124 replies to this topic

[Tedley King]

Forgive me for sounding possibly the only odd one out here but what if this has a purpose, not to stop Bond fans from getting what they want, but if the pictures are being removed from the sites, could this not mean that there is a picture out in 'the open' that MGN and/or EON don't want out there. For example, a picture was taken during Brosnan and Pike's love scene that accidentally caught something that wasn't meant to be shown. Now someone has released this picture and they are trying to stop it from being seen by millions of fans. For Brosnan's or Pike's self respect and what not. Think about it as you calm down from this aggrovated emotion. Plausable? Quite possible, anything is possible when you think about it, after all the Titanic was claimed 'unsinkable' yet it sank! Hitler claimed he would make Germany great again, for a while maybe but he failed.
Of cousre I understand I may be wrong after all I'm not 100% on all the details but from what I understand, this could be why.

[rafterman]

I think if it was the case of one image or one piece of information being the problem, then that alone would have been removed. They just seem to have a problem with anything they own being used. While this is conceivably legitimate, the items are not being used to profit from, so the question of infringement is cloudy at best. Although if there was some "naughty" picture out ther, I'd hope someone would save it somewhere...

[Predator_007]

Originally posted by Tedley King
For example, a picture was taken during Brosnan and Pike's love scene that accidentally caught something that wasn't meant to be shown.  Now someone has released this picture and they are trying to stop it from being seen by millions of fans.  For Brosnan's or Pike's self respect and what not.  

I wish that were right. Theoretically, it would then be easy to remove the offending picture/pictures. I work in a profession involved in dealing with copyright and it can be a very confusing place. If someone uses our copyrighted material, we generally request that the user puts a credit line to us and (depending on who the user is) we demand payment for reproducing that material.

However, in this case the MGM lawyers have gone straight to "cease and desist", a rather clumsy response to misuse of copyrighted/intellectual property material. Now I don't know what went on behind the scenes prior to and after the sites were shut down. Had MGM warned the site owners, that is another matter, but from everything I've read so far MGM simply asked them to close without warning or giving the sites suitable time to remove any offending material - a little draconian IMO.

The other interesting point is that there has been no official statement about this from MGM or Eon to my knowledge - you would have thought they would want to clear up all this ill feeling as soon as possible ... do they really dislike us that much?

[zencat]

Originally posted by Tedley King
Forgive me for sounding possibly the only odd one out here but what if this has a purpose, not to stop Bond fans from getting what they want, but if the pictures are being removed from the sites, could this not mean that there is a picture out in 'the open' that MGN and/or EON don't want out there.

You have a good point here and I could understand this in regards to pics from DAD, but how does this apply to a Moonraker poster or a pic of Sean Connery from Dr. No? My understanding is MGM wanted EVERYTHING removed...it's just incredible. Don't they see that, if nothing else, these sites are promoting the DVDs?

[zencat]

Originally posted by rafterman
You know, this and other sites ARE the advertising campaign for MGM and DAD and they cost nothing other than the use of pictures.  So by shutting it down, MGM again proves that they have no clue how internet sites actually promote things, rather than infringe on them.  This site has done nothing but spread the word of Die Another Day™ for EON and MGM.  It generates interest for the film, basically selling it to fans, who will tell others about it.  The site makes money-for MGM.

A Steve Sansweet type is needed.  Star Wars understands its fans.  Go to the official Star Wars site and have your questions answered by everyone involved in the films, except George himself.

At the Star Trek site, Trektoday, their message boards are frequently visited by the authors and editors of their books.  It's not the television producers, but it is a nice link between the fans and the manufacturers.  Imagine if Raymond Benson or Glidrose reps posted here, listened and took what we said into consideration like those Trek authors do.  They talk to the people who buy their product.

I think the problems are mostly with MGM.  They don't make the films themselves, they sit back with too much time on their hands and too many unneeded employees and so they sick them on websites for imagined violations instead of selling their product.  All studios make bad decisions.  MGM seems to consistently make them.
Also MGM rely on Bond, but don't seem to care or even like their product.  They're not fans of it, hence they make suggestions like "hire Denise Richards, the kids love her."  They're also the ones who give us title options like If Looks Could Kill and Black Sun and ask us to vote in these ridiculous meetings of people off the street.  (forgive me, I forget the correct term...)
Many at the other franchises seem to actually care about getting their product to the fans, while maintaining ownership.  They don't give too much, but they don't crush fans who just want to enjoy the product...imagine MGM stealing domain names from websites because someone somewhere uses the numbers 007...
MGM has shot themselves in the foot here.  It's just another move that will bring the studio further and further down...

Incredibly well said, rafterman! I hope you sent this to "yarbrough" (although what good that will do I have no idea).

[rafterman]

thanks zencat...

[Blue Eyes]

Okay I'll do my best to respond;

Yes, as I understand it, MGM want everything they own removed.

Tedley King made a point about MGM perhaps wanting a 'leaked' picture removed. Well the only pictures they have the say-so to remove are the ones taken by photographers that they employ. So the ones we've seen in newspapers that show 'leaked' scene, MGM have no say over. They can order us to remove them.

Predator_007, your referral to a draconian method is completely correct as I understand it.

[Shaken]

Hardyboy asks "Does anybody out there have a big media connection?"
(Ask and you shall receive HB!)

Well, this morning (Tuesday, Aug. 20) I buzzed in someone's ear. I'll keep it anonymous for now because really I don't know if it will come to fruition. Don't want to get our hopes high.

But as I was "buzzing", a comparison to "XXX" came up. It seems like Tamahori and company are trying to make DAD current and competitive, while stale MGM is using, to paraphrase a movie slogan "your daddy's marketing techniques." What a shame!

Shaken

[Rolex]

Many members have written their views, which I whole heartily agree with. Has any body written to the media or sites like Aint it Cool News, Empire online etc informing them of the situation? I know this site is respected among Bond fans, however media and filmmakers consistently peruse other bigger sites.

[zencat]

Harry Knowles is no fan of MGM, that's for sure.

As anyone else noticed that the views of this thread have suddenly shot up over 1300? I'd say we're being noticed.

[Hardyboy]

I'm registered at AICN (as Hardyboy, of course), and I've thought of e-mailing Harry Knowles, but other than being horrifically busy arranging a move to the Phoenix area I wondered if AICN would be interested in our little struggles. Could be worth a shot. But MGM is so shameless I wonder if they CAN be shamed. . .

[zencat]

!!!

This was just posted over on the Cinescape Bond board by staff member "uncleagent"

Odd ....

The exact same letter above (word for word), as penned by John Cox of California, is showing up on another site as penned by Rolf van der Vlisit of the Netherlands.

Hey, "Rolf", glad you feel as I do but write your own letter. How hard is that?

[mccartney007]

It was on alt.fan.james-bond that I saw it by "Rolf"

[zencat]

Well, I don't know what to say. I wonder what else of mine "Rolf" has written?

[mccartney007]

Originally posted by rafterman
I think if it was the case of one image or one piece of information being the problem, then that alone would have been removed

If MGM had told the webmasters to remove a particular photo, then we would know what photo we aren't supposed to see. It would become an "underground photo" and it would end up being passed around internet circles via email and cause a huge stir within the fan community. If, however, they said "Take everything down," then you couldn't possibly figure out which photo caused the big stir.

[Blue Eyes]

Originally posted by zencat
Well, I don't know what to say. I wonder what else of mine "Rolf" has written?

You'll have to give Rolf a break on this one John I know who he is, he sends in news sometimes. No doubt he's just used your letter as a template, no harm intended. I know of someone else who sent your letter to Yarborough, and only wrote in their first line "I agree with everything Zencat has said here" and put a URL.

[zencat]

If you say he's okay, Blue Eyes, then that's good enough for me. I was about to have my legal dept send him a "cease and desist" letter. (The irony here is not lost on me.)

Glad to see other fans taking up the cause. They're free to use my words however they wish.

[Blue Eyes]

Glad you don't mind Zencat It's got a few other sites talking about the legal action, and that's a good thing! I feel that fans need to know about it.

And I just checked out this thread, 1415 views! That's a heck of a lot. Not only is it competing for the most discussed thread (I think the record is 140 something) but it's got a lot of views. Now that puzzles me, are they all CBn viewers.... or has the link, like Zencat suggested, been viewed by others.

The latter theory is the one I think is more plausible.

[Blue Eyes]

Funnily enough, I've been looking in to this more. And I've found something very interesting.

We don't have to take down a single Die Another Day image.

For starters, they can't make us do anyhting about the images they don't own the rights to. Those images can stay anyway.

But, the images they do have the rights to? And all the media from the official site?

Well their [url="http://"http://www.jamesbond.com/terms_of_use.html"]terms of use[/url] reads as follows;

[box]Use of this material is specifically limited to website use to promote the theatrical release of the motion picture "Bond 20". Any other use, re-use, or duplication of this film and video footage is prohibited without the express prior written consent of United Artists. TM &

[Simon]

So does this mean you're going to stick back up the DAD images, and indeed every other image, providing of course you clearly label it as the "promotion of..", just for reasons of clarity for those legal types?

[Tim007]

Originally posted by Blue Eyes
I know of someone else who sent your letter to Yarborough, and only wrote in their first line "I agree with everything Zencat has said here" and put a URL.

No Comment

[zencat]

Has anyone heard back from "Yarborough"? I know I haven't.

[Tim007]

Well, zencat, haven't you read The Scoop - Here is it!? Check it out then

[zencat]

Well I'll be darned.

So the script pages really did start this.

My open letter is now offically addressed to Mr. Peter Adee.

[zencat]

FYI: Yesterday an article in Variety reported that Peter Adee, pres of worldwide marketing for MGM, replaced his VP of publicity, Jamie Geller Hawtof, with Eric Kops. I wonder if Ms Hawtof was the mastermind behind this amazing (and now escalating) PR debacle?

[rafterman]

bet it did cost her the job....

[zencat]

Originally posted by rafterman
bet it did cost her the job....

To be fair, who knows if she had anything to do with it? But this Peter Adee doesn't sound too sharp.

He did this to "protect fans." ???

It's funny, I picked up the Entertainment Weekly Fall Preview issue yesterday and "The Lowdown" on Die Another Day was, and I quote: "What Bond needs most these days are young fans--like the ones who gave XXX its big opening."

Like I said in my letter, if Eon checked out the demographics of the sites that Mr. Adee took it upon himself to shut down

[rafterman]

it just seems they're working in the past and haven't realized that the internet is their friend and that fans don't want to rip them off, we just want to enjoy their product...

[Blue Eyes]

Couldn't agree more Zencat. MGM have lost a lot of valuable time of free advertising. A lot of valuable bums on seats world-wide.

[zencat]

It's true that MGM has every legal right to do this. But from a promotional and PR point of view it is sheer idiocy. At the end of the day, would MGM rather have a hollow legal victory, or a pack of excited Bond fans lining up to give DAD the biggest opening in MGM history? That is what is at stake here and that's why I'm screaming at MGM to GET A CLUE!

I'd like to say that's my final word--but I'm not sure this brush fire has burned out yet.