Re: To Zero:
 

So that's where I remember you from. Wow.

You're kooky.

Re: Re: Notice to Zero, Tanman and Suprmallet
 

Look again, I only answered zero's question. My answer was directed at tanman, who insulted me.

Re: Re: Re: Beef is yummy.
 

I only mock because I was one for so long. -wink-

Re: Re: Re: Notice to Zero, Tanman and Suprmallet
 

I edited my post to say tanman instead of zero. The points made in the post still stand. Tanman may have been insulting, or he may have been poking fun at the seriousness that has crept into the arguments in the thread.

Re: Notice to Zero, Tanman and Suprmallet
 

Nothing would please me more than to see some seriousness creep into the arguments of this thread. But I doubt it will ever happen...

With all this talk about plagiarism and, well, whatever the hell else is being discussed in this thread, I think the fact that these movies may have lifted story elements and maybe some small designs are irrelevant. These movies are successful for many reasons, and I'm for damn sure these people suing could never have created the same product.

I'm reminded of the case against the movie Twister, where two writers claimed they wrote the story and wanted like, all the profits. I recall Spielberg on the stand stating "this ovie is 80% special effects, 15% other stuff, and 5% script." While that's not the case for every movie, to think these little things that MIGHT have been lifted warrant these major lawsuits is just beyond ridiculous. And to think it invalidates these films...well, if the movie they plagiarized was actually good then maybe we'd agree. No story is going to be completely original, I bet every shot has a similarity to a shot in another movie, and characters will always resemble something else. It happens. These cases, 99.9% of the time are inane.

Considering that this thread's subject is completly stupid, there is no way for an intelligent discussion. Throw in the fact that you are throwing gasoline with your outlandish accusations (yes you did and in the other thread) and there is absolutely no place for this thread to go.

The choice was mine, and mine completely
I could have any prize that I desired
I could burn with the splendor of the brightest fire
Or else, or else I could choose time

Remember I was very young then
And a year was forever and a day
So what use could fifty, sixty, seventy be?
I saw the lights, and I was on my way

And how I lived, how they shone
But how soon the lights were gone

And they call me "kooky".

Oh I think its more than that.

Nemo was plagiarized.

Well, that's a compelling argument.

Case closed, folks.

He's more convincing than baracine

He's convinced me. Give me my dollar back.

Thank you.

It brings a smile to my face when I know that I have made a difference in other peoples' lives. It seems like many people were confused whether 'Finding Nemo' was plagiarized. And with my 'compelling argument', many have been convinced. I am glad to be at your service and hope to be so again in the near future. Thank you once again.

Got any gum?

I have some Big Red in my cube.

Hey, what you do behind closed doors is your own business. I'm just asking about gum here...

What are you talking about? You asked for gum and I told you I had some Big Red gum and I just so happened to mention where I had it, which was where I was sitting at the moment (my cubicle). And while it is true that what I do behind closed doors is my business, my offer to you was in no way being suggestive, except in an altruistic way.

You know what movie I also really liked? Big Trouble in Little China.

http://www.forbes.com/services/2004/...ahoo&referrer=

French Court Denies Disney Ban
Aude Lagorce, 03.12.04, 9:17 AM ET

NEW YORK - A Parisian judge handed a victory to The Walt Disney Company today in legal action brought by the author of a French book about a fictional clownfish.

Judge Louis-Marie Raingeard de la Blétière refused a request for an injunction that would have barred Disney (nyse: DIS - news - people ) from selling books and merchandise related to its hit movie Finding Nemo in France, saying that Disney character and the French clownfish, named Pierrot, weren't similar enough to justify pulling Nemo merchandise off the shelves.

"Nemo is red, Pierrot the clownfish is more orange," the judge said, according to French press reports.

Even though a civil trial remains on the docket for the fall, the court decision is a blow to Franck Le Calvez, the author behind the small publishing house book, Pierrot le Poisson Clown. Le Calvez argued in his lawsuit that the Nemo created by Pixar Animation Studios (nasdaq: PIXR - news - people ) and distributed by Disney is a copy of the Pierrot character he invented and first published in November 2002. "It could be an extraordinary coincidence, but we want to see an explanation," said one of his lawyers, Pascal Kamina, at the time the action was filed in February.

Le Calvez and his lawyers claimed that several bookstores refused to carry Pierrot le Poisson Clown after Finding Nemo came out in France, worried that Pierrot might be a copycat. But, asserting that things were the other way around, Le Calvez's legal team asked the court to impose an injunction on merchandising from Disney and French media company Hachette featuring Nemo in the same pose as Pierrot when the image of French character was registered with the copyright office in February 2003.

Unfortunately for them, it may be safer for Pierrot to run back to its anemone.


Chris

A ha...

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/kwik-e-simps...on-preview.gif

So if I make a cartoon ripping off Finding Nemo, but I make the clownfish more to the pinkish, then that's okay?

Awesome.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...edia_nemo_dc_1

French Court Dismisses 'Finding Nemo' Claim Case
Wed Apr 20, 4:44 PM ET Movies - Reuters

PARIS (Reuters) - A Paris court on Wednesday dismissed claims by a French author and his publisher that U.S. studio Disney copied his ideas in its film "Finding Nemo," and ordered they to pay Disney damages.

Franck Le Calvez and small publishing house Flaven Scene had sought 1 million euros in damages and interest from Disney, but the court instead ordered them to pay the U.S. studio 38,000 euros in damages and interest, and 25,000 euros in legal costs.

Le Calvez and Flaven Scene had accused Disney of copying the French author's ideas in its film about the fish Nemo, saying it closely resembles the Le Calvez's creation, Pierrot the Clown Fish.

"Finding Nemo," about a fish searching for his missing son, was the top U.S. film at the box office in 2003.

A Paris judge had refused last year to grant Flaven Scene's application for an injunction to ban the marketing of children's books and merchandise featuring Nemo.

Lawyers for Le Calvez, a marine life enthusiast, have said he registered an outline of his Pierrot character with the French authors' copyright association in 1995. He logged an illustration of the clown fish as a trademark in February 2003.

His book, initially published in November 2002, sold its first print run of 3,000. But a second edition in October 2003 sold virtually no copies as many bookshops did not want to stock it alongside Disney's Nemo books, published locally by Hachette.

Disney's lawyers said Nemo was registered under copyright as early as 2000.

Nice. :lol:

Man, this was a fun thread to read through.

I like though how no one ever sues about copyright infringement over a movie that made no money. I have about 10 pages of a script I started writing which is strikingly similar to that Harrison Ford stinkbomb <b>Random Hearts</b> but would I want to go to court and admit that turd was my idea?

:lol: I had about 10 pages of an idea that was eerily similar to the Sixth Sense from back in high school(94). My draft had the character in a coma and you don't find this out until the end. The whole story was happening inside his comatose mind. He just went on about his business like he never went into the coma.

Anyway... nice to see the judge turn the whole case upside down and make the plaintiff pay damages.

I still stand by my original "aha" from over a year ago.


Paging kooky french canadian Baracine...

Wow, I read through this entire thread and literally laughed out loud at how well Baracine played most of the posters with his masked sarcasm. However, once I got to page 4 or so...I started to get confused. You see, his obvious sarcasm turned into serious debate. In fact, I got so confused that I skipped over page 5 completely, and went straight to page 6, hoping to see something along the lines of, "LOL good job baracine."

So, I click the link to page 6 wondering to myself, "was he kidding? Was he serious?" Better yet, I see the court outcome (shortly before I post, "Wow, the beginning of the stories really are a lot alike,") and realize that this thread is over a year old.

...as it turns out, I'm far too drunk for the internet.

-JP

Have I said too much?
There's nothing more I can think of to say to you.
But all you have to do is look at me to know
That every word is true