James Cameron plagiarizes Screenwriter
M.C.
Titanic director James Cameron and French filmmaker Claude Zidi have
been found guilty of plagiarism after a drawn-out legal battle over
authorship of movie, True Lies.
Cameron based his hit 1994 flick on French film La Totale, after buying
the movie rights from Zidi in 1991. However, Screenwriter Lucien Lambert
claimed La Totale was based on his script Emilie, written in 1982.
Lambert had lost a previous case against the pair when he was unable to
prove when his script was written. But with new evidence from actress
Sylvie Jolie, the French Appeal Court decided to award the unknown
screenwriter an undisclosed chunk of the $15 million Zidi pocketed from
the hit American remake. Joly claimed she had received Lambertąs script
in 1982, a decade before La Totale. Lambertąs lawyer called the verdict:
łA victory of David over Goliath˛.
Incredibly, although La Totale was a hit in France, Lambert only became
aware of the film's existence when he saw it on TV seven years after its
theatrical release.
Despite his windfall, the 72-year-oldąs lawyer saw the result as a
partial victory: "Unfortunately, Mr. Lambert has been robbed of his
American dream. Every screenwriter would love to have their name on the
credits of a Hollywood film, and it never happened".
Although named in the case, Cameron will escape without having to stump
up any cash. "It is not very nice for James Cameron, who is really not
at fault in all of this, but a moral judgment has been made
nonetheless," said Meyer. "When you buy something, you have to know
where it has come from."
Lawyers for Cameron and Zidi are expected to appeal the decision.
Story from http://www.worldmoviemag.com/index.php?request=News&key=337
Author: jmaybank
Published Date: 2004-07-01 Published Time: 13:54:55
Michael
"It is not very nice for James Cameron, who is really not
at fault in all of this, but a moral judgment has been made
nonetheless," said Meyer.
M
M.C. wrote:
> TITANIC DIRECTOR HITS LEGAL ICEBERG
>
> Titanic director James Cameron and French filmmaker Claude Zidi have
> been found guilty of plagiarism after a drawn-out legal battle over
> authorship of movie, True Lies.
>
> Cameron based his hit 1994 flick on French film La Totale, after buying
> the movie rights from Zidi in 1991. However, Screenwriter Lucien Lambert
> claimed La Totale was based on his script Emilie, written in 1982.
>
> Lambert had lost a previous case against the pair when he was unable to
> prove when his script was written. But with new evidence from actress
> Sylvie Jolie, the French Appeal Court decided to award the unknown
> screenwriter an undisclosed chunk of the $15 million Zidi pocketed from
> the hit American remake. Joly claimed she had received Lambert? script
> in 1982, a decade before La Totale. Lambert? lawyer called the verdict:
> ? victory of David over Goliath?.
>
> Incredibly, although La Totale was a hit in France, Lambert only became
> aware of the film's existence when he saw it on TV seven years after its
> theatrical release.
>
> Despite his windfall, the 72-year-old? lawyer saw the result as a
M.C.
Michael <mic...@nospama-Lyric.com> wrote:
> No he didn't. From your own source:
>
> "It is not very nice for James Cameron, who is really not
> at fault in all of this, but a moral judgment has been made
> nonetheless," said Meyer.
>
>
> M
Also from that source:
" Titanic director James Cameron and French filmmaker Claude Zidi have
been found guilty of plagiarism"
So in the eyes of the law he did...
M.C. wrote:
Gene Harris
> " Titanic director James Cameron and French filmmaker Claude Zidi have
> been found guilty of plagiarism"
>
> So in the eyes of the law he did...
As I understand it, Cameron bought the rights to La Totale in good faith
from Zidi, and is, of course, appealing the verdict.
Gene
M.C.
Gene Harris <gr8...@comcast.net> wrote:
Until the verdict is reversed, he's guilty -- no?
Gene Harris
Well, yeah, legally, but is he guilty morally? Doesn't sound like it to
me.
Gene
M.C.
Gene Harris <gr810r...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> > " Titanic director James Cameron and French filmmaker Claude Zidi
> >> > have been found guilty of plagiarism"
> >> >
> >> > So in the eyes of the law he did...
> >>
> >> As I understand it, Cameron bought the rights to La Totale in good
> >> faith from Zidi, and is, of course, appealing the verdict.
> >
> > Until the verdict is reversed, he's guilty -- no?
> >
>
> Well, yeah, legally, but is he guilty morally? Doesn't sound like it to
> me.
Nor me... on the other hand there is such a thing as due diligence, and
presumably much depends on what measures were taken to establish that
the rights were properly transferred and if anything was misrepresented.
Most -- probably all -- such contracts have language about ownership.
Gene Harris
> Nor me... on the other hand there is such a thing as due diligence,
> and presumably much depends on what measures were taken to establish
> that the rights were properly transferred and if anything was
> misrepresented. Most -- probably all -- such contracts have language
> about ownership.
Yeah, the obvious question to ask is whether Cameron has grounds for a
suit against Zidi for misrepresentation. You'd have thought they'd have
checked it out pretty thoroughly, but evidently not, or maybe Zidi was
particularly skillful in his misrepresentation.
Gene
Asbestos Jeff
> Well, yeah, legally, but is he guilty morally? Doesn't sound like it to
me.
If Dena Jo stole your car and sold it to me, I'd still have to either
give it back to you or pay you for it. It wasn't hers to sell in the
first place. But you couldn't get any big-assed punitive damages out
of me, since I didn't mean to do anything wrong.
Gene Harris
But could you go after her for reimbursement, and/or punitive damages, or
is it "caveat emptor"?
Gene
Mark Warner
> Titanic director James Cameron and French filmmaker Claude Zidi have
> been found guilty of plagiarism after a drawn-out legal battle over
> authorship of movie, True Lies.
>
> Cameron based his hit 1994 flick on French film La Totale, after buying
> the movie rights from Zidi in 1991. However, Screenwriter Lucien Lambert
> claimed La Totale was based on his script Emilie, written in 1982.
>
> Lambert had lost a previous case against the pair when he was unable to
> prove when his script was written. But with new evidence from actress
> Sylvie Jolie, the French Appeal Court decided to award the unknown
> screenwriter an undisclosed chunk of the $15 million Zidi pocketed from
> the hit American remake. Joly claimed she had received Lambertąs script
> in 1982, a decade before La Totale. Lambertąs lawyer called the verdict:
> łA victory of David over Goliath˛.
>
it proves that you don't need to register to WGA, LOC.
Just testimonials from living beings. many ways to prove your good faith
(like your "sent" directory of your mailbox)
but who claimed that no producer would steal one's work?
--
I was just looking for a warm meal somewhere.
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
wrote:
And exactly how is it that an action taken and ruled upon in the
courts of France proves anything about plagiarism laws and practices
in the United States? You've lost me there.
Caroline
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
wrote:
Let me see if I've got this straight... Cameron bought the rights to
the *movie* "La Totale," from Claude Zidi and based his movie, "True
Lies," on the story told in Zidi's film.
So along comes Lucien Lambert, who claims that Didier Kaminka, Simon
Michaėl, and Claude Zidi (credited "La Totale" screenwriters,
according to IMDb) plagiarized his "Emilie" script for their *script*
in 1982 for Zidi's movie.
Lambert's case is denied because he can't provide the court with
enough evidence that he had written his script, "Emilie," before 1982,
or that Zidi had read it.
So then Lambert goes back to court with ONE "witness" who says she
read his script for "Emilie" way back when, and yes, it was the same
story line that Zidi used in "La Totale."
First, I don't think such a case would fly in U.S. courts with only
one corroborating witness, and second, it sounds like blatant "deep
pockets" justice to me. According to information in the article, why
didn't M. Lambert ask for *any* of the procedes from the "La Totale"
movie, but just went after a portion of the sum Cameron payed Zidi for
rights to his *film?*
Off hand, I would say that there is circumstantial evidence there that
French law sucks*!
Caroline
*Dead bunnies and live mongooses. As well as mongeese!
Asbestos Jeff
> But could you go after her for reimbursement, and/or punitive damages, or
> is it "caveat emptor"?
I'd sue her for fraud and get reimbursement of what I paid her,
damages for the consequences of my reliance on the thing I don't own
and maybe punitive damages.
This is why it's so important to have all the copyright documents in
order. You always want to be able to know who owns what.
Ron
sp...@miholer.com (Asbestos Jeff) wrote:
> This is why it's so important to have all the copyright documents in
> order. You always want to be able to know who owns what.
Right. But, of course, the guy Cameron bought the story from probably
registered copyright for HIS script, which he was claiming was an
original.
-Ron
Jay Browning
<ronald...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Exactly. Cameron doesn't seem the type to not do his homework. He's
probably got a signed paper where this fellow states, or at least
infers, that the script is his to sell. What more do folks want. A lie
detector test, ads in the local paper, what?
Even in the articles they say that Cameron isn't being fined etc
because he acted in good faith. Which is why it irks me that he has
been brought up at all. He should have never been part of the case
unless they could prove that he bought the script knowing that it was
stolen. As soon as they couldn't prove it, he should have been removed.
Now, folks are spreading around articles that he's a theft when he
(according to the lack of proof to the contrary) acted in good faith.
Asbestos Jeff
> He should have never been part of the case unless they could prove that he bought the script knowing that it was stolen.
Bullshit. If Cameron profited from the use of stolen goods, he's got
to give the profits to the rightful owner, even if he had no bad
intent. It's not about Cameron doing anything immoral. It's about the
original owner being entitled to the fruits of what he owns.
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
Exactly. But the article doesn't say anything about any judgement
against the profits from the French movie, or against the French film
studio, distributor, producers, etc. But I suppose that could be in
the works.
Caroline
Ron
> Bullshit. If Cameron profited from the use of stolen goods, he's got
> to give the profits to the rightful owner, even if he had no bad
> intent. It's not about Cameron doing anything immoral. It's about the
> original owner being entitled to the fruits of what he owns.
Right. But the money that was due to the rightful owner was paid to the
fraudulent owner. Shouldn't the r.o. go after the money that was paid
for the script, rather than money that he wouldn't have gotten if
Cameron had bought directly from him?
There's a very easy way to tell how much the r.o. would have gotten:
the amount Cameron + co paid the f.o. The f.o. should simply be writing
a check to the r.o. for what he got from Cameron + damages. There's no
reason why Cameron should neccesarily be involved.
If anything, Cameron was victimized by the f.o., too.
-Ron
Michael Dines
I seem to vaguely recall a story about how Cameron slept with a girl
(one nighter or something more regular) and one morning she told him
this idea she had for a movie/story. And he liked it so much - he bought
it from her.
Which, if not tasteful, at least shows amazing honesty.
M.C.
<1gggy4v.1fg...@213-48-249-170.cro.cvx.blueyonder.co.uk>,
michaeldines@NO_SPICED_HAMblueyonder.co.uk (Michael Dines) wrote:
> I seem to vaguely recall a story about how Cameron slept with a girl
> (one nighter or something more regular) and one morning she told him
> this idea she had for a movie/story. And he liked it so much - he bought
> it from her.
>
> Which, if not tasteful, at least shows amazing honesty.
Writers get used to being treated like hookers eventually. If we're any
good...
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
wrote:
Now, if the damned fish-net stockings just didn't itch, and the five
inch heels? Aye! Aye! Aye!
M.C.
"Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)"
<otto....@keepyourviruses-sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> I seem to vaguely recall a story about how Cameron slept with a girl
> >> (one nighter or something more regular) and one morning she told him
> >> this idea she had for a movie/story. And he liked it so much - he bought
> >> it from her.
> >>
> >> Which, if not tasteful, at least shows amazing honesty.
> >
> >Writers get used to being treated like hookers eventually. If we're any
> >good...
>
>
> Now, if the damned fish-net stockings just didn't itch, and the five
> inch heels? Aye! Aye! Aye!
I always wear boxers with the fishnets.
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
wrote:
And hoipefully with pink marabou Spring-O-Lator acrylic heels! You've
got to keep it tasteful, M.C
M.C.
> >I always wear boxers with the fishnets.
>
>
> And hoipefully with pink marabou Spring-O-Lator acrylic heels! You've
> got to keep it tasteful, M.C
I usually just aim for tasty.
Asbestos Jeff
> There's no reason why Cameron should neccesarily be involved.
Things like this are messy. There's no way to tell who did what or who
knew what or who underpaid for something. Instead of having everyone
pointing fingers at others who aren't there, one must haul everyone in
front of the judge at the same time to get things sorted out.
People get annoyed that lawyers go after "everyone and their dog," but
if you know that guy who owns the building is going to blame the guy
who installed the stairs, and that the guy who installed the stairs is
going to blame the guy who sold the lumber, you must--for efficiency's
sake--name everyone so they can sort things out amongst themselves all
at once.
This also underscores the importance of having all documents related
to a copyright in order--options, contracts, registration forms,
licenses, transfers, etc. The more correctly it's all done, the few
troubles one can expect to have.
Jay Browning
<ronald...@hotmail.com> wrote:
That is what I was saying also. Cameron acted in good faith, or so we
assume until there is proof otherwise. The profits he made were from
his film, which would have been the same regardless of which guy he
paid for the remake rights.
As for that money and any participation in "True Lies", that money was
profit from the theft by Zidi. That money should be paid by Zidi to the
man he stole from. Not by Cameron.
But of course the law doesn't see it that way. Cameron is just as
guilty because he didn't divine through his great magic that he was
dealing with a stolen script. Or if he did, he didn't give a shit.
pinknebulous
"M.C." <cope...@mapca.inter.net> wrote in message
news:copespaz-BBD43B...@mail.inter.net...
So, in other words, you usually aim low.
pink