Dear People,

When Ray Bradbury asks Michael Moore to change the name of his movie, I feel very disappointed. I need to see some respect in this world for the honesty and compassion that Moore's movie respresents. I would hope that Bradbury would give Moore's movie the respect that it deserves. Please ask Bradbury to drop his complaint.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Jim

quote:

Originally posted by Yestermorrow:
If I'm not mistaken, it has been repeated several times throughout these kinds of posts (though none seem to listen) that Bradbury is not threatening a law suit. Obviously he doesn't own the word "Fahrenheit", and he doesn't claim to. It's all about principle and class, or lack thereof. So I say it again, though none will part with their folly, being immovable and therefore unwise.

[This message has been edited by Yestermorrow (edited 06-20-2004).]

I�d never consider MSNBC a paragon of fine investigative reporting, but they�re copying from the AP, so this story is being run verbatim in countless news outlets. Please see:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5255897/

In it, find a line that reads, �Bradbury� said he would rather avoid litigation� � seems that the threat is there, if nothing else.

But back to basics.

I love Bradbury, but this is patently ridiculous. Legally, Moore (nor anybody else) must ask "permission" to use a reflective title, such as this. Fahrenheit 9/11 != Fahrenheit 451

Quote me the U.S. code, relative to copyright, where such a claim has merit. Copyright does cover �derivative works�, but this new film is not such a beast. The fear that should be in all our hearts, and the realities playing out, are reflective of Bradbury�s work, not derived there from. Call it a matter of life imitating art if you will.

Sure, it would have been �neat� if Moore had done so, but it needn�t be mandatory.

That Bradbury is "offended" is dubious. He should be flattered, and, furthermore, this is exactly what Bradbury's story was about. He's upset that somebody took his warnings to heart and is trying to spread the word? I don't understand.

Pride? That somebody is blowing the whistle on a real-life scenario that�s reminiscent (to stretch the matter) of his book? That somebody has chosen a title for their work that reflects his, thus shining a light upon his work for a whole new generation of fans who might not otherwise even know of its existence? Simply that somebody didn�t ask �permission� to use a title that he, himself, would be hard-pressed to say is �original� � it is, after all, merely the temperature at which books burn... Ahem, the whole point of Bradbury�s story.

Personally, I�d wager �business� motives. A new release of his book, and a new version of a movie adaptation to go forward Real Soon Now? Hmmm. Nope, I don't see any coincidence here! That Bradbury would sell himself to the same wolves who�d make his cautionary tale reality � anybody who considers intellectual exercises like music and writing as �property�, who consistently marches down the road of control toward a world where each of us may only read, hear, learn, know, even remember, what They allow us to, and at a cost I might add, is the type of Governing Entity who would be whom Bradbury had tried to tell us of fifty years ago.

Personally, I'd hope that Bradbury is merely listening too much to his publisher(s)/handler(s), and not really feeling this way deep-down. If he is, however, he's lost much of the respect and admiration from this fan...

Best wishes to Mr. Bradbury,
Larry Hale


[This message has been edited by Larry Hale (edited 06-21-2004).]

Since this page is for an author of science fiction, I feel confident I can include talk of the future as well as the present.

I feel it's inevitable that Mr. Bradbury's work will be used from time to time as a metaphor for political dissent. If this is true now, it will only be more true later when the copyright on his great book expires. To attempt to stem the tide of such use now is to wage a futile longterm battle.

It is true that Mr. Moore is making a direct and recognizable reference to Mr. Bradbury's esteemed book. I agree that he should have asked permission to do so and should have offered some renumeration for the name's use. After all, that's how copyright works.

However, I also feel it's ultimately in Mr. Bradbury's best interests to allow Mr. Moore to retain his film's current title, whether renumeration is offered to him or not.

Mr. Bradbury has recently written on the event of his 82nd birthday that he's had a longtime interest in films. In particular, he has hopes that a remake of the movie Farenheit 451 will be made sometime soon.

Mr. Moore is, of course, established in the film industry. While his politics leaves him with a few enemies, he also has a growing number of friends. Many of his friends are in the film business. He may be able to help Mr. Bradbury in getting that remake made.

Even if Mr. Moore did not offer help or Mr. Bradbury refused his help, having a high grossing film whose name contains an homage to Mr. Bradbury's work is certain to raise the probability that a movie studio will view the remake as a profitable venture and therefore agree to the cost of supporting it.
So if Mr. Bradbury really feels as he does, I will be the first to applaud him for coming to fair terms with Mr. Moore in a way that will increase his own future prospects.

Best of luck to all and sunder.

Given this controversy, I still love Ray B's books, but I no longer particulary respect the name. The irony is: he has defeated some of the meaning of F451 with this idiotic tantrum.

Maybe he should read his own stuff.

I think you all forget, in this post-download world, that there are still laws that protect material (copyright) and the works of Ray are still not in the public domain, so are protected. It is true that he has maintained the rights to his work. These protections are in place to allow for authors to release their work without harm or theft by others (who would claim the work as their own). Ray is allowing Mr. Moore to realize he is about the break the law and Mr. Moore needs to change his title or live with the legal consequences. Each writer supports the copyright laws (google public domain) and learn why Ray is holding his ground with the law fully supporting his actions to defend his rights.

quote:

Originally posted by Translator:
[B]Interesting, Steve. Do you "see" the future? What is your assumption based on? Reading the tarot cards?

Nah, it's based on the fact that Moore's movies are referred to as "satirical documentaries," because they are so filled with half-truths and distortions that they will lose any relevancy within a short period of time.

Although, I could be Moore-ish and say,
"As fate would have it, I spent yesterday laying the tarot!" (It would be true, because I *did* play with tarot cards yesterday [well, tarokka cards actually... and I wasn't foretelling the future, just doing research for a current project. But it would as accurate as many Moore-presented "facts.")


Steve Miller


[This message has been edited by Steve Miller (edited 06-22-2004).]

It's sad to see an 80 something year old man acting like a child. I guess some peoples ego's are never satisfied and require constant acknowledgement of their own self-importance. Sorry Mr Bradbury, in the larger scheme of things, you just don't matter at all........

The bottom line is that Michael Moore is clearly guilty of copyright infringement with his movie title and should be forced to change it.

Blazes, my son works at a theatre in college and when he heard of the title, he asked me if it was a remake of Mr. Bradbury's book!!!

If Mr. Moore is as upset as he claims, let him do the right thing.

First, I'm a *huge* fan of Bradbury, from the moment I first read the Martian Chronicles as a kid.

Second, does no one miss the irony of the whole situation? The author of a book critical of censorship wanting to censor another "artist"? (I'm being kind to Moore here.)

Third, legally, titles are not protected by copyright. There are a few other legal ways Bradbury might be able to challenge Moore in court (such as trademark infringement, but it would be a *real* stretch) however, a court challenge would really only give Moore even more publicity and a bigger platform to shout from.

Finally, I was *really* disappointed to read this quote from Bradbury:

"I have won prizes in different places and they are mostly meaningless. The people there hate us, which is why they gave him the d'Or. It's a meaningless prize."

Whether you like Moore and his movies or not (I like some, don't like others) isn't really the point. It is a real shame to see someone I respect blasting and degrading what *is* a very respected award in film. And an award (if Bradbury cared to know what he was talking about) that was awarded by an *International* jury, not just the French.

I just find it ironic that Bradbury can say things like he was:

"hoping to settle this as two gentlemen, if he'll shake hands with me and give me back my book and title."

While at the same saying, "Michael Moore is a screwed a--hole" and debasing the artistic film community. All, I would venture, without ever having seen the damn movie.

I'll always love Bradbury's works, but this affair and his conduct does make me lose a little respect for the man. He hasn't seen the movie. He had no legal claim to a title. And he's being every bit the a--hole Moore is. To see that happen to someone I considered a giant of American literature, is well, a little sad.

DG

"It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain

chas wrote:
"I think you all forget, in this post-download world, that there are still laws that protect material (copyright) and... Ray is allowing Mr. Moore to realize he is about the break the law and Mr. Moore needs to change his title or live with the legal consequences. Each writer supports the copyright laws (google public domain) and learn why Ray is holding his ground with the law fully supporting his actions to defend his rights."

What some of you seem not to have done is actually consult the copyright laws.

NAMES, TITLES, AND SHORT PHRASES NOT PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

Names, titles, and short phrases or expressions are not subject to copyright protection. Even if a name, title, or short phrase is novel or distinctive or if it lends itself to a play on words, it cannot be protected by copyright. The Copyright Office cannot register claims to exclusive rights in brief combinations of words such as:

* Names of products or services
* Names of businesses, organizations, or groups (including the name of a group of performers)
* Names of pseudonyms of individuals (including pen name or stage name)
* Titles of works
* Catchwords, catchphrases, mottoes, slogans, or short advertising expressions
* Mere listings of ingredients, as in recipes, labels, or formulas. When a recipe or formula is accompanied by explanation or directions, the text directions may be copyrightable, but the recipe or formula itself remains uncopyrightable.

<http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ34.html>

No, a title or phrase cannot be copyrighted, but can be trademarked. Awhile ago on this board someone posted that Donald Trump had tried to acquire exclusive rights to the phrase "You're Fired" and threatened to sue the owner of a pottery shop, who had used that name for her business for several years before Trump's show even appeared.

This title isn't trademarked. Nor has anyone been discussing trademarks on this thread; you've been discussing copyrights. You can hate Michael Moore for all kinds of reasons, but in this case he is well within the law.

I find the posts in this thread that advocate retaliation for a perfectly legal action pretty disturbing. I can understand being personally aggrieved on behalf of a favorite author. Why not discuss it on that level instead of revealing one's a$$ in that humiliating combination of righteous indignation and ignorance?

Dear Mr. Bradbury,

I never thought I would be writing a letter (or e-mail message) to the great
Ray Bradbury, the author on whose novels I came of age, but I was extremely
surprised to hear that you objected to the name of Michael Moore's new
movie. He has not stolen the name of your venerated book. Yes, the title
is a reference to your work... and a positive one at that, but Moore is
simply employing a common technique where a popular reference is given an
ironic twist in order to expose a deeper truth. For you to be offended by a
commonly used technique and to ignore the homage it pays to you and your
work is distressing. Surely you have not become one of these hacks that has
bought into the right wing's "vision" of America. Tell me it ain't so, Ray.

___________________________________________
Kenneth Adair

Spike Lee did not win his court case against Viacom for Spike TV. They settled because Viacom was sick of waiting for the courts to hear the case and not being able to use the new name. And Spike had to settle because if he lost the case, he was going to owe millions in damages for putting up the lawsuit. If anything Spike TV was trying to draft on the coolness of director Spike Jonze. And Spike has gone on to rip off the XFL player "He Hate Me" with his new film "She Hate Me."

As far as hecklers coming on this board, this is supposedly Raybradbury.com - and seeing how writing the author directly ends up with the email getting bounced back, this is where those who think Bradbury has turned into a fascist can let the author know that he's lost a lot of face by people who actually enjoyed his book and learned something from it. He's no longer an artist. He's a greedy corporate entity.

Ray comes off as an old, bitter man who wants to support the killing of 1,000s of Americans in Iraq for the sake of Halliburton's billions. What a legacy.

corey3rd

Would you visit a country where about 22,000 people are murdered each year?