LawMeme LawMeme Yale Law School  
LawMeme
Search LawMeme [ Advanced Search ]
 
 
 
 
Features: Awestruck Teens Remake Raiders of the Lost Ark, Violate Copyright Law
Posted by James Grimmelmann on Friday, June 06 @ 15:51:35 EDT Copyright
In 1981, a trio of 10-year-olds saw Raiders of the Lost Ark and were awestruck. Awestruck enough to make film their own shot-for-shot remake over the next seven years. After spending years as the stuff of urban legend, the film reemerged last year, wowing Raiders director Steven Spielberg and other fans. The tribute film has even recently been shown on the big screen.

Of course, what they did was quite possibly illegal. Continues inside . . .

(All references are to the Copyright Act, codified at 17 U.S.C.)

There's no doubt that Raiders of the Lost Ark is a work still under copyright. Even under the original Copyright Act, Raiders would still be under copyright, since 1981 was 22 years ago, and 22 is less than 28 (one 14-year term plus one renewal 14-year term).

Since Raiders is a copyrighted work, § 106 makes it an infringement of copyright to "reproduce [it]," "to prepare derivative works based on [it]", to "distribute" it, or "to perform [it] . . . publicly." The tribute film is definitely a derivative work; it's probably a reproduction, too. By their own admission, the boys worked from Raiders; as long as the resulting film shows "substantial similarity" to the original, it counts as a copy for copyright infringement purposes. It would be hard to argue that a (quite faithful) shot-for-shot remake is not sufficiently similar to the original. Since the tribute film is a "copy," it also counts as infringement to distribute it (which someone did, to get a copy into Harry Knowles's hands) and to display it (which they did at the recent screening in Austin). There's probably also a good argument that their 602-frame storyboarding is itself a derivative work.

Their first line of defense is to claim fair use under § 107. The analysis here is mixed; two of the four fair use factors cut in their favor, and two against them.

  • The "purpose and character of the use" comes out fairly well for them, since the film was a private project made for their own enjoyment, and never widely distributed. On the other hand, the recent screening, to which admission was charged, undercuts a potential claim of "non-commercial" use.
  • The "nature of the copyrighted work" could hardly be worse for our heroes. Raiders is one of the highest-grossing motion pictures of all time.
  • They also don't look so good in terms of "the amount and substantiality" of Raiders that they borrowed. They remade the whole damn thing, after all.
  • Fortunately, though, the "effect of the use on the potential market for" Raiders has been basically nil. Such are the benefits of never revealing its existence to the public at large. (One could even argue that this fan flick increases audience enthusiasm for Raiders and thereby increases its market, although such an argument might not get any further here than it has for file-traders.)
All in all, I'd expect a court or jury to look pretty sympathetically on them, but then again, these have been some pretty dark years for fair use defendants.

Their next possible defense is to point to the three-year statute of limitations for civil copyright infringement. § 507(b) states that the statute of limitations runs for three years from when "the claim accrued," not from when the infringement was discovered. That means that their 22-year-old derivative work is shielded from suit, along with any copies of it that they made before mid-2000. They're not out of the woods yet, though, because their remake is (probably) still a copy, so it's infringement to make fresh prints of it, and to screen it, both of which seem to have taken place in the last couple of months. (Kind of an interesting loophole here, no? If you make a derivative work sufficiently different for it not to be a "copy" and then keep the derivative work secret for three years, you'd appear to be in the clear).

Remedies (§§502-05) are largely in the discretion of a court, but it is at least possible to list the range of things that could happen to these three "kids" (now in their early 30s). They could be enjoined from copying or showing their film; all extant copies could be seized and destroyed. They could be forced to turn over the proceeds from recent screenings; they could be forced to pay for lost profits, but it seems unlikely that plaintiffs would be able to prove that the market value of Raiders had dropped appreciably because of the adaptation.

That leaves statutory damages, under § 504(c)(1), of $750 to $30,000 "as the court considers just." (Since there's only one copyrighted work in question here, there'd be none of those multi-billion claims that brought MP3.com to its knees.) Further, under § 504(c)(2), if the court finds that the "infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe" that he was infringing, it can reduce the damages to $200, a mere $66.67 per defendant. They were, of course, 10 years old when they started infringing. (On the other hand, they're now adults who ought to know better). So they're probably not out of pocket for too much, but if a court decided that the infringement was "willful" it could pump the damages up to $150,000, (plus possibly the other side's legal fees), which is not to be sneezed at.

Willfulness would also expose them to criminal penalties under § 506. Unfortunately, the legal standard for "willful" infringement is not entirely clear, since the question is one for the jury. (MP3.com was considered a "willful" infringer even though it maintained that it had always thought its actions didn't constitute infringement at all.) If our trio had any idea that their work might be a copyright infringement, it is possible that they might be found to be willful infringers. Again, they seem in more danger for their recent actions than for the things they did as teenagers.

The remaining triggers for criminal infringement aren't hard to satisfy. The recent screening was probably for "commercial advantage, but more importantly, their version of Raiders may well have a total retail value of more than $1,000 (just think about how much it would go for on eBay). Criminal penalties for copyright infringement are not to be sneezed at. 18 U.S.C. § 2319 provides for jail terms of up to a year (for a first offense involving fewer than 10 infringing works) and fines. Fines of what size? Well, copyright infringement starts at level 6 on the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which works out to a fine of $500-5000, But the level goes up as the value of the infringing works rises. If we say that the new film has a value of $10,000, the infringement is a level-9 offense, with a fine of $1000-$10,000.

The one remaining question is whether what these boys did was authorized--if so, there's no case of infringement at all. Since no one even knew about the project until the last few years, everything they did in the 1980s was ipso facto unauthorized. On the other hand, it's quite possible that once Steven Spielberg found out about the film, he (and Lucasfilm and Paramount) signed off on the recent screening, which would more or less rule out infringement claims for anything recent enough to fall within the statute of limitations.

Harry Knowles has been saying that the remake should be a special DVD extra on the Indiana Jones DVD box set. That sounds like a good idea.

At the same time, don't you find it just a little incongruous that, according to the Copyright Act, these fellows could be ordered to pay out $50,000 each and report for a year in prison?

 
Related Links
· More about Copyright
· News by James Grimmelmann


Most read story about Copyright:
Top Ten New Copyright Crimes

Options

 Printer Friendly Page  Printer Friendly Page

 Send to a Friend  Send to a Friend

Threshold
  
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

Re: Awestruck Teens Remake Raiders of the Lost Ark, Violate Copyright Law (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Friday, June 06 @ 18:21:33 EDT
LOL

Hear we go. Someone imiatates soneone and it is a criminal offence. I think the hard @sses should let them be AS LONG AS it is NOT done for monitary gains. Hell, even Speilberg was inpressed. Why not give these guys a job INSTEAD of punishing them for having a creative thought. Oh, I sorry, independant thought isn't allowed in the Orwellian society. We'll tell you what to think. My fault


[ Reply to This ]


Re: Awestruck Teens Remake Raiders of the Lost Ark, Violate Copyright Law (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Friday, June 06 @ 23:44:48 EDT
Now I'm by no means an expert on these matters, but couldn't this film find some sort of exemption as an educational work? It seems rather obvious these were kids learning by doing. I'd have to imagine many of the Speilbergs of the world got their start doing the same thing, though most likely on a smaller scale.


[ Reply to This ]


Re: Awestruck Teens Remake Raiders of the Lost Ark, Violate Copyright Law (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Saturday, June 07 @ 13:38:29 EDT
At the same time, don't you find it just a little incongruous that, according to the Copyright Act, these fellows could be ordered to pay out $50,000 each and report for a year in prison? Wait a second... You not shown at all that this infringement could be considered willful. While MP3.com was found to be infringing willfully despite their defenses, they received a cease and desist letter and continued to infringe after receiving the cease and desist. That's why they were found guilty of willful infringement. Remove the cease and desist letter, and they probably wouldn't have been found guilty of willful infringement.


[ Reply to This ]


Derivative works (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Saturday, June 07 @ 18:13:35 EDT
Assuming they don't show it to anyone, the only thing they've fallen afowl of is preparing a derivative work. It's quite possible that preparing a derivative work for private (or perhaps even educational purposes) could be found a fair use. They might even be able to show it privately without charging admission and still have it be a fair use.

People make private derivative works all of the time. We teach children to do it when we give them coloring books and crayons or when we encourage them to do a decoupage project. These everyday kinds of private uses, while technically illegal, are common enough that I can't see a judge declaring them illegal.


[ Reply to This ]


Re: Awestruck Teens Remake Raiders of the Lost Ark, Violate Copyright Law (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Monday, June 09 @ 11:10:35 EDT
Friggin' lawyers are going to be the downfall of our country.


[ Reply to This ]


Re: Awestruck Teens Remake Raiders of the Lost Ark, Violate Copyright Law (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Monday, June 09 @ 12:28:38 EDT
This article would be interesting had a copyright infringement case actually been filed. As it stands, this is mostly an inflammatory "What if?"


[ Reply to This ]


Re: Awestruck Teens Remake Raiders of the Lost Ark, Violate Copyright Law (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Tuesday, June 10 @ 14:09:57 EDT
I met those guys, who are incidently from the great State of Mississippi, at the Dazed & Confused 10 Year Reunion party in Austin, two weeks ago. From what I understand they did recieve consent (albeit ex post facto) from Speilberg. Just a little FYI for you.


[ Reply to This ]


Re: Awestruck Teens Remake Raiders of the Lost Ark, Violate Copyright Law (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Friday, June 20 @ 11:01:46 EDT
Interesting that this site uses PHP-Nuke and removed their copyright notices in violation of the software's license agreement. Check out What a shame! for details. Typical for a law school I guess.


[ Reply to This ]


Leges humanae nascuntur, vivunt, moriuntur
Human laws are born, live, and die

Contributors retain copyright interests in all stories, comments and submissions.
Everything else copyright (c) 2002 by the Information Society Project.

This material may be distributed only subject to the terms and conditions
set forth in the Open Publication License, v1.0 or later.
The latest version is currently available at http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/.

You can syndicate our news with backend.php

Page Generation: 0.265 Seconds