(full site)
Fark.com

Try out our new mobile site!


Back To Main
   Misquotin' Faulkner? That's a lawsuit

10 Nov 2012 04:34 PM   |   5320 clicks   |   CNN
Showing 1-45 of 45 comments
Refresh
MoronLessOff     
Mosquiton?
media.animevice.comView Full Size

10 Nov 2012 04:06 PM
jake_lex    [TotalFark]  
This lawsuit is a fish.

10 Nov 2012 04:35 PM
ITGreen    [TotalFark]  
No one's "got stress"...they're "wearing a dress." God damn, I hate people who get the words wrong.

1.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size

10 Nov 2012 04:37 PM
duffblue     
" God gave us the gift of life; it is up to us to give ourselves the gift of living well." Faulkner

10 Nov 2012 04:38 PM
skullkrusher     
well, I'll get the firestorm started:

Faulkner sucks.

10 Nov 2012 04:38 PM
I_Can't_Believe_it's_not_Boutros     
That's my favorite Faulkner work--The Sound and the Jury.

10 Nov 2012 04:38 PM
James F. Campbell     
This lawsuit is a bullshiat attempt to get money from a quick settlement. De minimis applies here. fark the money-hungry lawyers running Faulkner's estate. The man himself would probably agree with me.

10 Nov 2012 04:38 PM
RealAmericanHero     
As a person who greatly respects the hard work of novelists of all sorts, this is completely retarded.

10 Nov 2012 04:39 PM
gwowen     
Woah! It's a good job Woody Allen has never made a film with endless references to an earlier film, perhaps using a misquotation from that former film as a title...
www.movieposter.comView Full Size

10 Nov 2012 04:40 PM
Sum Dum Gai     
Copyright law is just insane. The quotation is over sixty years old. Intellectual property law was never intended to be a permanent grant of rights to the creator, only a temporary one so that they had the first crack at profiting from their works.

10 Nov 2012 04:42 PM
LordOfThePings     
"It puzzles me that people think size matters," he says.

Enough said.

10 Nov 2012 04:48 PM
Saberus Terras     

Sum Dum Gai: Copyright law is just insane. The quotation is over sixty years old. Intellectual property law was never intended to be a permanent grant of rights to the creator, only a temporary one so that they had the first crack at profiting from their works.


What's even more ridiculous is that one of the biggest backers of the insanely extended time for copyright is citing back "Fair Use, lol." You can't have it both ways, jackholes.

10 Nov 2012 04:48 PM
skinink     
To be or not to be: that's the farking situation.

10 Nov 2012 04:54 PM
Apos     
A Faulkner worthy of high esteem:

upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size

10 Nov 2012 05:02 PM
Porous Horace     
Faulk them.

10 Nov 2012 05:12 PM
wildcardjack     
I first read that as "Misquotin' farker, that's a lawsuit"

10 Nov 2012 05:14 PM
DammitIForgotMyLogin    [TotalFark]  
So they're claiming that Faulkner's estate owns the copyright on a sentence that Faulkner didn't write?

10 Nov 2012 05:15 PM
ChubbyTiger     

DammitIForgotMyLogin: So they're claiming that Faulkner's estate owns the copyright on a sentence that Faulkner didn't write?


Far as I can tell, Faulkner never wrote any literature at all.

/my mother is not a fish

10 Nov 2012 05:25 PM
Gyrfalcon    [TotalFark]  
So the estate of an author virtually nobody reads is suing over a line in a movie practically nobody saw because they misquoted a line from a work absolutely nobody has ever heard of?

We need to revise our definition of "attention whore".

10 Nov 2012 05:28 PM
ZAZ    [TotalFark]  
In copyright law loser pays winner's attorneys. The next half million sales of Faulkner's works could go to pay legal fees.

10 Nov 2012 05:40 PM
AbsentFriends     

DammitIForgotMyLogin: So they're claiming that Faulkner's estate owns the copyright on a sentence that Faulkner didn't write?


There's your opening and closing argument to the jury.

10 Nov 2012 06:01 PM
PiperArrow     
It's really difficult to decide who to root for in this case. Is there any scenario in which they both lose?

10 Nov 2012 06:22 PM
Marcus Aurelius    [TotalFark]  
"I may not be perfect, but parts of me are excellent." - Ashleigh Brilliant

10 Nov 2012 06:32 PM
Hector Remarkable     
Presumably, everything everyone says here on Fark is completely protected in perpetuity by the Drew Curtis Literary Rights organization. Because I would just hate to be misquoted from this site long after I'm dead.

10 Nov 2012 06:56 PM
HotIgneous Intruder     
They must be deeply disturbed and in the mood to pay some legal fees for suing over this.

10 Nov 2012 06:57 PM
ArcadianRefugee     
Faulkner Literary Rights ... sued representatives of Woody Allen's "Midnight in Paris" for misquoting the famous line

I have a quotation from Mohandas Gandhi in response:

"Go fark yourselves, you useless greedy pricks."

10 Nov 2012 07:02 PM
Dragonflew     
counteract-magazine.comView Full Size

10 Nov 2012 07:08 PM
Day_Old_Dutchie     
Copyright and IP lawyers are the worst kind of scum. They only really work for big publishing firms who paid the author a pittance for the "rights" and the little guy who actually created the work usually gets jack.

They contribute nothing to the economy or society.

10 Nov 2012 07:28 PM
InternetSecurityGuard     
"I can't read". D.L. Faulkner

10 Nov 2012 07:29 PM
onibara     
Faulkner!?

I never touched her!

10 Nov 2012 07:32 PM
James F. Campbell     
Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean it isn't literature, folks.

10 Nov 2012 08:12 PM
lelio     
Some of his best known works, such as "The Sound and the Fury"

OMG misquoting Shakespeare!!1!

10 Nov 2012 09:08 PM
fourdegrees     
"he adds, 'If Woody could have written something better, I'm sure he would have.'"

For. The. Win.

10 Nov 2012 09:36 PM
Someone_Took_My_Login     

Saberus Terras: Sum Dum Gai: Copyright law is just insane. The quotation is over sixty years old. Intellectual property law was never intended to be a permanent grant of rights to the creator, only a temporary one so that they had the first crack at profiting from their works.

What's even more ridiculous is that one of the biggest backers of the insanely extended time for copyright is citing back "Fair Use, lol." You can't have it both ways, jackholes.


Remember, it's only "fair use" if the big movie companies do it.

10 Nov 2012 10:08 PM
James F. Campbell     

Gyrfalcon: an author virtually nobody reads


A nobody putting down good, well-known authors while calling people "attention whores" is the very zenith of self-unaware irony.

At least you do something well.

10 Nov 2012 10:41 PM
animwriter     
"Misquotin' Faulkner" sounds like one of those bad pieces of replacement dialogue a la "melon farmer". Almost as hard to believably use in a sentence, though.

10 Nov 2012 11:15 PM
Aigoo     

James F. Campbell: This lawsuit is a bullshiat attempt to get money from a quick settlement. De minimis applies here. fark the money-hungry lawyers running Faulkner's estate. The man himself would probably agree with me.


I rather suspect it's more an attempt to get people to buy Faulkner's works - in this case, Requiem for a Nun. The lawsuit - frivolous or not (and I agree that it is, since many people quote Faulkner and other authors) - puts the book and author back in the view of the general public. A lawsuit will generate some income, yes, but book sales have the potential to generate more over time when you consider that many of us who read prolifically tend to buy entire catalogs of authors whose work we enjoy. Considering that Faulkner is a "classic" author who many younger readers (read: readers below, say, 25) may be unfamiliar with, the lawsuit has the potential to bring an entirely new generation of readers Faulkner's way, thus enriching his estate (and by extension, his lawyers).

Really, win or lose, it's brilliant - if asinine - marketing.

10 Nov 2012 11:47 PM
Coming on a Bicycle     

James F. Campbell: This lawsuit is a bullshiat attempt to get money from a quick settlement. De minimis applies here. fark the money-hungry lawyers running Faulkner's estate. The man himself would probably agree with me.


No, he agrees with _me_. I don't know yet what on, though.

11 Nov 2012 01:10 AM
NephilimNexus     
"Nothing is as dangerous as an unemployed lawyer." - Solomon Short

11 Nov 2012 02:05 AM
Gordon Bennett     

PiperArrow: It's really difficult to decide who to root for in this case. Is there any scenario in which they both lose?


Faulkner's estate are being much worse than Sony here. I am fully aware of their past evils, none of which change the fact that they are entirely right about this one. Additionally, if it does go to court then they have the resources to win the case and set a useful precedent for others.

Besides, I've never known Sony Pictures to use copyright claims to stop people from using quoted lines or stills from their films in reviews or commentary, which is in principle what Faulkner's estate is trying to do to them.

11 Nov 2012 03:08 AM
trlkly     

Aigoo: James F. Campbell: This lawsuit is a bullshiat attempt to get money from a quick settlement. De minimis applies here. fark the money-hungry lawyers running Faulkner's estate. The man himself would probably agree with me.

I rather suspect it's more an attempt to get people to buy Faulkner's works - in this case, Requiem for a Nun. The lawsuit - frivolous or not (and I agree that it is, since many people quote Faulkner and other authors) - puts the book and author back in the view of the general public. A lawsuit will generate some income, yes, but book sales have the potential to generate more over time when you consider that many of us who read prolifically tend to buy entire catalogs of authors whose work we enjoy. Considering that Faulkner is a "classic" author who many younger readers (read: readers below, say, 25) may be unfamiliar with, the lawsuit has the potential to bring an entirely new generation of readers Faulkner's way, thus enriching his estate (and by extension, his lawyers).

Really, win or lose, it's brilliant - if asinine - marketing.


Yes, because I'm going to go out and buy a book from a company that tries to extort money. I have a mind to just grab a torrent of Faulkner's works--except I've never liked his writing.

11 Nov 2012 03:19 AM
PiperArrow     

Gordon Bennett: PiperArrow: It's really difficult to decide who to root for in this case. Is there any scenario in which they both lose?

Faulkner's estate are being much worse than Sony here. I am fully aware of their past evils, none of which change the fact that they are entirely right about this one. Additionally, if it does go to court then they have the resources to win the case and set a useful precedent for others.

Besides, I've never known Sony Pictures to use copyright claims to stop people from using quoted lines or stills from their films in reviews or commentary, which is in principle what Faulkner's estate is trying to do to them.


I meant Woody Allen or the estate.

11 Nov 2012 08:51 AM
Paris1127    [TotalFark]  
Well, you know what they say:
www.geekosystem.comView Full Size

11 Nov 2012 09:46 AM
Do you know the way to Mordor     
When, oh when, will someone sue the Tea Party for misquoting the Bible???

11 Nov 2012 01:38 PM
Gordon Bennett     

PiperArrow: Gordon Bennett: PiperArrow: It's really difficult to decide who to root for in this case. Is there any scenario in which they both lose?

Faulkner's estate are being much worse than Sony here. I am fully aware of their past evils, none of which change the fact that they are entirely right about this one. Additionally, if it does go to court then they have the resources to win the case and set a useful precedent for others.

Besides, I've never known Sony Pictures to use copyright claims to stop people from using quoted lines or stills from their films in reviews or commentary, which is in principle what Faulkner's estate is trying to do to them.

I meant Woody Allen or the estate.


Oh. That is different.

Woody Allen should simply tell them to Faulk off.

11 Nov 2012 03:14 PM
Showing 1-45 of 45 comments
Refresh
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined