|
Post by Alex Shelley on Jul 20, 2010 20:31:32 GMT -5
From my understanding, they have to prove that the reviews done were within the law. So, while they were permitted to do it, they have to prove it to a court. I think the biggest problem is the fact that through Blip and their site, they are technically making money from the movie. So I could understand if someone was a bit upset at someone making money from their movie, s***ty as it may be. Legally, they are perfectly allowed to make money off of criticisms and reviews of the film. See my previous example of This Film is Not Yet Rated. They purposely didn't get legal permission from the movies that they showed in the documentary.
|
|
|
Post by forgottensinpwf on Jul 20, 2010 20:33:41 GMT -5
I think the biggest problem is the fact that through Blip and their site, they are technically making money from the movie. So I could understand if someone was a bit upset at someone making money from their movie, s***ty as it may be. Legally, they are perfectly allowed to make money off of criticisms and reviews of the film. See my previous example of This Film is Not Yet Rated. They purposely didn't get legal permission from the movies that they showed in the documentary. But that's the main reason that theroommovie's upset. They don't want people making money from them and not expect any to come their way. Even if the review was free publicity, they didn't see it that way.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Jul 20, 2010 20:36:36 GMT -5
At this rate, I guess it would have been better if the Critic actually did review his old college film "The Room", lame Chuck Norris jokes be damned!
|
|
|
Post by Bauertainments on Jul 20, 2010 20:37:58 GMT -5
You haven't been on the internet, have you? To be serious, I haven't watched alot of ThatGuy stuff lately (I have my reasons and I'll probably not watch this either) but this seems like a thing they would do. Rather than trying to do something that puts them in a good light, trying to be controversial for the sake of hits, no matter the quality (which happens to actually be one of my reasons). I geuss Wiseau is lucky his last name wasn't Enus or something.... He's really lucky his first name isn't... (cue Vince McMahon voice)...ENNIS
|
|
EvilMasterBetty, Esq.
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Bird...Birdie...birdie......Tiger...Tiger Tiger.....
R2C2 Reporting for duty
Posts: 17,355
|
Post by EvilMasterBetty, Esq. on Jul 20, 2010 20:39:37 GMT -5
Courts look at the purpose of the use (Commercial etc), the nature of the use (facts v. expression), the amount used and the effect on the market of the original.
So yes, the big thing going against Critic is that he does run his site for-profit, but that's doesn't instantly make it illegal. No matter how upset theroommovie gets about it. I would figure that critic will win, but there's no way to tell unless this goes to court.
|
|
|
Post by Alex Shelley on Jul 20, 2010 20:41:57 GMT -5
Legally, they are perfectly allowed to make money off of criticisms and reviews of the film. See my previous example of This Film is Not Yet Rated. They purposely didn't get legal permission from the movies that they showed in the documentary. But that's the main reason that theroommovie's upset. They don't want people making money from them and not expect any to come their way. Even if the review was free publicity, they didn't see it that way. Upset or not, there are many legal ways to profit using fair use. It sucks for the artist, yes, but what Critic does is more likely than not going to stand up in court. I'd give it something like a 95% chance of going in Critic's favor.
|
|
Tarik Dee
Hank Scorpio
I loved you before I even ever knew what love was like
Posts: 5,233
|
Post by Tarik Dee on Jul 20, 2010 21:18:08 GMT -5
Wow, that's full of hate
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jul 20, 2010 21:31:28 GMT -5
Well, hold on--if Critic is permitted to use the footage and air the review...why, then, was it taken down? Same reason Youtube removes everything containing something Viacom owned, even if it's legal. Blip likely doesn't want a legal fight, so they'll pull it down rather than pay to fight it.
|
|
|
Post by SHAKEMASTER TV9 is Don Knotts on Jul 20, 2010 21:41:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Lair of the Shadow MaDaBa on Jul 20, 2010 21:56:17 GMT -5
Aw, man...if this ever did go to court, a precedent would most definitely be set, which means a small fortune taken out of Channel Awesome's pocket.
I'M DOOMED! I'm gonna have to start writing for Cracked now! Or worse...411Mania!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Cela on Jul 20, 2010 22:19:45 GMT -5
So, is there a real episode this week? Or just this thing.
|
|
|
Post by The Tank on Jul 20, 2010 22:21:06 GMT -5
So, is there a real episode this week? Or just this thing. The episode scheduled for this week will probably (okay, hopefully) go up tomorrow. ...he's done that in the past, hasn't he? I'm not sure why, but I remember at least one NC video being delayed to Wednesday or Thursday.
|
|
|
Post by YAKMAN is ICHIBAN on Jul 20, 2010 22:46:35 GMT -5
I'd be interested in a court ruling on this. I think it would favor the reviewers. It would also give me something to study in my copyright law class next year.
|
|
|
Post by Cela on Jul 20, 2010 22:52:51 GMT -5
I'd be interested in a court ruling on this. I think it would favor the reviewers. It would also give me something to study in my copyright law class next year. Luckily its not a major studio ging up against them. At least now court money are probably closer amounts. Still bad for critic.
|
|
|
Post by Bauertainments on Jul 21, 2010 1:16:06 GMT -5
There is some good news.
The boss at TGWTG replied to post on on Twitter which asked if the Wiseau camp has in fact sued them.
He replied that they didn't.
So, it looks like Doug and co. dodged a massive bullet there.
|
|
|
Post by Father Dougal McGuire on Jul 21, 2010 1:29:42 GMT -5
I would be interested on how Wisseau would have been able to prove damages.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Todd Grisham on Jul 21, 2010 1:33:02 GMT -5
After watching that...
Is there a way for BOTH of them to lose? Please?
|
|
|
Post by thatguybayne on Jul 21, 2010 2:15:51 GMT -5
Despite the venom behind it it was still funny. It's probably Critic dealing with it as he knows best. Through humour.
"I sued myself last week. You know who won? ME!"
;D
|
|
|
Post by mrwednesdaynight on Jul 21, 2010 3:28:43 GMT -5
I don't know why everyone has an issue with the Critc taking a shallow pot shot at Wiseau for having his review yanked. If I were NC, I'd be angry too. If not for bad movie fans telling other bad movie fans to watch his horrible movie out of a sense of irony, he would never had seen a dime back on the $7 million he sunk into that pile. Wiseau should be thanking people like the Critic, not threatening to sue them because his feelings are hurt that someone gave him a bad review. Has anyone ever seen a good review of The Room? This could be one of the worst movies of all time. I, personally, will not put one dime into Wiseau pocket or mention this movie at all to anyone who wants to laugh at imcompetient film making.
|
|
|
Post by thatguybayne on Jul 21, 2010 4:53:17 GMT -5
I don't know why everyone has an issue with the Critc taking a shallow pot shot at Wiseau for having his review yanked. If I were NC, I'd be angry too. If not for bad movie fans telling other bad movie fans to watch his horrible movie out of a sense of irony, he would never had seen a dime back on the $7 million he sunk into that pile. Wiseau should be thanking people like the Critic, not threatening to sue them because his feelings are hurt that someone gave him a bad review. Has anyone ever seen a good review of The Room? This could be one of the worst movies of all time. I, personally, will not put one dime into Wiseau pocket or mention this movie at all to anyone who wants to laugh at imcompetient film making. Oh hai voice of reason.
|
|