This is the best summary I could come up with:
Aug 8 (Reuters) - Dan Ackerman, editor in chief of the tech-news website Gizmodo, filed a lawsuit in Manhattan federal court on Monday accusing Apple (AAPL.O), the Tetris Company and others of adapting his book about the landmark video game “Tetris” into a feature film without his permission.
The book describes the Soviet history of the popular puzzle game and the fight for its global licensing rights as a “Cold War thriller with a political intrigue angle,” according to Ackerman’s lawsuit.
He said the company refused to license its intellectual property for projects related to his book, dissuading producers who were interested in adapting it, and sent him a “strongly worded cease and desist letter.”
According to the complaint, the company’s CEO Maya Rogers and screenwriter Noah Pink began copying Ackerman’s book for the “Tetris” screenplay starting in 2017.
Ackerman said the film “liberally borrowed numerous specific sections and events of the book” and was “similar in almost all material respects” to it.
Ackerman accused Apple and the Tetris Company of copyright infringement, unfair competition, and illegally interfering with his business relations.
I’m a bot and I’m open source!
it’s history. it happened. Ackerman didn’t invent the story, unless he’s claiming that’s the case…?
If I write a book about The Prohibition, is Ken Burns going to sue me because he once made a docu-series about it?
No but if you wrote a musical about prohibition, submitted it to apple, but apple rejects it, discourages other producers from picking it up and then apple made a musical about the prohibition, you may have a case. I think the issue is the thematic stylistic interpretation was copied over either intentionally or unintentionally, and the court needs to decide if it’s worth a suit
I agree that, if these allegations turn out to be true, it’s pretty damned scummy. but is it copyright infringement to tell a story from a certain perspective?
I mean, I’ve seen the film, and I’ve skimmed through the book. they both focus on the most interesting parts of the story as any dramatic retelling would, and the story itself lends itself to a certain interpretation, regardless of who writes about it. Personally, I don’t see the story bing told (at least from the protagonist’s perspective) any other way and there are certainly many differences between them that are immediately evident. But it would seem to me that anyone telling a story about those events would end up with a similar story simply because they’re based on real people and historical events.
but you’re right that there’s probably enough “there there” to warrant adjudication and would depend on the interpretations of copyright law by the judge and jury, if it were to go to trial.
edit: btw, your use of a musical isn’t a great analogy since musicals have way more original material (the music) tat can be used to prove or dispute a copyright infringement claim than simply interpretation of an historical event.
Style isn’t copyrightable, there has to be more substantive commonalities than just that.
It’ll be up to the courts to decide if there is, of course. I notice that a review of the book quoted Ackerman from it:
In cases where the historical record is unclear, or when my interviews conflicted with previously published accounts, I’ve attempted to recount the most likely version of what happened, based on research and my own conversations with many of the primary participants. A certain amount of historical interpolation was required to offer a clear narrative understanding, including into the thought processes and motivations of those involved.
Which suggests that the book is partly fictionalized, so it’s possible that there may be identifiable elements lifted from it. We’ll see.
No surprise here I hope he gets more than the 6%. Get fucking 100%. Stole his work and told him to fuck off.
They didn’t steal anything. He wrote a non-fiction account of a historical event. The Apple TV+ movie is a somewhat fictionalized account of a historical event with the direct support of the primary people actually involved. They don’t owe him a penny. At most his contribution is an inspiration that, hey, this could make a great movie, which is not itself actually worth any money.
Apple acts really shady with small business people, I have direct experience with this. I trust the little guy. I’m sure if they lose in court, they would count it as paying for it to begin with. They’re taking a chance and may or may not “win.” How many other people are they doing this to?
I trust the little guy.
The editor of Gizmodo knows very well that “Apple” gets clicks and in this case he’s trying to generate free press for his obscure book. His suit doesn’t quite meet the standard of “frivolous,” so I don’t think anybody is getting sanctioned for it, but it’s certainly not filed in good faith. It’s not even an issue of “trust.” What he claims is inherently ridiculous. You can’t copyright historical events, and presenting it as a Cold War thriller isn’t some radical creative choice of “tone.” The dry facts are pretty thrilling on their own, and the extra-thrilling parts (car chase) are inventions of the film.
How many other people are they doing this to?
Not stealing from? Literally billions of other people are being treated the same way by Apple every day.
Apple and ripping shit off. Old news
Gizmodo? The publication that got uninvited to all Apple events due to their coverage on the leaked iPhone 4? I’m certain there are new owners of Gizmodo since then, but the irony here is pretty interesting…
