Miramax Sues Quentin Tarantino Over 'Pulp Fiction' NFT Auction (variety.com) 46
Miramax filed a lawsuit on Tuesday accusing Quentin Tarantino of copyright infringement by selling NFTs based on the screenplay for "Pulp Fiction." From a report: Tarantino announced the sale at a recent crypto-art convention in New York. "I'm excited to be presenting these exclusive scenes from 'Pulp Fiction' to fans," Tarantino said in a Nov. 2 press release. The plan is to auction off NFT -- non-fungible tokens -- based on excerpts from Tarantinoâ(TM)s original handwritten script for the film, accompanied by commentary. The NFT is pitched as "secret," meaning that its contents will be viewable exclusively by the owner. But according to the suit, Tarantino did not consult beforehand with Miramax -- which still owns the rights to the director's 1994 classic. Miramax's attorneys have sent a cease and desist letter seeking to block the sale, but that has not stopped Tarantino and his team from moving forward. Miramax alleges that Tarantino's actions have interfered with the studio's own plans to enter the market for "Pulp Fiction" NFTs. In a statement, Miramax attorney Bart Williams accused Tarantino's team of a "deliberate, pre-meditated, short-term money grab."
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Aren't all NFTs a "deliberate, pre-meditated, short-term money grab?"
Re: (Score:3)
Some NFT's are just a money laundering instrument. As such, they can be re-used, which would negate the "short-term" aspect of your description.
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't all NFTs a "deliberate, pre-meditated, short-term money grab?"
Yes, but that is the point of the whole exercise, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
You have answered wisely.
Hashes for sale! Discount bits for you! (Score:5, Interesting)
Does the movie studio own the copyright to the original manuscripts? Must one own the copyright to something in order to sell an NFT of it? Must one own the copyright to something order to calculate its hash? Is the hash of a copyrighted work subject to copyright? Can I copyright a hash? If someone finds two images which produce the same hash, who holds the copyright on it? What if I use the hash to generate artwork, is the hash now copyrightable? If someone else holds copyright to the hash I started with, does that person hold copyright to the resulting art? What if I use the hash as a Minecraft seed, am I infringing their copyright?
I must be ahead of my time because years ago as a joke, a friend was selling GUIDs on a work bulletin board. He would put up a slip of paper guaranteeing that the GUID was clean and never used, but without stating what the value of the GUID is. This isn't much different.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Hashes for sale! Discount bits for you! (Score:4, Insightful)
So, it's legitimately unclear, because the technology came long after the contract was inked.
No. No it's not. There is no magic number of copies required to be a publication. Miramax is just upset that QT beat them to the draw is fleecing the highest bidder first.
Re: (Score:2)
No. No it's not. There is no magic number of copies required to be a publication. Miramax is just upset that QT beat them to the draw and is fleecing the highest bidder first.
Note to self... Read preview before hitting submit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Miramax argues that NFTs are a one-time sale, and are not equivalent to publication of a screenplay, and that therefore Miramax owns the NFT rights.
And yet somehow I think that Miramax would sprain a lawyer's wrist filing suit against anyone selling an NFT of the entirety of Pulp Fiction and claiming it's not copyright infringement because copyright infringement requires "publication".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yesss ... but just what is being published? Can you reconstitute the original from the NFT? Based on what others have been saying, I don't think so. And if you can't, in what way is it infringing on the copyright?
I think I need to rephrase that. Can you reconstitue any part of the original from the NFT?
If, as others have indicate, it's generated as a hash, then the answer would be expected to be no. OTOH, I have a hard time imagining non-tech folks thinking a hash of some image was in any way worth pay
Re: (Score:1)
Yesss ... but just what is being published? Can you reconstitute the original from the NFT?
No. Think of an NFT as a receipt. A receipt that can't be forged, and a receipt anyone can verify was A) sold by the seller, and B) purchased by the buyer.
And if you can't, in what way is it infringing on the copyright?
Miramax claims Tarantino signed away his copyright rights to the original script.
Tarantino claims he did no such thing.
Note that when Tarantino announced selling the NFT, Miramax started not with a lawsuit but by sending a cease and desist to not claim to transfer copyright ownership he didn't have rights to.
Tarantino responded he was going to do so any
Re:Hashes for sale! Discount bits for you! (Score:5, Interesting)
I would have expected Tarantino to be above this type of whoring of his art.
Re: (Score:2)
Must one own the copyright to something in order to sell an NFT of it?
Since buying an NFT does not grant you any actual rights, it's difficult to see how anyone else's rights are violated by it.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be in interesting case. I think I read an article once talking about the legality of selling pictures of monuments. MY understanding is that you cannot???? take a picture and sell it of the statue of liberty. Because someone owns the copyright to the SoL so it would be like taking a picture of a new Star Was movie, printing it a a t shirt and selling it. Yes, you did all the work, and the lighting and angle and choice were transformative somewhat, but they own the entire concept of Star War, its c
"Interfered"? (Score:2)
Miramax alleges that Tarantino's actions have interfered with the studio's own plans to enter the market [...]
Sounds to me like this sort of drama will drive up the NFT prices for everyone, given that they're basically just vehicles for buying "hype".
This is gonna be good (Score:5, Funny)
It's going to be entertaining watching Tarantino explain to a judge that he wants to sell an entry in a file on the Internet containing a URL to another file on the Internet, which is itself widely available for free from a variety of sources.
And then Miramax arguing that no, Tarantino shouldn't be allowed to do that because it's a great idea and we want to do it instead.
Re:This is gonna be good (Score:4, Interesting)
It's going to be entertaining watching Tarantino explain to a judge that he wants to sell an entry in a file on the Internet containing a URL to another file on the Internet, which is itself widely available for free from a variety of sources.
And then Miramax arguing that no, Tarantino shouldn't be allowed to do that because it's a great idea and we want to do it instead.
Pithiest take I have read, well said!
"Your honor, I would like to enter into evidence this URL, pointing to a large integer, which nobody had computed before last week Tuesday, containing a shorter summary of the movie 'Pulp Fiction' than any newspaper article. It belongs to my client Miramax."
Re: (Score:1)
It doesn't have to be copyrighted to use copyrighted work.
And it's pretty hard to imagine this doesn't involve images from the movie in some way.
Digital autograph? (Score:2)
If Tarantino were selling an autographed copy of the screenplay on eBay, I'm sure Miramax would be fine with it. The NFT is basically just a way to verify the authenticity of a digital copy of something, the way a certificate of authenticity does for a physical item like an autograph.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> ...based on excerpts from Tarantino's original handwritten script for the film, accompanied by commentary...
QT owns the copyright to his own work
Unless he sold it to Miramax. Which Miramax says he did, and probably has the contracts to back it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoever this "Tarantinoâ(TM)s " guy is, he should give them a notice that he's terminating the copyright transfer at the 35 year mark, as is his right.
You don't really "sell" a copyright in the same way as you "sell" an NFT.
Re: (Score:2)
It hasn't been 35 years yet. Ergo, whatever contract is in place is still entirely valid.
(And it's possible, though I have doubts, that it was originally written as work for hire, and he never owned any part of it.)
In short, speculating here is pretty pointless, since there's no actual information.
Re: (Score:2)
It hasn't been 35 years yet.
You don't understand the details of how it works, so you didn't need to reply to my comment.
If it had been 35 years, it would be too late to punish their intransigence. Because it has not been 35 years, he can punish them by sunsetting their rights at the 35 year mark.
speculating here is pretty pointless, since...
... since you didn't put on your thinking cap and figure out what the nerds were talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Your reply was pointless.
As, I suspect, is the rest of your life.
Re: (Score:2)
Your reply was pointless.
As, I suspect, is the rest of your life.
Hurr durr, you must be a real winner to say things like that.
I guess you were triggered pretty bad by the idea of having to understand the words.
Re: (Score:2)
"QT owns the copyright to his own work"
He did this work for a company while receiving a paycheck. In the same way that the construction worker who was paid to build your house, cannot sell pictures of your bathroom, this does not fall under some fair use jus because he is adding commentary and it is his handwriting.
Money out of nothing. (Score:2)
The internet is awesome!
Copyright? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't NFTs fall into the very clearly defined, legally speaking, category of "derivative work"? After all the NFT of the screenplay cannot exist without the screenplay, since it is a kind of "checksum" of the content of the text.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if it's a work of art. And from what I can gather that's not a fair description of an NFT. I think it would clearly fall under "fair use" if it were covered by copyright at all. If it weren't for the money.
No problem (Score:2)
Like investing in META? (Score:2)
IANAL but based on TFA Tarantino's rights include screenplay publication and electronic formats. Sounds like maybe this is selling the right to a single person to view the screenplay online, but not sure if he is also selling the original screenplay document himself or if he owns that. Seems like a neat way for artists and collectors to reserve and monetize their rights by selling access to a group of people, like running a library / private collection or exhibition space. I don't see it as being worth mill
NFT of a Physical Object? (Score:2)
I do not know what is worse, the selling of poorly drawn worthless digital images, or people taking pictures of things actually worth money and selling URLs to said images.