Pink Panther heirs lose Clouseau appeal
p2pnet news | Movies:- “While Inspector Clouseau searched for the answer to the question, ‘Who did it?’, we must search for the answer to the question, ‘Who owns it’?”
So wrote US judge Kim Wardlaw at the conclusion of an appeal case involving the bungling French cop and the Hollywood studio which made him —- and the Pink Panther —- famous.
Wardlow and two other judges threw out copyright claims by the heirs of screenwriter Maurice Richlin who, with Blake Edwards, created the famous comedies.
“The Richlin heirs now claim federal statutory renewal rights in the Treatment and derivative works, including the Motion Picture,” Wardlaw writes, going on>>>
They assert that Richlin’s coauthorship of the Treatment makes him a coauthor of the Motion Picture. Alternatively, they contend that, because the Motion Picture secured statutory protection for the portions of the Treatment incorporated into the Motion Picture, and because the copyright in the Motion Picture was renewed for a second term, they are co-owners of the Motion Picture’s renewal copyright and all derivative works thereof.
Although the Richlin heirs have developed several several theories that could supply the answer to the question, “Who owns it?”, unlike Inspector Clouseau, they have not quite stumbled upon a theory that favors them.
We therefore affirm the district court’s conclusion that the Richlin heirs have no interest in the copyright to the Motion Picture.
Now you know 
.
.Stumble It!
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
June 20th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Whoa those Richlin heirs are trying to ’steal’ from the corporations. They should know that the corporations own everything, and the courts always rule in their favor.
June 22nd, 2008 at 5:33 am
Its inconceivable that everyone who uses a film during many years would need to pay royalties to everyone who worked on the firm. Therefore film companies needs to secure legal ownership of whatever copyryright anyone may have in in the movie before marketing the movie. That legal ownership of all copyrights in a film is what allows the movie company to licence he film to theaters and television. That is why everyone (there are exceptions involving big name stars) who works in a film must assign acopyrights before the filming is even started.
As to new films based on old characters but a new story, the copyrights should belong to the creators of the new story. For example, anyone can make and own a new Pink Panther novel or movie. If the Pink Panther name or logo is a registered trademark then permission from the owner of that tradmark may be needed. If that permission is denied, then change the name to Green Panther.
The lawsuit is a typical Attorney Buscón case.
Anyone who wants to know who is Attorney Buscón drop me a note at venegas.rafael-at-gmail.com.