He plunked it in there - front and center...
even before the name of the film...the film - which is the whole purpose of the project for crying out loud.
Is he that proud that he knocked off history and a book?
I mean, seriously.
It says in the trivia section on here that he had to do it because there was already a film of the same name
shareWarner Bros. owns the rights to a 1917 film called "The Butler", and unlike other situations where one studio will license the name to another of the same title, WB refused to license the title "The Butler" to The Weinstein Company.
TWC was therefore forced to change the official title to "Lee Daniels' The Butler".
Hey folks,
Sorry, but the whole idea that Daniels' name had to be added to the title to keep from harming Warner Brothers' rights just does not make sense. As noted by Effervesce, "He plunked it in there - front and center...," and no matter how they try to spin the thing, it simply smacks of shameless hubris.
If there really was a problem with Warner Brothers in using The Butler for the title, I can think of a few other titles which could have worked without spotlighting any more attention on the director. The Butler: 1957 to 2008 or The Butler: Six Decades In The White House seem to work well. I am sure other folks could suggest other names which would work well without spotlighting the director and his pomposity.
Best wishes,
Dave Wile
Those are some god-awful suggestions. It's not a Harold & Kumar straight-to-dvd sequel.
The Butler was the only name that could be used on this movie. There' are no other that would make it justice.
That cannot be true. Titles to movies cannot be trademarked. You can make a movie and call it "Star Wars" if you want to. You cannot use the characters or story of that other Star Wars but you can call it anything you like.
Nobody's looking for a puppeteer in today's wintry economic climate.
That cannot be true. Titles to movies cannot be trademarked. You can make a movie and call it "Star Wars" if you want to. You cannot use the characters or story of that other Star Wars but you can call it anything you like.
No, you can still name your movie "Star Wars", but you would be hampered in selling "Star Wars" merchandise, which is a huge part of action movies' gross these days.
Nobody's looking for a puppeteer in today's wintry economic climate.
No, you can still name your movie "Star Wars", but you would be hampered in selling "Star Wars" merchandise, which is a huge part of action movies' gross these days.
That's interesting but I don't know if you are correct.
Star Wars is the name of a movie. As such it is descriptive of a creative work and while the creative work is protected intellectual property, the descriptive title is not.
I found some exceptions to this rule (linked below) but your example is not one of them. I cannot find anything about "trademarking a franchise series."
But, anyway, this does not apply to "The Butler", anyway, as that is not part of a franchise that I know of.
http://www.mmblawfirm.com/publications/articles/franchise/67.htm
There is actually some interesting history of Lucas Films attempts at protecting the Star Wars names in court. Two that I found involve the use of the term "Star Wars" to describe the Strategic Defense Initiative of the 1980s (rejected by the court) and the other is action against the producer of a pornographic movie called "Star Balz", which was also rejected as being within the creative realm of parody.
http://www.newmediarights.org/blogging/let_wookie_win_short_history_st ar_wars_litigation
Nobody's looking for a puppeteer in today's wintry economic climate.
Here is a pretty good plain language source:
http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/titles.html
a. Trademark Friendly Title: Series Titles Enjoy Trademark Protection
Generally, titles of works that are part of an ongoing series are protected under trademark and unfair competition law. Once a series title such as Chicken Soup for the Soul becomes identified in the public's mind with a particular author or publisher, unfair competition law kicks in to protect against consumer confusion, enforcing a kind of commercial morality on the marketplace of ideas. Once a series has been established, each work in the series reinforces that it comes from the same source as the others. Being a series author or publisher, is one of the secrets of successful publishing.
Without trademark law, consumers might otherwise be deprived of their ability to distinguish among competing forms of entertainment and information. Likewise, producers and publishers would be denied valuable sequel and adaptation rights in best selling books and hit movies. While some might argue that a world without TWILIGHT 3 is a good thing, trademark law allows us to cash in on the goodwill and commercial magnetism of a best selling series title.
That's interesting. Do you know how they legally define that a series is in the public's mind? Does it happen as soon as there is a sequel? Does the sequel have to have the same name as the original with a colon, or something that identifies it with the series? Because I believe the first three movies in the Star Wars Series were NOT called "Star Wars II: The Empire Strikes Back."
Or is it that George Lucas originally had a series in mind and written before the first movie was made and he had to trademark the series name?
Nobody's looking for a puppeteer in today's wintry economic climate.
That is a good question and honestly, I am not sure. But it certainly bears looking into. You've given me something to research!
Also, one thing to consider -- international trademark obviously has different laws than the U.S., so one strategy authors/filmmakers, etc, would pursue would be to get trademark protection on their title internationally which would be enforceable outside the U.S. That would have the net effect of eliminating identical titles in the US, even for single entry movies, since all movies have global distribution ambition.
But I seriously don't know about the timing of the series title(s) and when it attaches. I'll look into that.
No, you can still name your movie "Star Wars"
Maybe you should read a few more posts in the thread to see how adults go about finding out facts about something before you talk out your ass.
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules. "
-Walter Sobchak
Has nothing to do with copyright or trademark law. It's as simple as the business entities involved voluntarily subjecting themselves to the useless, outdated, and evil MPAA. They therefore make themselves subject to the MPAA's bylaws, which at times have been at odds with actual law... like actual copyright & intellectual property law. In this day in age, we don't need to be registering movie titles or getting the same organization's assessment of the content in order to receive a generic, meaningless rating, to say nothing of its history like propping up the corrupt studio system or engaging in propaganda and censorship.
shareIf you read the description and trivia page about this movie here on imdb, it explains all that.
Do your homework.
I'm not joining OP's complaint, however the idea that Warner Bros. can drag out a short silent film from 100 years ago and claim name exclusivity sounds like complete b.s. The trivia section also claims it was the MPAA that made this decision. The MPAA is not a government entity, has no legal authority, so I would guess that if this story is true, it wasn't a legal battle, it was an in-house settlement to avoid a legal battle. But I can't believe WB even tried, or that they would buckle so readily to such a stupid claim.
sharethe idea that Warner Bros. can drag out a short silent film from 100 years ago and claim name exclusivity sounds like complete b.s.
Why would doubting something so stupid make me a "conspiracy idiot"?
Explain to me, what in my doubting involves some sort of conspiracy?
Do you even know what that word means?
Because, idiot, your next line is that they did do it, intentionally because of a personal beef. That is literally a conspiracy theory on your part.
http://deadline.com/2013/07/citing-its-1916-silent-film-short-warner-bros-blocking-harvey-weinstein-from-using-the-butler-title-on-lee-daniels-film-534015/
This article explains in huge detail all the controversy.
Those who say you cannot use the same name as a previous movie (or book) are absolutely wrong. As a matter of fact, here on IMDb, you will find many duplicate titles. Here they are differentiated by year of release or marked with a Roman numeral after the title, as in The Butler/I and The Butler/II when two movies with the same titles are released in the same year. The same is true of book titles. They can be duplicated also.
Warren Beatty made a movie in 1978 called Heaven Can Wait. There is also a movie named Heaven Can Wait from 1943. Interestingly, though completely different stories, each movie was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture. Warren Beatty's movie was actually a remake of Here Comes Mr. Jordan. Warren could have duplicated that title, if he'd chosen to.
Duplicate titles actually happen quite frequently.
So, yes, the director inserting his name before the movie title is the utmost in ego satisfaction.