The producers of the upcoming Anastasia Broadway musical, which is "inspired by the 20th-Century Fox films" and uses material from both films, are being sued by the owner to the rights of a play by French playwright Marcelle Maurette, which the 20th-Century Fox films were adapted from. The show's producers are claiming that because "historical facts and ideas" can't be copyrighted, and that because the new musical is vastly different from the play, they are not required to get a license and the lawsuit has no merit.
Does the playwright have a case, internet lawyers?
Christopher Torres
>once upon a December
Jace Brooks
WORST. FUCKING. MOVIE.
Leo Cruz
Pleb. The songs were great, and it was incredibly dark.
Jace Russell
Wtf brev hating on a classic
Asher White
A little more detail that might help.
The 1956 20th-Century Fox film is an adaptation of the 1952 play by Marcelle Maurette, specifically the English translation by Guy Bolton. The film credits say "from the play by Marcelle Maurette, as adapted by Guy Bolton."
The 1997 20th-Century Fox film is an adaptation, very loose of course, of the 1956 film and the 1952 play. The film credits say "based on the play by Marcelle Maurette, as adapted by Guy Bolton, and the screenplay by Arthur Laurents."
The new musical only says "inspired by the 20th-Century Fox films" in any credits I've found. Having watched a bootleg, it uses material and concepts from both the films, ranging from basic concepts (the con men convincing a young woman with no memory of her past to play Anastasia) to specific material (the songs from the 1997 film, some quotes from the 1956 film, etc). Some of these concepts and materials had their origins in the 1952 play.
Josiah Foster
It was Bluth's best attempt at ripping off Disney while still remaining Bluth enough.
>muh historical accuracy it's an inappropriate story to adapt to this kind of format Fuck off, Lindsay.
Anthony Powell
Lol fuck off fags.
Only good part was the bat.
Anthony Evans
I mean, it is weird and inappropriate to take the story of a teenager who was shot, bayoneted and finally bludgeoned to death along with the rest of her family and turn it into a children's fantasy musical.
Lucas Cooper
They should sue Hamilton too.
Grayson Parker
>It's a the Tsar and Russian aristocracy were just a nice family who did nuffin wrong episode
Nathaniel Fisher
Hamilton wasn't based off a play user
Asher Martin
>It's a commies get triggered by a children's animated cartoon episode
Jose Cruz
I want to fuck Anastasia.
Leo Moore
>the bat
Thanks for confirming you're under 18
Jack Sanchez
they did but this is a kids cartoon not an animal farm
Jayden Peterson
She's a perfect 10/10 animated Russian qt
Adam Bailey
He might, he might not.
Legally, you can take material from existing books/movies/etc as long as the material is considered fair use or can't be copyrighted. To use a popular example, it's perfectly acceptable to create a version of The Wizard of Oz with a green Wicked Witch of the West, even though her greenness comes directly from the MGM film instead of the public domain book. You can't copyright the idea of a green witch. You can also use red shoes instead of the silver shoes from the public domain book, because you can't copyright the idea that her shoes might be red, but you can't call them the Ruby Slippers.
What is going to cause problems is it seems these movies are actually adaptations of a copyrighted play, which means they had to obtain a license to adapt the play into a film in the first place. So now they're using an adaptation of a copyrighted work as the basis for a new work, which means they are going beyond the original license which allowed them to adapt the work into a film. If they weren't adaptations, they could easily argue that they only used material from the films which can't be copyrighted... but since they're adaptations, it puts them in a more difficult situation.
Christian Evans
both are shit either way
Noah Garcia
The Bolsheviks will pay for their barbarism
Eli Morgan
Pop pop watching whites drop
Alexander Murphy
Yep, it was based on Ron Chernow's biography, and the playbill indicates this. Although this makes me wonder--is Chernow getting any of the profits from Hamilton, or did Miranda just include that because he wanted to credit the person who inspired him to make the show? How do you determine whether a musical or film or novel etc that uses historical events and figures is based on a specific biography? Could a historian sue someone for reading a biography and using the information presented to make a movie or show? hm.
Jonathan Hughes
I need movies to educate me, they can't expect me to separate fictional interpretation of events from reality.
Lincoln Miller
> uses material from both films so were they allowed to do that at least?
Jayden Brown
>the royal children had everything to do with thei mother's insanity, their father's tyranny, and rasputin's occultism Lol okay
Nathaniel Miller
For a long time, it was believed that the child survived. It wasn't until recently that they identified the remains of a child, but that might not even be the child in question.
Eli Young
>Trotski and his pals were just a nice company who helped the russian people
Julian Bailey
>It's a greasy, sweaty, autistic manchildren think little girls and children deserved to be pulled limb from limb because "muh revolushun"
Honestly, grow the fuck up
Easton Fisher
Don't forget raped
Nicholas Fisher
>It's a communism is inevitable and permanent but just in case we have to murder children to make sure there's no monarchy restoration episode
Dominic Cox
holy shit, what a shame
Chase Thomas
I would guess they have to have an agreement with 20th century Fox to do that.
