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.

(Metro)   Not News: Warner Bros uses book as source for hit movie. Also not news: Author sues saying WB didn't get rights to book. News: WB claims the movie was based on historical fact. Fark: Movie was "The Conjuring" and WB must now prove ghosts exist   ( metro.co.uk) divider line
    More: Strange, Warner Bros, Conjuring movies, perron farmhouse, Paranormal, Warner Bros. permission, Lorraine Warren, box office smash, Plaintiff  
•       •       •

1419 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 13 Sep 2017 at 2:14 AM (36 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



19 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2017-09-12 11:56:39 PM  
Throw enough money at a bunch of lawyers and they can "prove" pretty much anything.
 
2017-09-13 01:44:27 AM  
Stranger things have happened. A house was legally declared to be haunted by an appellate court in New York.
 
2017-09-13 02:18:06 AM  
I don't think that Warner Brothers theory of the case is a promising one, but at least they will get past the issues of subject matter and personal jurisdiction, and won't have the problem with service of process that this guy had. Devilish problems in civil procedure
 
2017-09-13 02:22:06 AM  
The historical fact was that the Warrens were exposed scam artists.
 
2017-09-13 04:54:25 AM  
I have a feeling WB may not be able to prove ghosts...or bigfoots...or extraliens....cuz there ain't none.
 
2017-09-13 07:37:50 AM  
The Warrens have been claiming their reports are completely true and factual records of paranormal and demonic activity since the beginning of their career - and only now do they have a problem with somebody taking their word for it?
 
2017-09-13 07:54:11 AM  
The article makes some claims that aren't quite... right.

The big question is whether or not the original story was presented as fiction or fact, not whether it actually was factual. No, the studio doesn't have to prove the existence of ghosts as a defense.

By claiming it as "factual" (whether or not it was actually true), the story itself becomes "history."

...which is why, when you make up stories like this, you should write fiction books "based on historical events," not "this is a true story."
 
2017-09-13 08:39:07 AM  

Some Guy In A Waistcoat: The Warrens have been claiming their reports are completely true and factual records of paranormal and demonic activity since the beginning of their career - and only now do they have a problem with somebody taking their word for it?


They'll believe in anything if there's a steady paycheck in it
 
2017-09-13 09:28:39 AM  

cirby: The article makes some claims that aren't quite... right.

The big question is whether or not the original story was presented as fiction or fact, not whether it actually was factual. No, the studio doesn't have to prove the existence of ghosts as a defense.

By claiming it as "factual" (whether or not it was actually true), the story itself becomes "history."

...which is why, when you make up stories like this, you should write fiction books "based on historical events," not "this is a true story."


That does sound about right.  From my understanding there is very strong precedent to consider blatantly made up "facts" to be legally "facts" in terms of copyright laws, which makes them impossible to copyright.
 
2017-09-13 09:34:16 AM  
I've always wondered what's to stop big companies from just ripping off whatever stories they like. Guess the answer is "not much."
 
2017-09-13 09:56:07 AM  
Back in the 40s, a New York City court ruled that Santa Claus exists.
 
2017-09-13 11:39:46 AM  
miscinception here.

If somebody tells you a "true" story and you put it into a book of other "true" stories, your copyright only extends to that version of the story, in that collection.

If that person decideds to go and tell that story to other people, and they make their own version, then you don't have a case.

So unless there was an exclusive clause in the contract between the authors and story teller, then the book people don't have a chance.

Randall Adams and Errol Morris got into a legal battle, after Morris wanted to make a drama based on he documentary  "The Thin Blue Line" Adams didn't sue Hin for part of the profits of the documentary, just prevented Morris from profiting on his life story with other movies.
 
2017-09-13 11:52:53 AM  

TappingTheVein: The historical fact was that the Warrens were exposed scam artists.


Sounds like the same case as "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", the work that "The Da Vinci Code" was based on.  I didn't think the "historical" author was allowed to admit he made the whole thing up after Dan Brown built an equally poorly researched novel out of it.
/lots of footnotes to HBHG in Robert Anton Wilson's works (long before Brown tried to write)
//read any of those if you want a better novel (especially conspiracy stuff)
///sad that RAW didn't see a sliver of Brown's commercial success
 
2017-09-13 12:41:07 PM  

BorgiaGinz: Back in the 40s, a New York City court ruled that Santa Claus exists.


Like a miracle, right on 34th Street.
 
2017-09-13 01:22:29 PM  
In property law, it is already required by law that realty companies must disclose hauntings to potential buyers.

Ghosts do exist according to case law.
 
2017-09-13 02:03:52 PM  

Fano: Some Guy In A Waistcoat: The Warrens have been claiming their reports are completely true and factual records of paranormal and demonic activity since the beginning of their career - and only now do they have a problem with somebody taking their word for it?

They'll believe in anything if there's a steady paycheck in it


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-09-13 04:24:09 PM  

Rocketboy1313: In property law, it is already required by law that realty companies must disclose hauntings to potential buyers.

Ghosts do exist according to case law.


Do gods?
 
2017-09-14 12:48:46 AM  
I still think the 'historical facts' can be that this couple existed and that they did the things depicted in the movie. Whether ghosts are real or not has nothing to do with it.

The Godfather isn't historical fact, because the movie doesn't depict people who existed or events that happened. The Onion Field counts as historical fact, because it depicts real events involving real people, even though by it's very nature no movie can depict an event exactly like it happened. There's no editing in real life for one thing, no multiple camera angles for another.
 
2017-09-14 01:00:15 AM  

Far Cough: Rocketboy1313: In property law, it is already required by law that realty companies must disclose hauntings to potential buyers.

Ghosts do exist according to case law.

Do gods?


A church had a sign on the freeway next to a strip club saying something ominous like God will smite this place.  A few months later, the club burned down.  The owner sued the church for triggering an act of God.
At a pre trial hearing, the judge commented that he had a strip club arguing that prayers work while the church was arguing that God didn't exist.
 
Displayed 19 of 19 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report