Anastasia Producers Sued- Page 2

[lambchop2]

Posted: 12/12/16 at 10:41am

I still can't believe the producers are trying to say the two are wholly unrelated when even the end credits for the 1997 Anastasia say it's based on the Maurette play. Did they not realize this or bother looking into it before making the show or the statement?

"But, the movies were already inspired by the 1952 play and the musical is based on the animated movie. Why is this even a thing?"

Why is the lawsuit a thing, you mean? Because the musical's producers do not have the licensing permission to create a new medium (this new musical) based on the play. Since the new musical is based on the two 20th-Century Fox films which were themselves licensed adaptations (however loosely) of the 1952 play, the new musical's producers would legally - as far as I understand it - need to create a new licensing agreement with the owner of the play's license. It doesn't really matter how different they are, because both films were still licensed to be based on the play. Updated On: 12/12/16 at 10:41 AM

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 12/12/16 at 10:44am

HogansHero said: "The plaintiff is looking for ransom. Shutting down the show is the last thing he wants. I assume he will get it, via settlement. 

I have no idea how much was lifted, so I have no idea what a reasonable percentage would be. My guess is it is not none. I do have a good idea that it was really dumb to proceed without nailing this down. "

 

It does seem like a good bit of the storyline was lifted from the '56 movie based on the play, if this Wikipedia summary is accurate.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastasia_(1956_film)
Updated On: 12/12/16 at 10:44 AM

[Daddy Warbucks]

Posted: 12/12/16 at 10:56am

Lambchop2: "I still can't believe the producers are trying to say the two are wholly unrelated when even the end credits for the 1997 Anastasia say it's based on the Maurette play."

Whether the earlier movie or the 1997 animated movie borrowed elements from the Maurette play is irrelevant to whether the current production infringes the Maurette play.  

Think of the 1997 movie as being comprised of [A, B, C, D & E], with [D & E] being the Maurette elements.  I could borrow ABC from the 1997 movie and not infringe.  However, I could further borrow D from the Maurette play, if D is not protectable (e.g., anything historical, facts, real people, and "ideas" as opposed to "expression" -- note, an idea is not protectable under copyright law, but an expression of that idea is).

Having seen the Hartford production, I'm a bit intrigued by all of this and decided to order a copy of the Maurette play.  I'll report back after I've had a chance to read it.   

[HogansHero]

Posted: 12/12/16 at 11:16am

@lambchop the producers are simply filing an answer to a complaint, which entails not admitting anything helpful to the plaintiff. Don't read too much into it. 

@neon It does, but I don't know exactly how much of that is factual.

@warbucks good explanation. It leaves open the possibility also that while what was used may be based on underlying facts etc, it could STILL be a violation if the way those facts are expressed was lifted. As an example, the historical record could say that X discussed Y with Z. Maurette could have created specific dialogue consistent with that record. If McNally lifted that dialogue (either verbatim or even in structure in some cases) there would be a violation.

[lambchop2]

Posted: 12/12/16 at 11:22am

Daddy Warbucks: "Whether the earlier movie or the 1997 animated movie borrowed elements from the Maurette play is irrelevant to whether the current production infringes the Maurette play."

Wouldn't that only be true if the 1956 and 1997 films had merely borrowed fair use and non-copyrightable elements from the Maurette play, though, instead of being adaptations? The 1956 film is an adaptation of the Maurette play. The 1997 film is a (very loose) licensed adaptation of the 1956 film, but still warranted the credits including the "based on the play by Marcelle Maurette" note, in addition to being credited as based on the 1956 film screenplay.

Does anyone have the text of the actual lawsuit? I'm curious to see if the Maurette heir is more explicit, it would help in figuring out more of the details.

I've read the Maurette play a few years ago and I would say the new musical resembles the '56 film more at least tonally (the film created the romance between Anna and one of the con men and made Anna's possible identity as Anastasia more vague) but there are certainly elements in the new musical that had their origin in the play.

 

Edit: Also to add, I know what you're saying by regarding elements that can't be copyrighted, I just think that because the '56 film was a licensed adaptation of the play and the '97 film also had to include the play as a credit, it's more complicated than using ideas and other fair use or non-copyrighted elements. Updated On: 12/12/16 at 11:22 AM

[dewuzu]

Posted: 12/22/16 at 1:06am

I think that this article explains the case pretty well.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marchershberg/2016/12/21/lawsuit-threatens-anastasias-broadway-debut/#5962913522fe

Also, it looks like this whole mess is really more of TCF's fault.

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 12/22/16 at 7:40am

This whole thread is fascinating. The Forbes article does explain things well. 

"If the portions of the play that were replicated are not covered under copyright law, then the writer did not violate its copyright." [...] “Under copyright law, only an author's particular expression of an idea, and not the idea itself is protectable,” explained entertainment law attorney Lloyd J. Jassin. “To prove copyright infringement, a copyright owner must prove that the infringer copied protected material,” he said.

Will they bother arguing the point or find some licensing or financial compensation-based compromise? Who knows?

Regardless of how it plays out, I hope this doesn't derail the momentum of the musical (I'm already unsure of whether it'll find an audience). I'm looking forward to seeing what they've done. What they did with the movie was already great (and already borrowed from things like It Happened One Night). All I know is I got chills at the recent NY Pops concert when Liz Callaway sang those two songs from Anastasia and I'm ready to see them in a full-fledged musical. 

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 12/22/16 at 9:07am

That Forbes article is fascinating and given that Fox even realized they needed to secure permission from the playwright estate to do the animated movie live (on ice!)-- I'm surprised that steps weren't taken from the get go to secure them for a Broadway musical. I guess I'm most surprised that the producers felt the need to publically denounce the claim when it clearly has merit and could have (and likely will be) easily be settled by including the playwright estate in the author royalty pool.

[newintown]

Posted: 12/22/16 at 9:19am

Key elements of the story are unmistakably lifted from the artistic inventions of Maurette.

However, I think there's an enormous chance that this is all moot, as the word of mouth on the show is that the creatives can't decide if they're aiming at the hideous teenage girl market or at adults, and subsequently, they're boring the pants off both groups.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 12/22/16 at 9:26am

"Key elements of the story are unmistakably lifted from the artistic inventions of Maurette."

 

Right but it seems like Fox is at fault here, not the producers of the musical specifically...

[HogansHero]

Posted: 12/22/16 at 10:17am

the possible misrepresentation by Fox is an interesting twist perhaps but the language used is not entirely clear. On the one hand, if Fox conveyed a license to exploit its property on stahe to the extent of its rights, title and interest, then it would not seem to be misrepresenting its interest. (Fox's license would be needed to the extent non-Maurette aspects of the film were exploited, and unless it expressly represented that it held the full bundle of rights-something I doubt-it may be off the hook here.) On the other hand, there is a disconnect right after the jump. Before it they say Fox retro-acquired stage rights. Then after it they say Fox only had movie rights. Could the after-acquired rights (which were acquired before the deal with the Broadway producer) include a license based on that acquisition? Dunno but we'd have to look at the original contract for those rights.

Notwithstanding all of this, it seems clear to me this case is headed for a settlement. The question is who is on the hook for that settlement? The producer, Fox or some lawyer's malpractice insurance carrier.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 12/22/16 at 10:37am

"On the other hand, there is a disconnect right after the jump. Before it they say Fox retro-acquired stage rights. Then after it they say Fox only had movie rights. "

 

Yeah, I noticed that too. Over my head.

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 12/22/16 at 11:32am

The part where it talks about the events in Anastasia being historical so it's not under copyright, but isn't what's in the musical now not historical anymore since we know Anastasia died with the rest of her family? 

[newintown]

Posted: 12/22/16 at 11:50am

"The part where it talks about the events in Anastasia being historical so it's not under copyright, but isn't what's in the musical now not historical anymore since we know Anastasia died with the rest of her family?"

The only "history" in the narrative is a slight relation to the fact that several women posed as various Romanov daughters in the early/mid-20th century, the most famous being the mentally unbalanced Anna Anderson (real name: Franziska Schanzkowska), a comic/tragic figure used by a few others in an attempt for fame and money.

[dewuzu]

Posted: 12/22/16 at 5:29pm

The article says that Fox got a retroactive license, which I guess means that Maurette still owned the rights.

Also, I'm not sure whether or not the producers could now go after Fox. But, it does make this whole case a lot more interesting.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 12/22/16 at 6:07pm

dewuzu said: "The article says that Fox got a retroactive license, which I guess means that Maurette still owned the rights.

Also, I'm not sure whether or not the producers could now go after Fox. But, it does make this whole case a lot more interesting."

Did you have a scenario in which he didn't? 

Also, as I said above, the question of going after Fox is dependent on the wording of the agreement. 

[dewuzu]

Posted: 12/22/16 at 10:33pm

HogansHero said: "dewuzu said: "The article says that Fox got a retroactive license, which I guess means that Maurette still owned the rights.

Also, I'm not sure whether or not the producers could now go after Fox. But, it does make this whole case a lot more interesting."

Did you have a scenario in which he didn't? 

Also, as I said above, the question of going after Fox is dependent on the wording of the agreement. 

 

"

I might have misread something. Your previous post said that "Fox retro-acquired stage rights." But, I think that the article says that they got a license. A license allows them to use the rights, but it does not give them ownership of the rights. Maurette still owned them.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 12/22/16 at 11:08pm

I was not suggesting the Maurette estate literally sold the rights, but people use the term rights to mean what you are calling a license. (In real or tangible property terms we would call it a rental.) What we don't know are the terms. Normally a grant of rights has a scope and a time frame. It could well be that Fox acquired the right to exploit the Maurette material for a stage production during a period of time that would have included the time of the agreement with these producers. Or not. We simply don't know and the article uses fuzzy rather than precise terms so we would need to see the contracts (or quotes from them in a pleading) to have a better idea. We may never know because as I said earlier I am sure the estate is just after money. Nice way we have given people to make money without creating anything. 

[Fan123]

Posted: 1/23/17 at 5:54am

lambchop2 said: "Does anyone have the text of the actual lawsuit? I'm curious to see if the Maurette heir is more explicit, it would help in figuring out more of the details."

This article provides a link to to what appears to be the actual original complaint: http://courthousenews.com/anastasia-on-broadway-faces-copyright-squabble/ (specifically, http://courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/anastasia.pdf). I can't interpret the nuances of this like some of the legal eagles here, but pages 10-13 describe some of the alleged similarities between the "original, creative elements" of the original French play and English stage adaptation, as compared with the new musical. (Warning: mild spoilers for the musical, even if you're familiar with other versions of the story.)

The site at https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/20093732/de_Becdelievre_v_McNally_et_al# also appears to provide a vague timeline of the case, although you would have to pay to access additional documentation it seems.

 

Side note: I'm surprised to hear, from newintown's post above, that the musical might have a tone/target audience issue. Personally I think the 1997 film managed to be both teenage girl- and adult-friendly (well, apart from the Rasputin bits etc) through the screwball romance thread (as mentioned by VintageSnarker). I figured they would just stick to that. Anyway, we'll see, hopefully.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 1/23/17 at 9:44am

I thought the Hartford version was both teenage girl and adult friendly.

[disneybroadwayfan22]

Posted: 1/23/17 at 1:21pm

I just read the document. Most of this is BS because the similarities were already in both films and this man should had sued when the 1997 film came out. But, I can see how some of the dialogue was plagiarized.  

[SmokeyLady]

Posted: 1/23/17 at 1:32pm

 "But, I can see how some of the dialogue was plagiarized.  "

 

So then it is NOT BS.  

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 1/23/17 at 2:25pm

Most of this is BS because the similarities were already in both films and this man should had sued when the 1997 film came out. 

 

It was already established in this thread that Fox got the rights they needed for the animated film, so he had no reason or standing to sue in 1997.

[lambchop2]

Posted: 1/23/17 at 4:42pm

disneybroadwayfan22 said: "I just read the document. Most of this is BS because the similarities were already in both films and this man should had sued when the 1997 film came out. But, I can see how some of the dialogue was plagiarized."

They had the rights to do the 1956 film, they had the rights to do the 1997 film, and they acknowledged they should have gotten the rights to do the ice show based on the 1997 film because they didn't have the rights to adapt the play material outside of the films. So the similarities between the films and the original play, and now the original play and the new musical, are indicative of material with its origin in a protected work.

Having said that, most of the similarities are going to come down to the Marcelle estate's ability to argue that these elements are protected/copyrighted. You can only copyright the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. (Ie, you can't copyright the concept of the Wicked Witch of the West being green, but you can copyright the likeness of Margaret Hamilton's appearance as the witch, with green skin, the same mole placement, profile, etc.) While I do think it's rather obvious that the new musical has its origins in the play due to the many elements that were invented by the original playwright, whether or not those elements can be copyrighted is another story.

 

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 1/24/17 at 5:43pm

disneybroadwayfan22 said: "I just read the document. Most of this is BS because the similarities were already in both films and this man should had sued when the 1997 film came out. But, I can see how some of the dialogue was plagiarized.  

 

"

You don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about, do you?

Fox had the rights to make both movies. Whether or not the rights are in place for this stage production is what is being contested. It seems that it is possible that the correct avenues were not taken to secure the rights to the play in which both films were based upon. Time will tell if the courts agree.