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.

(The Hollywood Reporter)   Universal Pictures sues film company for making a porn based on Fifty Shades of Grey   (hollywoodreporter.com) divider line 54
    More: Ironic, Mary Poppins, Focus Features, porn movies, adaptations, BDSM  
•       •       •

2514 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 29 Nov 2012 at 11:11 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-29 08:48:29 PM
Jeez, they could just have called it "69 Shades of Grey" without any legal problems.
 
2012-11-29 08:57:32 PM
Is the Dumbass tag bound and gagged? They do porn parody movies all the time. Just call it something slightly different.
 
2012-11-29 09:07:07 PM
Mary Poppkins in the tags? WTF are these guys on?
 
2012-11-29 09:22:45 PM
The only difference is I'd actually watch the porn version.
 
2012-11-29 11:08:31 PM

simplicimus: Mary Poppkins in the tags? WTF are these guys on?


Women, sometimes men.
 
2012-11-29 11:14:05 PM

RedPhoenix122: simplicimus: Mary Poppkins in the tags? WTF are these guys on?

Women, sometimes men.


Sounds like an interesting place to work.
 
2012-11-29 11:15:58 PM
What, they're upset that they were beaten off to the finish?
 
2012-11-29 11:16:44 PM
Pornception
 
2012-11-29 11:17:00 PM

Mangoose: The only difference is I'd actually watch the porn version.


well, the dialog in the porn could be more believable then the dialog in the novel
 
2012-11-29 11:18:17 PM
DNRA

Was it "50 Shades of Gay?"
 
2012-11-29 11:19:05 PM

eddievercetti: Pornception


Abraham lick 'em.
 
2012-11-29 11:24:44 PM
Whats to adapt? Its already porn isn't it?
 
2012-11-29 11:40:32 PM
It's a spoof and therefore not an infringement of the copyright.
 
2012-11-29 11:43:22 PM

Apos: It's a spoof and therefore not an infringement of the copyright.


IIRC, titles can not be copywritten.Maybe Trademarked?
 
2012-11-29 11:44:05 PM

loonatic112358: Mangoose: The only difference is I'd actually watch the porn version.

well, the dialog in the porn could be more believable then the dialog in the novel


There's dialog in porn?
 
2012-11-29 11:44:51 PM
This is why we can't have funny clever porn titles anymore. Whatever happened to Pump Fiction, Shaving Ryan's Privates, or Hairy Twatter? Now it's "Mainstream Property: The Porn Parody." Boo, I say. Boo.
 
2012-11-29 11:46:20 PM
i78.photobucket.com

"'Fifty Shades of Grey'? I should sue for THEM for name usage without permission AND a lack of imagination."
 
2012-11-29 11:46:55 PM

Trocadero: This is why we can't have funny clever porn titles anymore. Whatever happened to Pump Fiction, Shaving Ryan's Privates, or Hairy Twatter? Now it's "Mainstream Property: The Porn Parody." Boo, I say. Boo.


This thread should be about porn parody titles.
 
2012-11-29 11:50:08 PM

Mangoose: The only difference is I'd actually watch the porn version.


The truest words ever spoken.
 
2012-11-29 11:50:13 PM
Can we sue Universal Pictures for optioning the book to begin with?
 
2012-11-29 11:52:34 PM

simplicimus: Apos: It's a spoof and therefore not an infringement of the copyright.

IIRC, titles can not be copywritten.Maybe Trademarked?


Oh yeah. I always confuse the two.
 
2012-11-29 11:54:56 PM
I was always partial to Flesh Gordon.
 
2012-11-29 11:55:41 PM

RedPhoenix122: Trocadero: This is why we can't have funny clever porn titles anymore. Whatever happened to Pump Fiction, Shaving Ryan's Privates, or Hairy Twatter? Now it's "Mainstream Property: The Porn Parody." Boo, I say. Boo.

This thread should be about porn parody titles.


Well, Romancing the Bone has already been done. Anyone know if "Star Whores" has been done?
 
2012-11-30 12:10:32 AM
haven't read it but my impression was that it was porn anyways.. so a porn based on it wouldn't even be a spoof and therefore sue sue sue right?
 
2012-11-30 12:15:08 AM

diaphoresis: I was always partial to Flesh Gordon.


"Schindler's Fist" always makes me laugh.
 
2012-11-30 01:02:33 AM
I volunteer to be on the jury.
 
2012-11-30 01:16:19 AM

simplicimus: Mary Poppkins in the tags? WTF are these guys on?


Eating tooterfish sandwiches
 
2012-11-30 02:02:59 AM
Watched a parody of Fletch called Felch.
 
2012-11-30 02:15:22 AM

diaphoresis: I was always partial to Flesh Gordon.


That movie was a travesty.... and still better than 99.9% of Asylum's current output.
 
2012-11-30 03:35:09 AM
Is it possible the novel was written as an interpretation of the porn?
 
2012-11-30 03:54:18 AM

simplicimus: Jeez, they could just have called it "69 Shades of Grey" without any legal problems.


Already being used.
 
2012-11-30 03:57:42 AM

teto85: simplicimus: Jeez, they could just have called it "69 Shades of Grey" without any legal problems.

Already being used.


Really? How about "69 shades of Gray"?
 
2012-11-30 05:06:32 AM

simplicimus: RedPhoenix122: Trocadero: This is why we can't have funny clever porn titles anymore. Whatever happened to Pump Fiction, Shaving Ryan's Privates, or Hairy Twatter? Now it's "Mainstream Property: The Porn Parody." Boo, I say. Boo.

This thread should be about porn parody titles.

Well, Romancing the Bone has already been done. Anyone know if "Star Whores" has been done?

 

farm2.static.flickr.com
 
2012-11-30 07:08:05 AM

simplicimus: Mary Poppkins in the tags? WTF are these guys on?


Kelly Marcel (the director for the Universal version of 50 shades) also directed "Saving Mr. Banks", which was about Disney trying to get the film rights to Mary Poppins.
 
2012-11-30 07:13:32 AM
Big Trouble in Little Vagina
Unbearable Tightness of Boning
External Bunshine of the Hottest Behind
 
2012-11-30 08:10:00 AM

simplicimus: Apos: It's a spoof and therefore not an infringement of the copyright.

IIRC, titles can not be copywritten.Maybe Trademarked?


Yep, and this would likely be actionable trademark infringement, since it's not clear that it's not from the same source.

Titles probably can be protected by copyright* - contrary to popular opinion, the length limitation isn't a hard and fast number, but a "phrase", so a sufficiently long title could well be protectable - but probably not this one.
That said, why it's copyright infringement is that they lifted the characters and some of the dialog directly from the book. Which is totally stupid, because you could've paid an intern a few pizzas and a case of beer to write similar dialog.

*and it's "protected by copyright" not "copywritten". It protects the right to make copies.
 
2012-11-30 08:12:18 AM

Mugato: Is the Dumbass tag bound and gagged? They do porn parody movies all the time. Just call it something slightly different.


Most of the time studios don't bother suing because it's not worth the effort, but cases like this aren't all that uncommon and the copyright holder always wins.

For it to be considered a parody or satire, it news to be a commentary on the original work or use the original work to make some kind of commentary. And you cannot harm the economic value of the copyright while doing it.

The porn company will lose this case -- they almost always do.
 
2012-11-30 08:19:29 AM

Theaetetus: simplicimus: Apos: It's a spoof and therefore not an infringement of the copyright.

IIRC, titles can not be copywritten.Maybe Trademarked?

Yep, and this would likely be actionable trademark infringement, since it's not clear that it's not from the same source.


Yeah, their lawyers are idiots. It's pretty much an open and shut case that by calling it "Fifty Shades of Grey: A XXX Adaptation," consumers could reasonably conclude that it is an authorized and legitimate adaptation.
 
2012-11-30 08:37:37 AM
I predict that the judge will issue a gag order.

And after being tied, there will be one juror that will whip up the others in a passionate defense of art.

It's bound to happen.
 
2012-11-30 09:10:26 AM
Forest Hump
Fantastic Foursome
ET: The Extra Testicle
Diddle Her on the Roof
Yo Quiero Taco Smell
 
2012-11-30 09:40:04 AM
Notice the XXX parodies of basically non-sexual franchises like Star Trek don't get in trouble. This lawsuit is because Fifty Shades of Grey trades on sex, so obviously porn trading on that name is a commercial threat.
 
2012-11-30 09:53:38 AM

ExperianScaresCthulhu: diaphoresis: I was always partial to Flesh Gordon.

That movie was a travesty.... and still better than 99.9% of Asylum's current output.


It was bad, but how many porn films have stop-motion animation?
 
2012-11-30 10:05:18 AM

Nem Wan: Notice the XXX parodies of basically non-sexual franchises like Star Trek don't get in trouble. This lawsuit is because Fifty Shades of Grey trades on sex, so obviously porn trading on that name is a commercial threat.


I think it's more like everyone likes to pretend that FSOG is classier than porn, so they don't want anything out there which challenges that idea.
 
2012-11-30 10:16:38 AM

Mugato: Is the Dumbass tag bound and gagged? They do porn parody movies all the time. Just call it something slightly different.


Apos: It's a spoof and therefore not an infringement of the copyright.


Except this is neither parody nor "spoof" (which I assume is just a non-technical word for parody). It's just a straight up movie adaptation of the book. It's a straight-up adaptation. FTFA:

In that same article, Smash exec Stuart Wall gave the publication a quote, saying, "Since they are going to make a mainstream [film] of the books too, dabbling in the adult world, we're choosing to go with a XXX adaption which will stay very true to the book and its S&M-themed romance."

You can't just take a recently written book that is popular and turn it into a movie that's very true to the book. That's a clear, unambiguous copyright violation.
 
2012-11-30 10:40:23 AM

Nem Wan: Notice the XXX parodies of basically non-sexual franchises like Star Trek don't get in trouble. This lawsuit is because Fifty Shades of Grey trades on sex, so obviously porn trading on that name is a commercial threat.


That's one of the factors against them on the trademark side - there's a strong likelihood that the publisher will do at least a softcore version, so this steps on their potential commercial expansion.
 
2012-11-30 11:15:46 AM
Universal Studios?

Who gives a crap about the movie. When does the theme park ride based on it open?
 
2012-11-30 12:12:18 PM

Rann Xerox: [i78.photobucket.com image 406x621]

"'Fifty Shades of Grey'? I should sue for THEM for name usage without permission AND a lack of imagination."


Fifty Shades of Sasha Grey?.
 
2012-11-30 12:45:29 PM
Ooh, porn parody thread!

Indiana Joan and the Temple of Poon
Free My Willie
Moonlusting (I know, t.v. parody, but still...)
Das Booty
Breakfast in Tiffany
 
2012-11-30 03:41:20 PM

ToddTastic: Ooh, porn parody thread!

Indiana Joan and the Temple of Poon
Free My Willie
Moonlusting (I know, t.v. parody, but still...)
Das Booty
Breakfast in Tiffany


the XXX-files had a pretty good Scully look a like.
movie sucked however.
 
2012-11-30 04:10:26 PM
All of the below are actual titles to actual porn flicks that did actually play in actual porn theaters during the actual 1970's and 1980's.

2069: A Sex Odyssey
Midnight Plowboy
11
Sensual Encounters of Every Kind
The Bangkok Connection
National Lamporn's 'Frat House'
My Breakfast With Andrea
Fast Times At Cherry High (X)
Urban Cowgirls
Blazing Zippers
Downstairs, Upstairs (TV I know)
A Pornus Line
8 to 4
 
Displayed 50 of 54 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report