Can urban myths be copyrighted?

King Goldfish

King Goldfish

Do you have to pay royalties if you were to make a commercial film based on Dracula or Warewolfs or even Frankenstien?

I mean dont these stories go back for centuries and started off as an urban myth? Like Dracula had something to do with Vlad the Impaler. Im just curious if these titles are actually copyrighted by screne writers early in the 20th century or late 19th century.

Did Mary Shelley actually invent the character Frankenstien or did she just fluff up an old bavarian folks tale?

Just wondering if anyone has done research on this and what about groups like "Skull and Bones"? If someone wanted to do a story on a frat that isnt supposed to exist then is it free domain?

Sorry if im not using the proper terminologies here.
 
You can write a film about vampires with no problem, as I believe they are "urban legends" or mythological creations. Count Dracula is a character created by Bram Stroker (based off of the real person Vlad the Impaler), and you may run into copyright issues if you write a film about him... though the book is so old, that it may be part of the public domain.

Frankenstein was created by Mary Shelly, I'm sure there were other stories of reanimation before hers, but Dr. Frankenstein, his monster and the story are very distinct. That also may be part of the public domain because of its age.

The Skull and Bones question is interesting. I believe you can base an organization in your script off a real one, but would be you open to libel suits if you insinuate criminal or immoral activity on their part that cannot be proven. You can get away with this by changing the name of the fictional organization enough so there's not a direct connect.

I wrote a screenplay in which there was a Proctor and Gamble-esque company. I named it Penn and Gable and refered to it as P&G throughout. I had a friend who worked with Proctor and Gamble read it, and she said to be careful because they are very touchy about how they are protrayed and there's enough of a direct connect for them to be able to sue.

Skull and Bones is interesting because they are not supposed to exist. It would be interesting to find out if the studio that produced the film contacted them or if they figured the organization wouldn't want to appear in court, in essesnce making it an "un-secret" organization. That I don't know.
 
cool, thanks for the feedback. Seems if you do anything this day and age you are always dragged into court by one person or group or another. regardless if there is a connection with them or not.

Its not to say they will win, But I do recall talking to a BK lawyer about something like this and hip saying "You can be sued for anything next to nothing these days.. It's not that they will win or have a good chance of winning but people sue people for just about anything"

my problem with writing or making movies is Not wanting to be sued. I guess i have a natural fear of courts. But thats life in America (Especially here in California). Im also told that sometimes it's better to pay a person off with a small settlement even if they're full of crap. The reason is you can only be sued once. Once a settlement is made, anyone else who tries and make the same claim can not. But im not a lawyer.

Have any of you ever been sued for anything related to story writing or movie making or been threatened by a lawsuit. and how do you deal with the issue emotionally?
 
One last thing. Can you be liable for anything (outside of slander) if you were to make an indie film that did not make money. of course there is always money changing hands at film festivals but very little is in profits and pretty much no profits for people who enter.
 
Well, libel and liable are two different things.

Libel is defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or the like, rather than spoken word. Making money has nothing to do with libel -- as you pointed out.

I think what you getting at is making money off a story of based off an actual group, and whether you would have to come to some sort of finacial agreement with them to do so.

I think it depends on the group and how closely you base the organization in your script off them. Are you specifically thinking of a Skull and Bones type group?
 
King Goldfish said:
The reason is you can only be sued once. Once a settlement is made, anyone else who tries and make the same claim can not. But im not a lawyer.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be a bad idea to get a reputation as someone who pays off potential lawsuits? Sure, if they are making the same claim then they cannot sue you after someone else has but as long as you work in a lawful area such as film, there will always be potential lawsuits.
 
lux said:
Wouldn't it be a bad idea to get a reputation as someone who pays off potential lawsuits? Sure, if they are making the same claim then they cannot sue you after someone else has but as long as you work in a lawful area such as film, there will always be potential lawsuits.
Click to expand...


LOL as I was posting that I feared someone would point that out. Yeah "Hey he's easy.. wait until he makes his next film and just sue his ass.. he'll just pay you off regardless if you have a case or not"

*stares at shipley and wonders if he is a lawyer*
 
No, I'm not a lawyer. I'm mainly recalling what I learned from my media law class ten years ago. I think I still have the text book. I'll look for it.
 
Its not a bad thing to be a lawyer. It would be nice to be one and also do this on the side. that way you would know what you should and should not do as a film maker alot easier and you wouldnt have to pay for legal documentents that most people have to pick up at stationary stores.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top