If you’re one of the more enlightened folks, however, you might appreciate Robert Ryang’s fake trailer* of Kubrick’s classic (www.ps260.com/molly) which, after some selective editing of the original film, presents the movie as a wholesome, family flick.  The clip received widespread attention last year after a close friend of my ex (and co-worker of Ryang), Dustin Stephens, posted the the “secret” link to the trailer on his blog, El Follador. 

Although lauded as a creative triumph and lesson in editing’s importance, to some in the film industry Ryang’s work represents a potential copyright infringement quagmire.

As reported in the Globe, Ryang spoke in Boston this past week on a panel at SIGGRAPH, a computer graphics conference, where he voiced his opinion on the right for amateurs to use copyrighted material without approval.  Central to Ryang’s argument is an oft used defense to trademark infringement – that material is fair game if its use does not compete with nor divert profit from the original. Hmm, interesting.

http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/08/01/ 

Overall, the article is informative, but I do have one gripe.  Maybe I interpreted this incorrectly, but I thought it was weird that the contributor likened the video mash-ups impact on film to Napster’s effect on the music industry.  Sure, they both deal with copyright infringement, but I do believe that generating spoofs through creative inspiration is categorically distinct from the unauthorized distribution of music that has not been modified from the original.

*originally created for AICE’s 2005 Trailer Park competition

 

It appears Dior’s uber-fragrance (popular in the 90’s, I believe) was at the center of a recent legal battle in France when Nejla Bsiri-Barbir, a former nose* with Haarman & Reimer, sued the fragrance compounding house.  In her bid for the continuation of royalties received while employed with H&R, Ms. Bsiri-Barbir claimed to be the perfume’s “creator.”

This past June, the highest court in France ruled against Ms. Bsiri-Barbir, finding that perfume is not art and therefore could not be protected like a “work of the mind.”  

Oddly enough, this latest ruling was in total opposition to a decision made earlier this year by a French court of appeals.  There, the court found a Belgium company, Bellure, guilty of producing counterfeits of L’Oreal perfumes and ordered that damages be paid.

What I found most intriguing is that, unlike a ruling by the US Supreme Court, this recent decision of the French high court would not trump the previous verdict of the court of appeals.  

That both rulings hold only complicates the situation for the experts of the olfactory industry.

* nose: a perfumer.

 http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F00B10F73A540C708DDDAE0894DE404482 

Note: Ms. Bsiri-Barbir was fired from H&R in 1999.

Let’s rewind. It is 2004 and the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has just made a decision in Jeff Grosso v. Miramax Film Corporation which, in short, eased the difficulties faced by writers when claiming copyright infringment.  Bolstered by this 2004 win, Attorney John A. Marder is still crusading against the Big Studios on behalf of the slighted (or if you prefer…the opportunistic.)  

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/movies/27gadf.html 

 

Just Whose Idea Is It Anyway? (reg. req’d)