"Goldmember" GONE as title for Austin Powers 3! (1 Viewer)

[Neil S. Bulk]

Didn't MGM release Spaceballs?

Hypocrites.

Neil

 

[Michael Reuben]

Wouldn't a parody be considered a criticism or comment? Any lawyers here?

Probably, and yes. But copyright law isn't the issue here.
To repeat: The decision is not a legal ruling by a court; it's a decision by a private industry association (the MPAA) by whose authority the member studios have agreed to abide. New Line could probably go to court and get a more favorable ruling, but courts just don't move fast enough to change the result in time for a summer 2002 release date.
More importantly, the sole basis for the ruling appears to be New Line's failure to follow procedural requirements. (The same thing can happen in court; miss a filing date and you can lose the case, even though you're right on all counts.) If New Line hadn't screwed up, the MPAA's previous ruling in a similar dispute suggests that it might well have sided with New Line. I have as little sympathy with New Line's poor job of defense as I have with MGM's assertion of the claim.
M.

 

[Luis A]

IMO MGM is making a stink about AP3 because now after two successful Austin Powers films they can try to make some money off the 3rd. I guess they figure New Line will not want to reshoot AP3, and will have to pay royalties.
L

 

[Seth Paxton]

I agree with Luis there.

Plus, studio politics at work.

I feel certain that NONE of this has to actually do with protecting the Bond franchise. Otherwise where was MGM's complaint MONTHS AGO when the knew the name? Obviously they sat on it till New Line might be put in a tight spot.

Only 2 reasons for that:

1) to fuck them or someone (Myers) involved with it for some actions taken against them previously (like canceling out of some projects)

2) to make money off them by banking on the fact that NL would pay them off to keep from major changes.

 

[Michael Reuben]

1) to fuck them or someone (Myers) involved with it for some actions taken against them previously (like canceling out of some projects)

Unlikely that they're striking at Myers, since MGM/UA is still after him to revive Inspector Clousseau.

M.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Well, Welles at Reel.com was speculating this for that very reason. That Myers had left them hanging already on the Pink Panther thing (and another project which I forget at the moment).

Not saying that's true, but clearly this isn't just "what, they are calling it what, why didn't someone tell us months ago, we have to stop that".

 

[Seth Paxton]

So how about the NEW real trailer for "Goldmember" sans any actual name?

Pretty impressive for New Line to get that adjusted on short notice.

I think the real footage we saw looks like pretty good Austin Powers fun. I remain hopeful that it will match the first 2 films since I enjoyed both quite a bit.

 

[Travis D]

Is that new trailer on the net anywhere?

I still like the titles, "For Your Thighs Only" and "On Her Majesty's Secret Cervix." But alas, MGM might bitch about those too.

 

[Wayne Bundrick]

I think the new title should be some kind of slam at MGM.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Yes, but since it appears that New Line could have used Goldmember if only they had done their paperwork correctly, why not go ahead and jump on some other harsh title and put it in MGMs face.

 

[Travis D]

A very funny idea someone on another forum had, was to keep the Golmember logo, but put a huge "CENSORED" sign over it. And whenever someone says the name Goldmember in the movie, have James Earl Jones dub something else in.

 

[Rob Lutter]

hehe... Travis that is great

 

[Morgan Jolley]

They could get 8 women to bend over, take a picture, and then call the movie "Octo-Booty"

I know...that was bad.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Oh man, that would be hilarious. I hope to god somewhere someone at New Line hears that idea.

That would get a huge buzz for the film too. Everyone loves controversy.

 

[bill lopez]

Remember the 60's cartoon Secret Squirrel. It had a villian called Yellow Pinky and he looked like Goldfinger to. And nothing happened then.

 

[Damin J Toell]

United States Code Title 17, Section 107 entitled "Fair Use" states, "The fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

Wouldn't a parody be considered a criticism or comment? Any lawyers here?

as Michael Ruben stated, this isn't a court action, it's MPAA arbitration. however, even if it was a court action, copyright law still wouldn't be at issue. instead, the relevant law would be Federal Trademark Law and other sorts of unfair business practice law. in these sorts of actions, copyright is generally not a consideration, as trade names are usually too brief and unoriginal to qualify for copyright protection. trademark law, however, would be the relevant concern and would most likely provide the protection that MGM is seeking. as such, no reference to the fair use provisions of the Federal Copyright Act of 1976 would be necessary or appropriate.

DJ

 

[Seth Paxton]

So how about the trailers that ran during the Super Bowl with the Goldmember stuff gone, AND REAL FOOTAGE.

I think the film looks to be pretty funny, along the same lines as the first 2. And Goldmember remains a character in the film without reworks.

My only worry is the girl from Destiny's Child.

BTW, apparently New Line has gone on record as saying the 3rd one will be the last one.

 

[Matt Stone]

Really...that is interesting. I'd figure everyone involved would want to milk this one as far as possible.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

The girl from Destiny's Child has talent for acting. I saw part of the MTV Hip-Hopera 'Carmen' that she was in and she wasn't that bad. Even if she sucks, she won't ruin the whole movie.

I'd figure everyone involved would want to milk this one as far as possible.

Mike Meyers was probably in charge of that decision.

 

[Damin J Toell]

a late response to this comment:

Didn't MGM release Spaceballs?
Hypocrites.

actually, MGM and Lucas came to an agreement prior to the film's release (no Spaceballs merchandising was allowed).
DJ