them
I will be thinking of them warmly as I stream the pirated copies of both movies.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
"IP"
The phrase "intellectual property" and its acronym "IP", while that latter may have the virtue of brevity in comparison to the phrase "copyrights and patents" (or "copyright and patent" as appropriate) cedes too much territory to the maximalists.
Government-granted monopolies are not property, no matter how many times the lie is repeated. At least those of us who revere the original purpose of copyrights and patents (both under the U.S. Constitution and in the original British instantiations of the modern notions, the Law of Queen Anne and the Statue on Monopolies of 1648) and abhor their corruption by rent-seeking publishers, movies studies, patent trolls and the like, can stop repeating the lie and stop using the phrase "intellectual property" or "IP" except when quoting others. And when we quote them, if at all convenient to the flow of our rhetoric, we should follow with a deconstruction of the notion of "IP" as a corruption of the purpose of copyrights and patents.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Just think about the hoops the next movie will have to jump through
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just think about the hoops the next movie will have to jump through
Why?
The witches, as shown in the original books, aren't green!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Just kidding.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't get high hopes they're still friends
But, altrough somewhat ironic, this is really not that big deal. The Wizard of Oz became an IP minefield, sure, but Disney has the money the hire an army of lawyers larger than the US Army, so if anyone can handle this, they can!
And these two giants won't even sue eachother I'm sure about that! The WB probably does this nit-picking (as always) in hopes that they can force Disney to some kind of settlement. If they will see that their lawyers cost more than the settlement they hope for, they will stop, and if Disney will see that their lawyers cost more than the possible settlement they will settle.
This cannibalistic behavior of a big studio is new and somewhat ironic, but don't get high hopes, they will become best friends again when it comes to lobbying for even stricter IP laws. They will still remain IP maximalists.
It's not a big deal to them if sometimes they stumble into the very IP minefield they themselves laid: they own it's map so they can navigate trough it safely!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
WB shouldn't have ANY say
Quick History: MGM made the film, then sold the rights to Turner Entertainment in 1986, who then merged with Time Warner in 1996.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
So a movie of Wicked is even harder to make now...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment
Add A Reply