Having seen Tetris, this is pretty meta. Befitting of a movie about the theft of intellectual property rights to involve the theft of intellectual property.
If the only things the movie and Dan Ackerman’s book have in common are the historical facts, then I don’t understand how Ackerman’s book is being infringed on. Is there more to it than that? I haven’t read Ackerman’s book and I’ve not seen the Apple movie. Are there fictional elements or speculations in Ackerman’s book that were translated to the Apple movie?
That may be true, but I think he might have a case…
The lawsuit said that Ackerman sent a pre-publication copy of the book to the Tetris Company earlier that year. He said the company refused to license its intellectual property for projects related to his book, dissuading producers who were interested in adapting it, and sent him a “strongly worded cease and desist letter.”
So he made the book, presented it to Tetris, they rejected the idea, threatened him to sue if he did his own thing, rejected other producers, then I guess partnered with Apple and made it as if it was their idea.
Are there fictional elements or speculations in Ackerman’s book that were translated to the Apple movie?
I think so, I think it’s more a thematic kind of thing, not the history per se. But I haven’t watched the movie or read the book, so this is just my point if view from what the article says.
No idea if it works like that or if he would have a case as I’m not a lawyer, or writer, or producer, so take what I said with a pinch of salt.
IANAL, so I don’t know what are the actual legal merits involved in either having a case or not… but if someone came to me about some facts about me that they published, and they wanted me to ‘buy the rights’ to those historic facts about me, I’d feel totally justified in telling them to piss off. And if I later decided to create any form of written or video story about myself, the peddler who’d come to me earlier would already be on my blacklist of potential partners to work with.
Gizmodo? The publication that got uninvited to all Apple events due to their coverage on the leaked iPhone 4? I’m certain there are new owners of Gizmodo since then, but the irony here is pretty interesting…
They literally committed a felony, bought what at that point was a stolen prototype, damaged Apple's property, and then tried to extort Apple in exchange for returning what was, again, Apple's own property.
They didn't steal anything. He wrote a non-fiction account of a historical event. The Apple TV+ movie is a somewhat fictionalized account of a historical event with the direct support of the primary people actually involved. They don't owe him a penny. At most his contribution is an inspiration that, hey, this could make a great movie, which is not itself actually worth any money.
Apple acts really shady with small business people, I have direct experience with this. I trust the little guy. I’m sure if they lose in court, they would count it as paying for it to begin with. They’re taking a chance and may or may not “win.” How many other people are they doing this to?
The editor of Gizmodo knows very well that "Apple" gets clicks and in this case he's trying to generate free press for his obscure book. His suit doesn't quite meet the standard of "frivolous," so I don't think anybody is getting sanctioned for it, but it's certainly not filed in good faith. It's not even an issue of "trust." What he claims is inherently ridiculous. You can't copyright historical events, and presenting it as a Cold War thriller isn't some radical creative choice of "tone." The dry facts are pretty thrilling on their own, and the extra-thrilling parts (car chase) are inventions of the film.
How many other people are they doing this to?
Not stealing from? Literally billions of other people are being treated the same way by Apple every day.
Sad the voice of reason is getting downvoted because people here have this peculiar belief that Apple is 100% wrong just by virtue of being a giant company.
Gizmodo has a sorted history with Apple and have demonstrated time and time again they are trash media that lie, steal, cheat to get clicks.
No but if you wrote a musical about prohibition, submitted it to apple, but apple rejects it, discourages other producers from picking it up and then apple made a musical about the prohibition, you may have a case. I think the issue is the thematic stylistic interpretation was copied over either intentionally or unintentionally, and the court needs to decide if it’s worth a suit
I agree that, if these allegations turn out to be true, it’s pretty damned scummy. but is it copyright infringement to tell a story from a certain perspective?
I mean, I’ve seen the film, and I’ve skimmed through the book. they both focus on the most interesting parts of the story as any dramatic retelling would, and the story itself lends itself to a certain interpretation, regardless of who writes about it. Personally, I don’t see the story bing told (at least from the protagonist’s perspective) any other way and there are certainly many differences between them that are immediately evident. But it would seem to me that anyone telling a story about those events would end up with a similar story simply because they’re based on real people and historical events.
but you’re right that there’s probably enough “there there” to warrant adjudication and would depend on the interpretations of copyright law by the judge and jury, if it were to go to trial.
edit: btw, your use of a musical isn’t a great analogy since musicals have way more original material (the music) tat can be used to prove or dispute a copyright infringement claim than simply interpretation of an historical event.
Style isn't copyrightable, there has to be more substantive commonalities than just that.
It'll be up to the courts to decide if there is, of course. I notice that a review of the book quoted Ackerman from it:
In cases where the historical record is unclear, or when my interviews conflicted with previously published accounts, I’ve attempted to recount the most likely version of what happened, based on research and my own conversations with many of the primary participants. A certain amount of historical interpolation was required to offer a clear narrative understanding, including into the thought processes and motivations of those involved.
Which suggests that the book is partly fictionalized, so it's possible that there may be identifiable elements lifted from it. We'll see.
Add comment