Bradbury Not Amused with New Moore Film
 

I assumed when I heard the title of Michael Moore's new film that the filmmaker had gone through all the appropriate measures to so obviously rip off the title of the book Fahrenheit 451. Apparently he did not and Ray Bradbury is outraged, as am I. At the very least, Bradbury should be earning royalties off the film - I immediately thought of his book when I heard the title, and the title sticks in your head for that very reason. It's an excellent marketing tool - were it used properly. If Bradbury's work isn't respected, I hope to see this go to court where I'm pretty sure any sensible jury will find in his favor. He's a good man from what I know and doesn't deserve that kind of disrespect, to not even ask him to use a direct rip off of his title.

It doesn't surprise me.

I do not like Michael Moore films. Sure, he can say crap about the president all he wants, but I just HATE his nosiness and the fact that he gets all these awards for getting in peoples' faces. sigh...

I said he should change the title. Ray Bradbury shouldn't get royalties for a film that has nothing to do with the book, except for the title; however, the title was not Michael Moore's to rip off and should be changed.

I said he should get some modest royalty as it is a pretty blatant rip off. The association to 451 has already been made the world over. You can't just co opt others' titles for personal gain. Not sure that a jury would award any damages and changing the title would only give Moore something else to crow about. He should have at least talked with Bradbury about it before doing it. But, in the end, it's a relatively minor offense and I'm not really certain that Bradbury has been caused any real damage.

It's homage... regardless of what Bradbury thinks, Moore is not profiting by the title. It is cute turn of phrase on an icon of popular culture...

Bradbury should express his displeasure and leave it up to Moore to do what he feels is best... In the end it is a non-issue, IMO.

i wonder if the title would be understood as a kind of trademark, legally. or if that understanding would require that bradbury had registered it before hand. i wonder what the actual legal conflict would come to turn on--i wish i knew more about the technicalities of copyright law in this case--can anyone fill me in please?

I know a girl that has the last name a bradbury......that would be wierd if it was the same family.:eek:

I don't know exactly how it works with books, but movie titles belong to no one, you cannot copyright them. The only thing, legally, Bradbury could likely stand on would be to prove it to be libelous and damaging him in some way. If my understanding is correct.

Boo hoo. For the record, which way does Bradbury lean politically? Could that have anything to do with it?

Actually, no. He's a registered independent, as the article notes. He's not trying to stop the movie, and he contacted Moore about it long before the title was set into people's minds.

Along with several other Shakespearean Quotes that Bradbury used over and over in his books and for their titles.
He can borrow from prior literary geniuses, he shouldn't be pissed when others do the same to him.

Ooh yes, and his book

Took that from Walt Whitman.

Bradbury LOVED to name his books after someone elses famous lines.

ray bradbury is still alive? :o

it's true that the title stuck in my head for the reason that I know Bradbury's work and read the book. It's clever marketing that Moore bastardized the title... but he should have cleared it with Bradbury first.

He didn't clear I Sing the Body Electric with Walt Whitman's estate.

It was published for Whitman in 1900 (already dead 2 years)

Bradbury's published in 1969 but it is a collection of short stories which were written in a 30 year time span.

I see it as an homage and honor to have someone think that highly of your work. Moore's work does have a similar theme.

Shakespeare's work is in the public domain, as is, I think, Walt Whitman's.

Wasn't Farenheit 451 used to be just called "The Fireman"?

Life plus 70 years for literary. So he published a year early.
I sing the body electric itself was published as a short story many years earlier than that though.

I'm not surprised either.

WTG, Mikey!

Ray Bradbury must be bored. He should be happy with the press now.

It seems Bradbury has some fucked up priorities.
It's not taking anything from his livelihood, and there're more important things to worry about.

I voted, "Nothing".

It doesn't matter.

titles of books are not copyrighted, and neither are titles of films, so therefore Bradbury is not entitled to any roalties, and Michael Moore does not have to change the title. Bradbury should take the title as a compliment to what his book offered in terms of political thought.

As much as I respect Ray Bradbury and his work, I really don't think he has a leg to stand on in this case.

And also, Michael Moore didn't even come up with the name, it was submitted by a fan. :)

Hey Ray, this is just another great revival for your book with free publicity. And furthermore, Bradbury can't claim that the word 'Farenheit' was His new 'copywritten' word.

It's just an old writer doing a resurrection of sorts.

This is about as much of a serious case as "Fair and Balanced." If people want to use similar but not copyrighted titles, they have every right to do it.

Someone else already pointed out that Shakespeare is publie domain, and Bradbury is certainly not. I'd be willing to bet that Bradbury, if he wanted, could STOMP Moore in court. Our Napster culture notwithstanding, courts have been very supportive of artists intellectual property, and there is no doubt that the only way that Moore's title even COULD make sense is by standing on Bradbury's shoulders. That calls for recognition, permission, and if asked, royalties.

By the way, John Williams (the film composer) lost almost 25 MILLION dollars to the Richard Strauss estate for a musical phrase from Superman, so this stuff is taken seriously.

As was also pointed out titles of books and films cannot be copywritten. So Bradbury has no footing in court to stomp Moore.

what did you expect, it is hard for moore to come up with his own title when he cant even do his own thinking

What a goon, the title and general idea the film is portrayed as having doesn't make enough reference to Farenheit 451 enough to justify royalties.

Point conceded. I checked, and titles are not generally held under copyright, even if the book is. However, there was one case under a Danish court that held the opposite regarding a Hemingway title. Probably too flimsy for Bradbury to use. He could have registered the title as a trademark, but didn't. In fact, some store that sold Coffee and Books in California held Fahrenheit 451 as a trademark from 1993-2000, but has now abandoned the trademark (probably put out of business by Barnes and Noble).

That said, I still think that Moore should have asked Bradbury, as his staff even admits that the book, its theme, and content were all inspirations for his film. If a creator doesn't deserve respect for his intellectual creation (since property apparently doesn't apply), what does he get?

how the hell could you copyright a bloody temperature anyway... sheeeesh

this is nearly as stupid as the case where Cage was suing someone for reproducing part of his famous silence...

I haven't seen the film yet, but if it was inspired by Bradbury's book, then there's probably a big theme or two that they share. Evidently, it isn't illegal for him to do this or he might have thought about contacting Bradbury sooner. Besides, he finally did call Bradbury back and told him he was "embarrased." Sure it would have been polite to ask, but he's essentially apologized now. Nothing more needs to be done.

I'm not surprised by this one bit. Moore is just enough of a whiny lardass to profit from the hard work of others. Bradbury needs to cut some bacon off Moore's back as a settlement.

You can't copyright a title so while one might question the ethical aspect of the Moore movie's name, legally there is little that can be done. I've read many of Bradbury's works with Fahrenheit 451 being my favorite. It really doesn't bother me, one is a great book the other probably a great movie. The stories are different, the genre is different, I don't see the problem.

I second this thought fully.

hey man, have you ever heard it? That silence was revolutionary! :lol: I have an MP3 of it! (Seriously, I do :))

If you'll read the article, you'll see he's not suing. He simply doesn't want his name associated with the movie, and is asking that Moore respect his wishes.

bah i voted wrong, it should be left as it is, i dont think its an issue.

Moore not asking for Bradbury's permission to use the Fahrenheit phrase is perfectly in character with his usual MO. He doesn't respect anyone and is a bully.

Just ask his staff who tried to unionize - or the theatre workers in London at whom he yelled insults.

I have no desire to see this movie.

I'm surprised so many TFPers are so unforgiving of Micheal Moore and his use of the title even though it doesn't matter one iota! Interesting is that by law - here can be no Adds on TV or radio 30 days prior the November election because this film is considered an election bender: i.e. it's viewed as an anti-Republican Add, as it were. (thanks KFOG San Fran!!)

Um, pardon my ignorance but when did film satire equate = Party Add Support? Smacks of Bushco Cheneyism... IMHO.

Any thoughts? Kick it up a notch and ride the edge of the sword -if you have 'da cajones'. I fear TPF has become waaaay too GOP in representation.

whether or not shakespeare or whitman is public domain isn't relevant to me. the point that many seem to be making is that utilizing the name recognition of Bradbury's work is wrong - not the legal bearing.

Given that Bradbury did the same thing, it feels like hypocrisy to me. Standing on the technicality of length of life, and copyright duration is silly.

I'm not often a pure black and white kind of guy, but if it's wrong for one, it's wrong for the other. And if it's ok, it's ok.

Much ado about nothing.

moore gets even more publicity, and bradbury sets the stage for rerelesae of his own book and movie. perfectly timed and orchestrated manipulation of the media in both corners. brilliant.

...... and I still don't like Moore... I've seen a documentary or two of his and I didn't like'em.... I'm amazed at the methods he uses and yet gains publicity doing them. I'm even more amazed he hasn't gotton knocked out many times doing so... (or has he.... who knows)

It's hard to knock someone out who's as much of a fat bastard as he is. (Sorry, didn't mean to insult all the other fat bastards out there ;))

Why? Because about 50% of the people in the thread think Michael Moore is at least ethically in the wrong? Give me a break. If you're assuming no one is aligned with any third parties, that makes it about half and half. Sounds like a fair and reasonable amount to me.

And, regarding the election ad thing, it most certainly is. Michael Moore has made no qualms about the fact that it's his goal to effect the election. Sounds like an election ad to me. Not to mention the ad for the movie itself - without even seeing the movie - clearly attempts to show Bush in an unfavorable light. Again, something that clearly would effect the election and was intentionally made that way to do so, as admitted by Michael Moore.

As a side note, it's not that I love Bush, or hate John Kerry - I can't stand either of them really - it's that I hate angry fat bastards who lie, twist the truth, and ignore the facts to make semi-fictional documentaries, earn TONS of money from it, and have idiots take it as truth. Of course, I suppose he knows that if he ever stopped his whining and instead tried to DO something about it by entering the political arena, since he obviously can do such a better job apparently, he'd be torn apart after contradicting himself so many times and flat out lying others. I love the fact that the 9/11 commission nullified half his movie by the time it came out. Too bad so many people don't realize it.

bang on...
Bradbury is just looking for some publicity...that's all this is about. Moore haters will look to anything to vilify the man...including calling him fat :rolleyes:

Ditto. I don't see how you can copyright one word.

I don't think Bush needs any help in showing himself in an unfavorable light.

As for this title issue... I fail to see how this is even an issue. It'd be one thing if Bradbury - or someone else - owned the trademark to the name. Then you could argue that someone's toes are being stepped on.

But talking about an artist's intellectual property? In this context, I don't see the point. Would the book be less good with a different title?

Plagiarizing someone's actual work, such as creating a parody of the whole book, would be one thing...but borrowing a title that is nothing but a temperature reading anyway... What a catastrophe.

Perhaps Moore has ties to al-Qaeda.

I don't understand this comment.

TFP is a place that welcomes everyone, so long as the basic board rules are followed.

This includes people on the political left as well as the political right.

There are sites out there that cater specifically to one or the other, but TFP will never be one.

So what is there to "fear" except being exposed to other people's opinions that may or may not agree with yours?

Come on, everybody knows that Republicans are destorying the world. :rolleyes:

I voted nothing. Moore is not profitting from the title of the film in any way. Was just a spin off the title of Bradbury's book, and the point Moore is trying to convey is similar to the story of Farhenheit 451.

I guess people will do anything to get a buck.