Trailer shot with XL-1s

[Dave Frank]

I recently finished a teaser/trailer for my movie called Young and Vulnerable Years. You can check out www.yvyears.com and under the Media section is the video.

or if you're lazy: http://www.yvyears.com/teaser.html

I would love to hear what you think. Thanks!

[Joe Ryan]

i really like it, looks great, well edited. nice job dave.

which lense/s did you use?

[Dave Frank]

It's just the standard 16x lens.

[Bob Safay]

Dave, very good. I think you did a very good job in the editing. Well done. Bob

[Rob Lohman]

First: I've moved your post to the showcase forum so that more
people get a chance to see it!

I thought it was really nicely done, especially the first part of
the trailer. I liked that the best. Great work!

[Dave Frank]

Thanks everyone!

[Gustavo Godinho]

Billy Corgan is in your movie? I saw a guy just like him.

[John Britt]

After reading through the plot, I'm thinking we might want to drag resident lawyer Paul Tauger in here for some advice! :)

So I'm a little confused: are the actors in the trailer actually going to be in the movie? Is the May 8 casting call just for extras and non-principles?

Lookin' good so far, though...

[Dave Frank]

Actually, we are planning on discussing it with a lawyer. I would like to here any other person's input on legal issues though. All the dialogue and scenes are completely original. It is completely different than the book in that the characters are in a completely different setting and have(for the most part) different names. Really the only similarity is the relationships, which is what intrigued me most about the novel.

As for casting: The teaser just used what I refer to as my stock actors. They are just a group who I could count on to play some quick roles. They aren't my official actors. On May 8th, we will have the real casting call and get the actors for the production, which starts in June. We are looking for most of the main roles right now, but we welcome anyone who just wants to be an extra or a secondary character.

p.s. - That's not Billy Corrigan.

[John Britt]

<<<-- Originally posted by Dave Frank : It is completely different than the book in that the characters are in a completely different setting and have(for the most part) different names. Really the only similarity is the relationships, which is what intrigued me most about the novel. -->>>

Well, you've named the two main characters directly from the book -- Nick and, more blatently, Jay Gatsby.

Since Gatsby was published after 1923, I believe it is still a copyrighted work, and will remain so for around another 20 years or so. Having your main characters blatently named after Fitzgerald's creations will probably only hurt you.

[Dave Frank]

Well Nick is just a first name. It's also pretty common. His last name is also different anyway. Gatsby is a name that is getting changed once we can figure out a good replacement.

[Peter Wiley]

Named AFTER is the key here, I think. It's obviously not that Jay Gatsby and couldn't be since the film is not set in the 1920s.

"Inspired by" is just fine.There would not be any art at all if people did not borrow ideas and inspiration from others and that's clearly what you are doing. I think you are well, well in the clear re any possible copyright issues as long as you are not swiping actual dialogue from any published source.

I'd keep the name Gatsby so that the homage to Fitzgerald is very clear. I am thinking, as a sometime college prof., say here is a kid that read a great work of American literature and is trying to find something in it for his generation. The implicit comparison of our times to the 1920s is a great idea, and on the mark I think. All this makes me want to know more about the movie, and it's a great marketing angle.

The teaser is really good, by the way.

[John Britt]

Peter

I don't mean to be rude, but unless you are a "sometime college professor" of Intellectual Property and Copyright Law, I don't see that any of your comments hold water. You cannot simply claim "artistic license," change the era, and *presto* avoid the realities of copyright law.

In fact, one of the biggest arguments against "Bono" laws and other extensions of copyright is that it puts a stranglehold on the very artistic license you mention -- one of the reasons that works should eventually enter the public domain is so that future artists can adapt and update the work. This is a very legitimate aspect of artistic creation. But if a work is still under copyright, then it is an infringement to create a derivative work. (Even "Fair Use" exemptions are not perfectly clear and seem -- to my understanding -- to be decided on a very specific case-by-case basis)

Here are a few quotes from a simple search of the phrase "book copyright" here at dvinfo.net (you can also search the "taking care of business" forum for other topics, like "novel adaptation"):

"Copyright protection is absolute when it comes to the rights reserved to the copyright owner. One of these rights is the right to prepare derivative works. If the owner said you can't, you can't. It doesn't matter whether you make money or not. It doesn't matter if you don't exhibit it publicly. It is copyright infringement to _make_ the film." -- Paul Tauger

In response to the question: "Surely this is like making a fan film?": "All of which are illegal derivative works, unless the underlying work is in the public domain (a few films are at this point)." Paul Tauger, same thread


These are from a thread regarding the straight adaptation of a short story, but some of the concepts are similar. I think an IP lawyer could be easily convinced that a movie that is not only similar to The Great Gatsby in content/action, but which also contains characters with the exact names, is a derivative work and the filmmaker has committed an actionable offense. And if you haven't been paying attention for the past decade or two, companies are tightening their grip on the properties they own.

I am not a lawyer, but I have studied Media Law and pay close attention to the comments of those who know, like Paul Tauger. Dave is absolutely correct in meeting with an IP lawyer to discuss his adaptation of The Great Gatsby, and he should probably do so before even casting a single person.

[Dave Frank]

Thanks a ton for the input guys. It is true that no dialogue from the original is contained in my script. And as I said, I would like to keep the name Gatsby, but will most likely change it.

Copyright laws are really screwy I know. That's why I am getting legal advice. But really it seems silly when I have no relation to the book other than the character relationships. But hey...that's the law!

[Peter Wiley]

John you are not rude, but maybe you have misunderstood my post.

There is a significant difference between "inspired by" and "derivative work". I was simply offering my opinion (and, please, it is only an opinion as should go without saying in a forum of this kind), that based on the evidence presented -- the plot synopsis and the clip on Mr. Frank's Web site -- I have a hard time seeing his proposed movie as derivative of F. Scott Fitzgrald novel "The Great Gatsby". True, a couple of the characters have the same name as those that appear in Fitzgerald's work and Frank does mention lavish parties. If the Fitzgerald estate is going to excerise control over the expression lavish parties in film, then the world has gone barking mad.

Did I suggest Mr. Frank not see an "IP" lawyer? No. Fine idea.

Did I suggest there are no circumstances in which Mr. Frank could get into trouble. No. In fact, I suggested one.

Did I say that, as a "sometimes prof" I was an authority on copyright law? No. What I did clearly imply is that, as a teacher, I admired Mr. Frank's creativity and seriousness -- qualities lacking in many of the students I have worked with recently and an issue well within my competence.