So, a couple of thoughts in reaction to the thread:
• Caillet's book would have been a copyrighted work: a fixed, tangible creative expression. Presumably it's history that he has gotten permission to tell, perhaps some of it is his own fabrication, perhaps most of it lives somewhere in between (his recollection of events he was a participant in that has been embellished or... whatever). Regardless of the truths (that's between him and the book's subjects), his book is a copyrighted work. Using any aspect of it, requires his permission.
• It is important for authors like Caillet to get the suite of rights that we commonly refer to as "life rights" that would allow them to survive invasion of privacy, defamation, or any other potential claims. A person's right of publicity allows them to prevent the unauthorized commercial use of their name, likeness, and other recognizable aspects of their life, as nearly ever state recognizes a person's "right of publicity".
• If the book didn't exist Adjmi may still have had a "right of publicity" suit from the people depicted as it's so identifiably them.
• I don't know the history of Dreamgirls on the legal level to know if there was ever "right of publicity" issues with the show. However, since it wasn't based on a copyrightable work, it didn't infringe on something that someone personally affixed into a tangible medium before.
• This won't get settled easily. If you can prove that there was willful infringement (regardless of Adjmi's press quotes), the damages can be six figures and other recourses like Caillet is seeking. Authors of copyrightable works have the absolute right to approve derivative works (unless they license or sell that right away). It would be VERY hard for Adjmi to defend himself against claims that he recklessly disregarded the possibility that he was violating copyright law by just changing the names of the characters.
• Almost ALL infringement cases get filed after there is some sort of commercial exploitation of the infringing work. At that point there is provable damage to the original work. There is essentially no functional statute of limitations for copyright infringement, but it's an evolving and complicated area of copyright law that takes a lot of reading. There's no way to distill it to something digestable here.
• This suit would undeniably be the product of a breakdown in settlement negotiations. There is almost no reason to jump from discovering your work has been infringed upon to a suit. It could be a tactic or the play could really interfere with Callait's plans for his own work and it's not about the money. Either way: it's well within his rights as the author of a copyrighted work.
• Parody is wholly misunderstood and much more limited that most people realize. Just because you want to do something funny with someone's copyrighted work doesn't mean you can do so. Weird Al had to get permission for every song he wanted to record. The stories are legendary. The author of a musical about a major life event that women endure either lost her battle or settled with the catalog owners of the songs in her show. It cost her millions at the point it was brought because she wasn't using the songs to parody the singers, the authors, or politicians and the show had been out a while. Many of these "parody" shows actually do have relationships with the studios who control the movies they parody because some elements may be parody and some may just be infringement and the fight over it is more expensive than the royalty relationship.
Obviously this is not legal advice. Copyright/parody/subsidiary rights/infringement is not an area of law that you want to wander into as a creator without proper legal counsel who knows the specifics of what you're trying to do. It gets messy and expensive REALLY fast.
Updated On: 10/2/24 at 08:27 PM