Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Friday, February 23, 2018
New Lawsuit Claims “The Shape Of Water” Ripped Off A 1969 Play
www.fastcompany.com: The Shape of Water has the most Academy Award nominations this year with 13, including Best Picture. Now, just in time for Oscar voting, a new lawsuit could threaten the film’s chances.
Copyright is possibly one of the biggest issues that face playwrights today. I remember when I was in high school, my teacher told her playwriting students to do the “poor man’s copyright,” which is where you save a copy of your work in a sealed envelope and send it to yourself so that you’ll have a stamped date and a sealed letter in case the question of your ownership ever came to the surface. For a movie this large and impactful, it seems very dumb to me that production organizations wouldn’t do their research on what is allowed to happen in this movie because fear of a lawsuit is always looming. I think it’s much harder to copyright ideas, but if Let me Hear you Whisper had copyrighted specific things, which this article says they have, then the Shape of Water needs to submit to those fines and rights. This could also just be a scheme to popularize the play, Let Me Hear you Whisper, but I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
To say that no creative piece of anything hasn't taken themes, ideas, or even characters is a lie and obtuse. The play that "Shape of Water" has supposedly ripped off was published in 1969, not anywhere close to when "Shape of Water" began it's pre production. I am pleased to read that Fox Searchlight is strongly defending its film: "These claims from Mr. Zindel’s estate are baseless, wholly without merit, and we will be filing a motion to dismiss. Furthermore, the estate’s complaint seems timed to coincide with the Academy Award voting cycle in order to pressure our studio to quickly settle. Instead, we will vigorously defend ourselves and, by extension, this groundbreaking and original film.” Oftentimes film studios, in order to block bad publicity, will immediately settle with those who are suing them. Not Fox Searchlight, though, they are standing behind their film and the creative team behind it.
While I greatly enjoyed The Shape of Water and am a big fan of Guillermo Del Toro’s movies, I would hardly call the plot of this movie “groundbreaking and original”. I remember thinking as soon as I left the theater that while I appreciated the beautiful art direction and design of the world in the movie, the storyline seemed like a slight variation on nearly every fairy tale story I know. Yet copyright issues and the notions of “he said, he said” as the article states are extremely murky and complicated ones. Before copyright laws even existed, technically everything belonged to the “creative commons”. I understand the right to claim a piece that you created as your own, but it’s interesting that a simple trademark or piece of paper stands between the kind of borrowing, reshaping, remixing, and reforming that has been going on amongst people with their art, music, writing, etc. for thousands and thousands of years.
While it is interesting that a similar story was told in this play, they seem different enough that to claim copyright infringement is rather absurd. Throughout all of human history stories have been told and readapted throughout the ages. Many accused Shakespeare of stealing the idea for Romeo and Juliet from Italian playwright when he was living in Italy. The story of King Arthur draws similarities to Hercules and Achilles stories of ancient Greece. The Lion King is effectively Hamlet with animals. Avatar is Pocahontas in outer space (John Smith and Jake Sully - James Cameron barely tried with that one). One of the reasons Star Wars is considered so successful is that George Lucas had studied Joseph Campbell's writings on the mythical hero and how certain themes of stories had always persisted throughout the generations. Lucas crafted Star Wars around these themes, and that is why it resonated with so many people. In the same way, Del Toro’s film draws on similar themes of humans wanting to explore relations with curious creatures and the unknown. This is a tale as old as time, because this story and this idea are timeless. Nearly every movie or story we see today is inspired in part by a story that came before it. C.S. Lewis literally “ripped off” the Bible with his Chronicles of Narnia story. Even a very unique movie like Interstellar that is an original story, draws heavily upon Kubrick’s 2001 A Space Odyssey and Tarkovsky’s Solaris. The point is that although Shape of Water is a similar story to the play, the differences are stark enough that the thought of copyright infringement is far fetched. It would set a precedent that would make many movies and stories subject to copyright infringement.
I love Guillermo del Toro and think his directing is beautiful but there is not a new story story under the sun. Intellectual property is a slippery slope. There are probably only about 4 or 5 plots if every movie plot is condensed to its furthest point. How do we properly prosecute issues of intellectual property when no one is original whatsoever anymore. Ultimately we all tell stories about the human experience. It is the human experience to fall in love with people we shouldn't and to want to rescue those who are in danger. A sea monster is not inherently different or original, in fact it is pretty derivative. How was del Toro supposed to copyright his idea at the ripe age of 7? I think the more we think about art and the originality we as a society need to define what stealing someones intellectual property actually is.
It’s always interesting when intellectual property claims pop up surrounding the big movies or songs of the year, because ultimately the little guy will just be washed out by the crazy successful movie regardless of the validity of the claims being made. To be totally fair, the similarities between the play and the movie seem uncanny, but there is always a chance that the creators of The Shape of Water had no idea about the little play, despite it being aired on A&E. I mean, I have way more time on my hands to be watching television and I had no idea it was happening, so why would Hollywood directors and producers? In all earnest, I hope Shape of Water does well in award season as it was one of my favorite films of the year and del Toro is a brilliant artist with an even greater career ahead of him.
What an interesting read! Whenever an issue like this about copyrighting, and especially about copyrighting something that many audience members really loved, comes up in the news, I am always a little bit torn about which "side" to choose. On one hand, Guillermo del Toro's "Shape of Water" was very beautiful and spoke to a lot of people. On the other hand, as Lily commented above, there was not a lot about the story that the film aimed to tell that was very original, whether copyrighting was really an issue or not. After seeing "Shape of Water" myself earlier this year, I walked out of the theatre a little shaky from all of the extreme violence and torture that the film depicted, especially at the end of the movie, but also a little confused on why I had just sat through that story. The design of the film was beautiful, and I really do not think that there is much truth to this copyrighting fiasco, but I will be very interested to see how the film does at the Oscars!
7 comments:
Copyright is possibly one of the biggest issues that face playwrights today. I remember when I was in high school, my teacher told her playwriting students to do the “poor man’s copyright,” which is where you save a copy of your work in a sealed envelope and send it to yourself so that you’ll have a stamped date and a sealed letter in case the question of your ownership ever came to the surface. For a movie this large and impactful, it seems very dumb to me that production organizations wouldn’t do their research on what is allowed to happen in this movie because fear of a lawsuit is always looming. I think it’s much harder to copyright ideas, but if Let me Hear you Whisper had copyrighted specific things, which this article says they have, then the Shape of Water needs to submit to those fines and rights. This could also just be a scheme to popularize the play, Let Me Hear you Whisper, but I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
To say that no creative piece of anything hasn't taken themes, ideas, or even characters is a lie and obtuse. The play that "Shape of Water" has supposedly ripped off was published in 1969, not anywhere close to when "Shape of Water" began it's pre production. I am pleased to read that Fox Searchlight is strongly defending its film: "These claims from Mr. Zindel’s estate are baseless, wholly without merit, and we will be filing a motion to dismiss. Furthermore, the estate’s complaint seems timed to coincide with the Academy Award voting cycle in order to pressure our studio to quickly settle. Instead, we will vigorously defend ourselves and, by extension, this groundbreaking and original film.” Oftentimes film studios, in order to block bad publicity, will immediately settle with those who are suing them. Not Fox Searchlight, though, they are standing behind their film and the creative team behind it.
While I greatly enjoyed The Shape of Water and am a big fan of Guillermo Del Toro’s movies, I would hardly call the plot of this movie “groundbreaking and original”. I remember thinking as soon as I left the theater that while I appreciated the beautiful art direction and design of the world in the movie, the storyline seemed like a slight variation on nearly every fairy tale story I know. Yet copyright issues and the notions of “he said, he said” as the article states are extremely murky and complicated ones. Before copyright laws even existed, technically everything belonged to the “creative commons”. I understand the right to claim a piece that you created as your own, but it’s interesting that a simple trademark or piece of paper stands between the kind of borrowing, reshaping, remixing, and reforming that has been going on amongst people with their art, music, writing, etc. for thousands and thousands of years.
While it is interesting that a similar story was told in this play, they seem different enough that to claim copyright infringement is rather absurd. Throughout all of human history stories have been told and readapted throughout the ages. Many accused Shakespeare of stealing the idea for Romeo and Juliet from Italian playwright when he was living in Italy. The story of King Arthur draws similarities to Hercules and Achilles stories of ancient Greece. The Lion King is effectively Hamlet with animals. Avatar is Pocahontas in outer space (John Smith and Jake Sully - James Cameron barely tried with that one). One of the reasons Star Wars is considered so successful is that George Lucas had studied Joseph Campbell's writings on the mythical hero and how certain themes of stories had always persisted throughout the generations. Lucas crafted Star Wars around these themes, and that is why it resonated with so many people. In the same way, Del Toro’s film draws on similar themes of humans wanting to explore relations with curious creatures and the unknown. This is a tale as old as time, because this story and this idea are timeless. Nearly every movie or story we see today is inspired in part by a story that came before it. C.S. Lewis literally “ripped off” the Bible with his Chronicles of Narnia story. Even a very unique movie like Interstellar that is an original story, draws heavily upon Kubrick’s 2001 A Space Odyssey and Tarkovsky’s Solaris. The point is that although Shape of Water is a similar story to the play, the differences are stark enough that the thought of copyright infringement is far fetched. It would set a precedent that would make many movies and stories subject to copyright infringement.
I love Guillermo del Toro and think his directing is beautiful but there is not a new story story under the sun. Intellectual property is a slippery slope. There are probably only about 4 or 5 plots if every movie plot is condensed to its furthest point. How do we properly prosecute issues of intellectual property when no one is original whatsoever anymore.
Ultimately we all tell stories about the human experience. It is the human experience to fall in love with people we shouldn't and to want to rescue those who are in danger. A sea monster is not inherently different or original, in fact it is pretty derivative. How was del Toro supposed to copyright his idea at the ripe age of 7?
I think the more we think about art and the originality we as a society need to define what stealing someones intellectual property actually is.
It’s always interesting when intellectual property claims pop up surrounding the big movies or songs of the year, because ultimately the little guy will just be washed out by the crazy successful movie regardless of the validity of the claims being made. To be totally fair, the similarities between the play and the movie seem uncanny, but there is always a chance that the creators of The Shape of Water had no idea about the little play, despite it being aired on A&E. I mean, I have way more time on my hands to be watching television and I had no idea it was happening, so why would Hollywood directors and producers? In all earnest, I hope Shape of Water does well in award season as it was one of my favorite films of the year and del Toro is a brilliant artist with an even greater career ahead of him.
What an interesting read! Whenever an issue like this about copyrighting, and especially about copyrighting something that many audience members really loved, comes up in the news, I am always a little bit torn about which "side" to choose. On one hand, Guillermo del Toro's "Shape of Water" was very beautiful and spoke to a lot of people. On the other hand, as Lily commented above, there was not a lot about the story that the film aimed to tell that was very original, whether copyrighting was really an issue or not. After seeing "Shape of Water" myself earlier this year, I walked out of the theatre a little shaky from all of the extreme violence and torture that the film depicted, especially at the end of the movie, but also a little confused on why I had just sat through that story. The design of the film was beautiful, and I really do not think that there is much truth to this copyrighting fiasco, but I will be very interested to see how the film does at the Oscars!
Post a Comment