Jump to content


Photo

IFP/Glidrose's legal woes and corporate info


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 glidrose

glidrose

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1405 posts

Posted 11 April 2012 - 12:53 AM

IFP took on a domain squatter and won.

They sued Danjaq & Eon and lost.

Corporate info.

More corporate info.

#2 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3492 posts

Posted 11 April 2012 - 04:59 AM

Interesting. The legal implications re. CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG seem to be quite complicated even on the side of Fleming's heirs. Book trust vs. will trust, renewed copyright, changing beneficiaries - all that would make an interesting story if written in prose.

Is there any information to be found regarding the new copyright formula of James Bond himself, now property of Danjaq, used under licence by IFP? I suppose the background to this is an attempt to argue the film Bond as depicted in EON's series is a character of its own and as such not affected by the literary version and it's copyright issues?

#3 Glenn

Glenn

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 88 posts
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 11 April 2012 - 06:25 AM

And there I was thinking that legal documents are always proof read for errors. Re: domain squatter "..adventures of James Bond including Dr. No, Goldfinder, From Russia with Love..".

Unless of course this is one of those long lost Geoffrey Jenkins novels!

#4 marktmurphy

marktmurphy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8782 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 11 April 2012 - 10:12 AM

Is there any information to be found regarding the new copyright formula of James Bond himself, now property of Danjaq, used under licence by IFP?


Is that right? Eon own Bond now?

#5 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3492 posts

Posted 11 April 2012 - 11:57 AM

It's what the copyright of Carte Blanche suggests. You can look it up, it reads now as I wrote above.

#6 marktmurphy

marktmurphy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8782 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 11 April 2012 - 01:34 PM

Fascinating; I didn't spot that.

#7 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 25803 posts
  • Location:Studio City, CA

Posted 11 April 2012 - 04:53 PM

All continuation book Bond copyrights read like that now. Appears to have started here:

http://www.thebookbo...young-bond.html

#8 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3492 posts

Posted 11 April 2012 - 05:40 PM

Oh, wasn't aware it started with Young Bond in 2009 already.

#9 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 25803 posts
  • Location:Studio City, CA

Posted 11 April 2012 - 06:44 PM

The IFP vs. Danjaq case you linked to above is from 2006, so I'm not sure it has anything to do with the change in copyright on the continuation novels in 2009. I think the relationship between IFP and Danjaq is now very good and they might have made some kind of deal that's mutually beneficial.

#10 ACE

ACE

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4516 posts

Posted 14 April 2012 - 08:46 AM

I agree Zencat. I think Danjaq and IFP have been regularising their branding in order, in part, to combat the 70 year rule when the Bond copyright expires in 2034.

#11 Darth Prefect

Darth Prefect

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 153 posts
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 17 April 2012 - 04:20 PM

All continuation book Bond copyrights read like that now. Appears to have started here:

http://www.thebookbo...young-bond.html

That's a trademark notice, not copyright. Two different things. IFP may feel that Danjaq is in a better position to defend trademark...

#12 glidrose

glidrose

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1405 posts

Posted 18 April 2012 - 12:24 AM


All continuation book Bond copyrights read like that now. Appears to have started here:

http://www.thebookbo...young-bond.html

That's a trademark notice, not copyright. Two different things. IFP may feel that Danjaq is in a better position to defend trademark...


Good catch, Darth Prefect.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users