Have other "borrowed" from Mr. Bradbury's work in the past, hoping to tap into some of his fame and name recognition? Very likely so, though, I've yet to hear Bradbury so upset as he is over this issue.
Really, though, what can you expect from Michael Moore? Michael is not interested in an issue or a cause, he is interested in the bottom line question, what will this film produce for him in the way of fame and fortune? In this sense, then, Moore is no different from any of the so-called "greedy" corporations so reviled by liberals (including Moore).
I'll even go so far as to say that if Bush is not re-elected this November, Michael Moore, in my opinion, will be devastated. Why? Because President Bush has been the best thing that has ever happened to Mr. Moore; a cash cow no less.
Just as any good American entrepreneur might, Michael Moore has tapped into the angst of the angry left and turned it into good ol' dollars and cents. In that sense then (no pun intended), good for Michael Moore. In every other way, however, the man is, at best, no better than a greedy executive seeking to maximize his opportunities.
Lets recognize Michael Moore for what he is, an entrepreneur and a businessman, not an idealist. If Mr. Bradbury wants his title and book returned to him, he'll have to treat him as such. This means, of course, he'll have to use legal means to force Moore to desist in what he perceives to be the theft of his book title. And this is a very real and legitimate concern, not one manufactured by Mr. Bradbury for partisan reasons.
The fact is, as one who watches the SciFi Channel and visits their website on a frequent basis, I learned recently that a production company is planning to produce a new "Fahrenheit 451" movie. If Moore continues to politicize this title with his "Fahrenheit 9/11" movie, he threatens the future profitability of both Mr. Bradbury's book and any future movie based on the book.
Can Mr. Bradbury afford to wait while Michael Moore continues to blatantly borrow from his title? Does Bradbury have recourse in pushing Moore to change his movie title? Well, lets just call this a developing story.
David Flanagan
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Anonymous Coward
"Will Bradbury act to protect his copyright?"
Bottom line: book, song and movie titles aren't subject to US copyright laws. Moore may have been a jerk for not returning Bradbury's call earlier, but Moore's done nothing illegal here.
Tempest, back in your teapot!
2 - mike
Uh, you can't, as a general rule, copyright a book title, my man. Bradbury has no legal case.
3 - David Flanagan
Really? I thought that you could, especially as the book also was made into a movie. I'll check that out.
Thanks.
David
4 - boomcrashbaby
You can't copyright a book title or a movie title. That's why you will find porn movies titled 'forest hump' or saturday night beaver, etc. (understandably, a few of you might not know that).
5 - booomcrashbaby
If he's married, though, maybe you all can out his wife as a spy.
6 - JR
Can Mr. Bradbury afford to wait while Michael Moore continues to blatantly borrow from his title? Probably not. Noone should allow such a blatant copyright violation to go unanswered. To do so would be to invite other such violations.
Too late.
7 - Purple Tigress
I think that Mr. Moore's lawyers will laugh at Mr. Bradbury's lawyers.
There is already a book called "Fahrenheit 666" that was published in the 1990s.
8 - Aaron, Duke De Mondo
Where you at any screenings of Moore's film? The tag "fictional" flung in its direction in such a derisory manner suggests that you found the film to be a work of utter fabrication, which would odd if you hadn't seen it an all.
Also, it's not a short film, it's feature length.
Interesting point about how Moore would be out of luck if George W didn't get re-elected. Thing is, though, he was doing quite fine for the last near-two decades, what with Roger And Me being one of the highest-grossing documentaries of all time long before he made Bowling For Columbine, which, also, didn't have much of anything to do with Bush.
9 - Lono
I am going out on a limg here folks, to say this:
I think Michael Moore is fantastic. He has the balls to stand up to big corporations and big power. Even if you think he is an opportunist dressed as a liberal (which I disagree 100%) - you have to admire his courage. Now, if you really want to hate him... know his body of work first. Unfortunately, we all know many ways in which Bush has failed us. So go rent 'Bowling for Columbine' or 'The Big One'.
Cheers,
Lono
10 - Eric Olsen
Yes, as far as I know you can't copyright book and movie titles. If you think about it, it makes sense: soon all possible titles would be used up and you would have titles like "My New Book," but then that would be used up too, and you would have "Eric Olsen's New Book" or "Eric's Latest!" which would be not terribly evocative or interesting, other than to me, and so on.
Eventaully you would arrive at the state we now find ourselves in regarding good band names: they're all gone.
11 - jack e. jett
great publicity for ray bradbury.
jack e. jett
12 - Jim Carruthers
Well, y'know the fact (and Flannel-Man, like doing laundry, separating fact from opinion makes for a better outcome, but then, you are just a water carrier for a right-wing PR campaign) that Ray Bradbury has an anniversary printing of "Fahrenheit 451", and is trying to shop around a deal for a remake of the original movie, nah, the old hack would never try to shill from one of the most publicized movies of the summer?
I have come to accept the unaccountable power structure likes to think the public is stupid, but at least try not to tell me that you think I'm stupid, over and over.
13 - Craig Lyndall
In all fairness to liberals, many don't consider Michael Moore to be their spokesman. Just like I don't consider Rush Limbaugh to be mine. There are some interesting points for Moore to make, but I will draw the line when he creates something the way he did with Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine. Anyway, one thing you can not say is that Moore has made a bad movie. He is a good filmmaker. Objective? Hell no. A good filmmaker? Yes.
14 - Jim Carruthers
This is just another attack from what is known as The Vast Ignorant Conspiracy.
This isn't a copyright issue (you can't copyright a title - it is the entire work which is under copyright - all or nothing).
However, movie titles do come under Union regulations - Screen Writer's Guild and Director's Guild, but these are just arbitrations made by the workers. So, if Ray Bradbury is a member of either SWG or DGA, he can make a case, otherwise, the old scab can go pound sand.
I'm glad Flannel-Man highlighted the Solidarity that is in the Workers! Hail Freedonia!
15 - David Flanagan
I think Michael Moore is fantastic. He has the balls to stand up to big corporations and big power.
I have no problem with anyone who likes Michael Moore. I'll echo Jim with his comment of "Hail Freedonia!" The only thing I would say of Mr. Moore is that, at this point, he IS a big corporation and power, which is why Ray Bradbury had to talk to Michael's "people" and did not hear back from Michael for 6 months.
As for corporate America, my cry is "Long live small, medium, and large business!" Also, "Hail Corporate America!" And anything else like that.
One of those liberal mindsets I've never understood is that so many of you love employment but hate the employers. Could someone please explain THAT to me?
As for the issue related to any copyright that Ray Bradbury might have on his book title, I stand corrected. Thanks for setting me straight.
David
16 - Purple Tigress
BTW, there is another movie version of Fahrenheit 451 in the works. Out of Warner Bros., but they don't seem to have anything really set on it (like the actors and director).
17 - Mark Saleski
One of those liberal mindsets I've never understood is that so many of you love employment but hate the employers. Could someone please explain THAT to me?
first of all this is incorrectly labeled.
us liberals don't even like employment.
we all just want to sit around all day and sponge off of the government.
seriously, can't you get anything right?!!
18 - Jim Carruthers
Could someone please explain THAT to me?
You're trying to say you've never read Dilbert?
Let me break it down for you: employers as a class, are never obliged to act in the best interests of their employees, while employees are expected to do nothing but act in the best interests of their employers, and most of their motivation is punitive (ie, the beatings will continue until morale improves).
19 - boomcrashbaby
One of those liberal mindsets I've never understood is that so many of you love employment but hate the employers. Could someone please explain THAT to me?
I would imagine that many liberals don't approve of corporations for different reasons, and then there are many liberals (the majority) who have no problem with them, as long as they don't lose any sense of humanity.
Stereotypically speaking, most liberals that I know of, don't hate the medium to small business, it's the large corporation where you cease to be an individual and become a number that they don't like. When you work for a corporation for 35 years, but then a year before retirement get laid off, so the company doesn't have to pay retirement, THAT'S what liberals don't like.
When you are as big as Wal-Mart, and not only do you squash mom and pop shops for miles around, putting many people on the unemployment line (more people get displaced by a Wal-Mart store, than get hired by it), and when you use intimidation and threats to keep unions out of your business, like Wal-Mart does, THAT'S what liberals don't like. I know someone who used to work for Wal-Mart, and the harassment they did to keep employees from voting in a union was extremely unethical. Nearby grocery stores or retail stores that are unionized and have to pay their employees 15-20 bucks an hour cannot compete with the giant retailer price-wise, when Wal-Mart won't pay 90% of their employees above minimum wage. Many people who made 15 bucks an hour, and find themselves laid off because Wal-Mart moved into town, suddenly find themselves having to work for Wal-Mart at minimum wage. Doesn't make one feel all cozy with their new boss (who BTW, gets paid more than the boss you used to work for).
Liberals don't like employers who put the dollar above the worker. We are all human, we all need to live, and when an employer puts making a dollar above your welfare, then naturally, you aren't going to care much for him. It is Enron, Tyco and employers like that, that liberals don't like. Even if no criminal activity is involved, when you treat and process your employee the same as you do other office supplies - disposable, then people aren't going to like you very much.
20 - JR
us liberals don't even like employment.
we all just want to sit around all day and sponge off of the government.
That settles it. I'm a liberal.
21 - Mark Edward Manning
Boom: "Liberals don't like employers who put the dollar above the worker."
Neither do many conservatives, which is why conservatives are split up the middle on free trade. It took me a while to warm up to NAFTA, which I now support, but I still resent GATT. That has been a disaster. Mostly because of the WTO, which is always keen to rule against the U.S., but for reasons concerning piracy and dumping as well.
22 - Jim Carruthers
I wouldn't mind Yankee conservatives so much if they did what they say, instead of what they do, which is to stab their trading partners in the back, and then as often as possible cheat, lie and steal (I was going to use an allegation of ass-fucking the corpse of their alleged trade partners, but decided it would offend the vultures in the audience).
23 - Temple A. Stark
You can bet Ray Bradbury is a member of SWG or DGA. He''s been in and out of Hollywood since about the 1960s on.
Also, I hope "old scab" is meant as an indearment because Bradbury is the finest fiction writer alive. He had imagination while imagination was still a virgin.
24 - Jim Carruthers
Actually, the first thought I had about Bradbury when I heard this two weeks ago, was, "wow, I thought he was dead".
Bradbury hasn't done anything worthwhile in more than 30 years, so spare me the hagiographic bullshit.
He's just trying to shill his book re-issue and get some juice to get a remake movie done.
25 - Jim Carruthers
I did a quick google, and Ray Bradbury isn't a member of the DGA, and his last notation in the Writer's Guild of America, is, ah, 30 years ago.
So, I suggest, if brother Ray has a grievance with another member (that is, if he is still currently a member in good standing) he take it up with the members, or shut the fuck up.
Unless they've started a union for self-promoting gas-bags, in which case, go for it boys!