Please explain to me how Moukarbel's work is appropriationg & not stealing, because I really don't understand. I am a vocal advocate of fair-use, and believe that in many instances the studios and other powerful entities have been guilty of using litigation to bludgeon filmmakers who can't afford to defend their legal rights in court.
However, in this case, I don't see how it's defensible to take a screenplay - that is owned by someone else - and shoot it, and distribute it without paying for it. As a writer myself (Speak, a movie based on a book), I find the idea of someone photocopying one of my screenplays and then shooting it for their own purposes to be completely unethical and immoral.
In the case of a studio film on the verge of release, a work like Moukarbel's can't really have a financial impact on a studio like Paramount. But this kind of "appropriation" could prove financially devastating to an independent filmmaker. When Kaavya Vishwanathan did her own appropriating, it was called stealing. I don't see how this is any different.
#
posted by Annie Frisbie @ 6/23/2006 4:11 PM
Hi Annie,
I don't think it's really for me to defend or agree with the legal issues here, and I didn't try to do so in the blog entry. What I was doing was referencing the specific context of the work. Moukarbel made his piece very much within a context in which a strategy of appropriation was evident and actually constituted a portion of the work's "meaning." I did not view him as unethically "ripping off" the screenplay as much as creating a commentary on Hollywood's use of contemporary events to create entertainment by his creating an "entertainment" of his own. The disparity in scale between his effort and Stone's is, in fact, part of the work's meaning, as is his direct reference to Stone's work. Seen this way, he's very much in the tradition of the artists I cited, all of whom have engaged in similar types "appropriation."
It's interesting on a philosophical level to look at this case, the whole "fan fiction" thing (which I blogged about in relation to fans making their own films based on copywritten characters), and the current article in "Vanity Fair" about "The Da Vinci Code" in which Brown's novel is shown to have a lot of similarities to a much less well known novel. That author sued and lost despite some interesting evidence on his side.
I guess, for me, the issue of "intent" is all important in these various cases. To my mind, Moukarbel seemed to be using his work as a form of commentary, not to confuse the viewer. But, like I said at the beginning of this blog post, I'm specifically referencing the ethical and moral issues here, not the legal ones, which I don't feel I'm qualified to judge.
#
posted by Scott Macaulay @ 6/23/2006 6:15 PM
Hi Scott - thanks for responding. I think that this is a vital story for the indie world to pay attention to and think about.
It's unfortunate that we can't view the work in question, because from what you're saying he can make a legitimate claim to appropriation. And I do think that the fan-fiction discussion adds an interesting dimension - it's a huge part of fan's enjoyment of entertainment, particularly in the world of fantasy and sci-fi. In fact, fans are often encouraged to interact with films, TV shows, and books in this way.
However, I'd feel more comfortable defending that appropriation if it was based on the film, and not on the screenplay. I just think that there is a qualitative difference between a screenplay and a finished film. A screenplay isn't really a work of art in and of itself - it's more like a business plan. And procuring and executing someone else's business plan is wrong, and it's hard for me to see how it's also not wrong to do that with a screenplay. It's not Stone's work that's being appropriated, because the film hasn't been released yet - it's the screenwriter's, and that just doesn't sit right with me.
Or, to put it another way - the artist took something that was not yet public. Once a work is out there in the world, I absolutely defend the right of artists to interact with the work, appropriate it, use it, comment on it - I am a staunch defender of a liberal definition of fair-use, especially w/r/t to documentaries and video art. But in this case, he's taken something that has not yet entered public discourse. The right of artists - no matter how well funded - to control the release of their work has to be defended.
Unfortunately, we don't have the luxury of just dealing with the artistic/philosophical issues here. Moukarbel's intent might have been right, but the legal precedent that would be established if he wins in a court of law would actually be a loss for filmmakers, particularly independent filmmakers, documentarians, and video artists.
#
posted by Annie Frisbie @ 6/25/2006 4:09 PM
Hi Annie,
Great points. I get your distinction between a public work (the finished film) and the "business plan" (the screenplay) and in many ways agree with it. But I do think, rightly or wrongly, that the concept of "pre-emption" was part of the piece. I think Mourkarbel's work would have possibly less interesting if it had come out after the movie. I guess he's as much in the tradition of the Situationists, with their theories of "detournement," or the "cultural jammers," both of which take an explicitly adversarial and disruptive approach to popular culture.
Again, these are art-world, not legal, arguments, but I do have to say that the disparity between the machine behind Stone's film and Mourkarbel's rather home-made, low-tech methods makes this specific film a really bad test case for some of the broader issues involving fair use.
#
posted by Scott Macaulay @ 6/26/2006 10:07 PM
Good points- thanks for all your thoughtful responses. I'm fascinated to see how this unfolds, and hope to see more commentary on this site. I'm covering it for www.zoom-in.com/blog and will link back to anything new you post.
Cheers,
Annie
#
posted by Annie Frisbie @ 6/27/2006 9:57 AM
Hi Annie and Scott,
Firstly, I wont be able to address all aspects of this issue pending litigation. I graduated last month from an MFA program and I made 'World Trade Center 2006' as part of my final thesis at school. I make site-specific video, sculpture and installation, often using found media or objects as my source. My projects explore the idea of memorial, fiction, and the way in which politically driven events are edified. This project was created as commentary on Hollywoods presumed authority to write history. Through their depiction of a historic event, they are ultimately in the postion to influence ideas and effect policy.
Using Stone's script was the meaning of the work. I'm not a commercial filmmaker. Offering their story for free online was a statement on their 60 million dollar effort. I explicitly stated on my site that the video was made using their script so I didn't see the need for the side-by-side comparisons in the press. Though I can't speak to 'Fair use for the purpose of political commentary' in copyright law, I can say that I wasn't trying to make a point about appropriation. I was using that strategy to make a statement about power.
#
posted by Chris Moukarbel @ 6/27/2006 3:47 PM
let's keep in mind that this is not "Oliver Stone's script" - it was written by someone else.
http://www.zoom-in.com/blog/2006/06/wtc_appropriator_responds.php
#
posted by Annie Frisbie @ 6/28/2006 1:22 PM
