If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Misquotin' Faulkner? That's a lawsuit   (cnn.com) divider line 45
    More: Silly, William Faulkner, Midnight in Paris, American novel, King James Bible, University of Mississippi, Raymond Chandler, F. Scott Fitzgerald  
•       •       •

5317 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Nov 2012 at 4:34 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



45 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-10 04:06:45 PM
Mosquiton?
media.animevice.com
 
2012-11-10 04:35:00 PM
This lawsuit is a fish.
 
2012-11-10 04:37:58 PM
No one's "got stress"...they're "wearing a dress." God damn, I hate people who get the words wrong.

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-10 04:38:00 PM
" God gave us the gift of life; it is up to us to give ourselves the gift of living well." Faulkner
 
2012-11-10 04:38:35 PM
well, I'll get the firestorm started:

Faulkner sucks.
 
2012-11-10 04:38:51 PM
That's my favorite Faulkner work--The Sound and the Jury.
 
2012-11-10 04:38:52 PM
This lawsuit is a bullshiat attempt to get money from a quick settlement. De minimis applies here. fark the money-hungry lawyers running Faulkner's estate. The man himself would probably agree with me.
 
2012-11-10 04:39:55 PM
As a person who greatly respects the hard work of novelists of all sorts, this is completely retarded.
 
2012-11-10 04:40:49 PM
Woah! It's a good job Woody Allen has never made a film with endless references to an earlier film, perhaps using a misquotation from that former film as a title...
www.movieposter.com
 
2012-11-10 04:42:50 PM
Copyright law is just insane. The quotation is over sixty years old. Intellectual property law was never intended to be a permanent grant of rights to the creator, only a temporary one so that they had the first crack at profiting from their works.
 
2012-11-10 04:48:40 PM
"It puzzles me that people think size matters," he says.

Enough said.
 
2012-11-10 04:48:58 PM

Sum Dum Gai: Copyright law is just insane. The quotation is over sixty years old. Intellectual property law was never intended to be a permanent grant of rights to the creator, only a temporary one so that they had the first crack at profiting from their works.


What's even more ridiculous is that one of the biggest backers of the insanely extended time for copyright is citing back "Fair Use, lol." You can't have it both ways, jackholes.
 
2012-11-10 04:54:22 PM
To be or not to be: that's the farking situation.
 
2012-11-10 05:02:26 PM
A Faulkner worthy of high esteem:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-11-10 05:12:10 PM
Faulk them.
 
2012-11-10 05:14:41 PM
I first read that as "Misquotin' farker, that's a lawsuit"
 
2012-11-10 05:15:27 PM
So they're claiming that Faulkner's estate owns the copyright on a sentence that Faulkner didn't write?
 
2012-11-10 05:25:50 PM

DammitIForgotMyLogin: So they're claiming that Faulkner's estate owns the copyright on a sentence that Faulkner didn't write?


Far as I can tell, Faulkner never wrote any literature at all.

/my mother is not a fish
 
2012-11-10 05:28:41 PM
So the estate of an author virtually nobody reads is suing over a line in a movie practically nobody saw because they misquoted a line from a work absolutely nobody has ever heard of?

We need to revise our definition of "attention whore".
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-11-10 05:40:31 PM
In copyright law loser pays winner's attorneys. The next half million sales of Faulkner's works could go to pay legal fees.
 
2012-11-10 06:01:15 PM

DammitIForgotMyLogin: So they're claiming that Faulkner's estate owns the copyright on a sentence that Faulkner didn't write?


There's your opening and closing argument to the jury.
 
2012-11-10 06:22:39 PM
It's really difficult to decide who to root for in this case. Is there any scenario in which they both lose?
 
2012-11-10 06:32:33 PM
"I may not be perfect, but parts of me are excellent." - Ashleigh Brilliant
 
2012-11-10 06:56:54 PM
Presumably, everything everyone says here on Fark is completely protected in perpetuity by the Drew Curtis Literary Rights organization. Because I would just hate to be misquoted from this site long after I'm dead.
 
2012-11-10 06:57:10 PM
They must be deeply disturbed and in the mood to pay some legal fees for suing over this.
 
2012-11-10 07:02:30 PM
Faulkner Literary Rights ... sued representatives of Woody Allen's "Midnight in Paris" for misquoting the famous line

I have a quotation from Mohandas Gandhi in response:

"Go fark yourselves, you useless greedy pricks."
 
2012-11-10 07:08:41 PM
counteract-magazine.com
 
2012-11-10 07:28:27 PM
Copyright and IP lawyers are the worst kind of scum. They only really work for big publishing firms who paid the author a pittance for the "rights" and the little guy who actually created the work usually gets jack.

They contribute nothing to the economy or society.
 
2012-11-10 07:29:22 PM
"I can't read". D.L. Faulkner
 
2012-11-10 07:32:16 PM
Faulkner!?

I never touched her!
 
2012-11-10 08:12:15 PM
Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean it isn't literature, folks.
 
2012-11-10 09:08:17 PM
Some of his best known works, such as "The Sound and the Fury"

OMG misquoting Shakespeare!!1!
 
2012-11-10 09:36:14 PM
"he adds, 'If Woody could have written something better, I'm sure he would have.'"

For. The. Win.
 
2012-11-10 10:08:39 PM

Saberus Terras: Sum Dum Gai: Copyright law is just insane. The quotation is over sixty years old. Intellectual property law was never intended to be a permanent grant of rights to the creator, only a temporary one so that they had the first crack at profiting from their works.

What's even more ridiculous is that one of the biggest backers of the insanely extended time for copyright is citing back "Fair Use, lol." You can't have it both ways, jackholes.


Remember, it's only "fair use" if the big movie companies do it.
 
2012-11-10 10:41:27 PM

Gyrfalcon: an author virtually nobody reads


A nobody putting down good, well-known authors while calling people "attention whores" is the very zenith of self-unaware irony.

At least you do something well.
 
2012-11-10 11:15:41 PM
"Misquotin' Faulkner" sounds like one of those bad pieces of replacement dialogue a la "melon farmer". Almost as hard to believably use in a sentence, though.
 
2012-11-10 11:47:15 PM

James F. Campbell: This lawsuit is a bullshiat attempt to get money from a quick settlement. De minimis applies here. fark the money-hungry lawyers running Faulkner's estate. The man himself would probably agree with me.


I rather suspect it's more an attempt to get people to buy Faulkner's works - in this case, Requiem for a Nun. The lawsuit - frivolous or not (and I agree that it is, since many people quote Faulkner and other authors) - puts the book and author back in the view of the general public. A lawsuit will generate some income, yes, but book sales have the potential to generate more over time when you consider that many of us who read prolifically tend to buy entire catalogs of authors whose work we enjoy. Considering that Faulkner is a "classic" author who many younger readers (read: readers below, say, 25) may be unfamiliar with, the lawsuit has the potential to bring an entirely new generation of readers Faulkner's way, thus enriching his estate (and by extension, his lawyers).

Really, win or lose, it's brilliant - if asinine - marketing.
 
2012-11-11 01:10:01 AM

James F. Campbell: This lawsuit is a bullshiat attempt to get money from a quick settlement. De minimis applies here. fark the money-hungry lawyers running Faulkner's estate. The man himself would probably agree with me.


No, he agrees with _me_. I don't know yet what on, though.
 
2012-11-11 02:05:06 AM
"Nothing is as dangerous as an unemployed lawyer." - Solomon Short
 
2012-11-11 03:08:34 AM

PiperArrow: It's really difficult to decide who to root for in this case. Is there any scenario in which they both lose?


Faulkner's estate are being much worse than Sony here. I am fully aware of their past evils, none of which change the fact that they are entirely right about this one. Additionally, if it does go to court then they have the resources to win the case and set a useful precedent for others.

Besides, I've never known Sony Pictures to use copyright claims to stop people from using quoted lines or stills from their films in reviews or commentary, which is in principle what Faulkner's estate is trying to do to them.
 
2012-11-11 03:19:02 AM

Aigoo: James F. Campbell: This lawsuit is a bullshiat attempt to get money from a quick settlement. De minimis applies here. fark the money-hungry lawyers running Faulkner's estate. The man himself would probably agree with me.

I rather suspect it's more an attempt to get people to buy Faulkner's works - in this case, Requiem for a Nun. The lawsuit - frivolous or not (and I agree that it is, since many people quote Faulkner and other authors) - puts the book and author back in the view of the general public. A lawsuit will generate some income, yes, but book sales have the potential to generate more over time when you consider that many of us who read prolifically tend to buy entire catalogs of authors whose work we enjoy. Considering that Faulkner is a "classic" author who many younger readers (read: readers below, say, 25) may be unfamiliar with, the lawsuit has the potential to bring an entirely new generation of readers Faulkner's way, thus enriching his estate (and by extension, his lawyers).

Really, win or lose, it's brilliant - if asinine - marketing.


Yes, because I'm going to go out and buy a book from a company that tries to extort money. I have a mind to just grab a torrent of Faulkner's works--except I've never liked his writing.
 
2012-11-11 08:51:17 AM

Gordon Bennett: PiperArrow: It's really difficult to decide who to root for in this case. Is there any scenario in which they both lose?

Faulkner's estate are being much worse than Sony here. I am fully aware of their past evils, none of which change the fact that they are entirely right about this one. Additionally, if it does go to court then they have the resources to win the case and set a useful precedent for others.

Besides, I've never known Sony Pictures to use copyright claims to stop people from using quoted lines or stills from their films in reviews or commentary, which is in principle what Faulkner's estate is trying to do to them.


I meant Woody Allen or the estate.
 
2012-11-11 09:46:44 AM
Well, you know what they say:
www.geekosystem.com
 
2012-11-11 01:38:10 PM
When, oh when, will someone sue the Tea Party for misquoting the Bible???
 
2012-11-11 03:14:52 PM

PiperArrow: Gordon Bennett: PiperArrow: It's really difficult to decide who to root for in this case. Is there any scenario in which they both lose?

Faulkner's estate are being much worse than Sony here. I am fully aware of their past evils, none of which change the fact that they are entirely right about this one. Additionally, if it does go to court then they have the resources to win the case and set a useful precedent for others.

Besides, I've never known Sony Pictures to use copyright claims to stop people from using quoted lines or stills from their films in reviews or commentary, which is in principle what Faulkner's estate is trying to do to them.

I meant Woody Allen or the estate.


Oh. That is different.

Woody Allen should simply tell them to Faulk off.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report