What is Digg?48 Comments
- ghidorahnotweak, on 10/31/2008, -2/+14Sad story . . . I'm glad that he's finally making another movie, though!
- quisph, on 10/31/2008, -3/+15Comic Con did not destroy his life. They did not force him to spend his last $12,000 making a fan film. There was never any guarantee that he would be able to screen his film at Comic Con in the first place, let alone any justification for his misguided belief that it was certain to land him a real movie deal. This would have been a risky proposition even if he hadn't chosen to base his film on someone else's intellectual property. I'm sorry for him that it didn't pay off, but I really don't see how it's anyone else's fault.
- thegamingguy, on 10/31/2008, -1/+12He has enough talent and experience to get on somewhere, at least to work his way up. I think we will here his name called again some day.
- bacchante, on 10/31/2008, -2/+12I have no sympathy for low budget film makers. Film is such a flawed medium - it's practically inherent its nature to be compromised. You can barely begin to think about making a film without selling out. Ever notice that the credits of ever "Independent movie" has the words "sony" or "warner" or some other big film name in it at least 3 times?
I have even less sympathy for low budget film makers using recycled characters. You want to use copyrighted content, leveraging your small time film skills to get a name for yourself? Well guess what, you pay the price when the douche bags you want to support decide they don't like you.
Film is overwhelmingly influenced by profit motive. The environment is completely stifling to any new ideas. What's more is this medium is seen as the pinnacle of art. Any other piece of art that gains public attention has to be made into some ***** movie.
Think about why it's taken this long to have comic book movies that aren't superman and batman, and even then, how cheesy those are.
Another is continuing story lines. It took them long enough to decide maybe a few people like character development. - SifuMoKung, on 10/31/2008, -2/+9Why isn't there a studio supported venue for homemade films like this? If there is such a venue, why hasn't anyone heard about it? By hiring people that produce results in that medium, they can have a pool of talent to pull from that requires a fraction of the budget mainstream filmmakers require.
- inactive, on 10/31/2008, -3/+10He should have spent his tens of thousands of dollars making something that he owned, rather than blowing it on Dead End. Anyone who's seen it knows it's not the kind of thing that would get you a real movie deal. Seriously, Batman fighting Aliens and the Predator? The costumes were awful too.
He was playing games with relatively large sums of money and no one handed him a 3 picture deal? Sucks to be him. But I don't feel sorry for him. - username7410, on 10/31/2008, -2/+8The title of this submission is an overstatement. Comic-Con did not destroy this mans life.
- HouseofEl, on 10/31/2008, -1/+7This is a very one sided article. Corolla wasn't taken as seriously as the article claims, and he was continuously running around claiming WB didn't know what they were doing. He was consistently trashing the Batman Begins production as well as Superman Returns. That's not to say that what WB did was right, but he wasn't exactly innocent in the matter either. Much of his blog posts were often pissing matches about how he could do so much better. I understand people's frustration, but that's not how you get the job. He made some great films, but he was never going to get a job working on any of those characters.
- HyphySoul, on 10/31/2008, -1/+7I think Corolla's DC Universe films would actually compete well with the Marvel universe films these days, now DC's film universe is scrambled all over the place.
- Jeebugorn, on 10/31/2008, -4/+9i have Batman: Dead End and World's Finest on my laptop right now
- SifuMoKung, on 10/31/2008, -0/+5Does Sundance accept short films like this? If it does, it's news to me. I thought they were all feature length.
- splob1, on 10/31/2008, -2/+6form MW:
Main Entry:
fa·nat·ic
: marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion
Lesson: One has to decide, weather to be a fan or a pro; people who make fan films should not expect anything from them (other than a personal experience/fun/ or other sensation). Otherwise they are using other peoples ideas/properties as inspiration/motivation and trying to experience vicarious accolades. This guy got a big slapdown BUT it motivated him to make something original. Now, maybe, if he's got the goods (which I think he does), he can be a pro. I hope he makes it.
You can't be in the audience and on stage at the same time. Also, originality is always better than riding someone else's coat tails. - skunkman62, on 10/31/2008, -0/+4he can get a break if he stops using copyrighted material. i mean come he could easily change batman's name to ....dayman
fighter of the nightman
champion of the sun
you're a master of karate and friendship...for everyone. - Goldbricker, on 11/01/2008, -1/+5Comic Con didn't destroy this guy's life. Pumping money into movies that he knew he was violating copyright on and really had no way of profiting on ruined his life. Why not make your own film with your own characters?
- scratend0788, on 11/01/2008, -0/+3interesting obervations and i agree being a low budget film maker isent going to be easy, but surely they sould get respect for doing what they waht to do in spite of that.
also the reson we got all these comic book movies is that the cgi involved is getting better cheaper and easyer to make.
maybe it is just cuz they realised that there was money in them but i dont think its a coincidence that batman and sperman require the least cgi. - ShoggothDreams, on 11/01/2008, -0/+3This, and the crap that was heaped on Panic Struck Productions and their amazing Star Wars: Revelations really has galled me for years. As has been said, as long as fan films make no money, studios have done the right thing and looked the other way. But the pissy crap they did to Collora, and to PSP by adding an idiotic restriction to the Atom Films Fan Film contest, where it could only be silly and a parody, was done solely to keep SW:R out of the running. If Hollywood is going to churn out mostly crap, as long the fans do not try to profit off their copyrights, show a little respect for the fandom that keeps your franchise alive. (Star Trek ONLY survived after TOS went off the air due to fanzines and the like. Dr Who at least did the right thing and HIRED most of the best fan writers.)
- skunkman62, on 11/01/2008, -2/+4the headline is missing leading. "comic-con destroyed one man's life" the 2nd sentence then reads ALMOST destroyed....CAREER. nothing life threating. btw, it was warner not comic-con that put a stop to it.
and sad story? did you even watch that crappy film short? i was shocked when freddy krueger and jason didn't make cameo appearances. - galeninjapan, on 10/31/2008, -2/+4That batman fan film is awesome. However why the ***** would he bank his career on making fan films. Be original and make something new. Lucas couldn't make Flash Gordon so he made Star wars. Hmm which was better...
- contradictator, on 11/01/2008, -0/+2I disagree with you dude, considering the budget and deadline, it was well-made and oozing with an obvious appreciation for the source material.
But hey, I'm sure you made something way better, with even less resources. I bet yours was also lauded at Comic-Con by fans and celebrities alike and downloaded thousands of times online, right? - locojones, on 10/31/2008, -4/+6"Sadly, if Comic-Con had wanted to stand its ground it could have. All they would have had to do is make the fan film presentation free to the public."
No, Comic Con couldn't have stood it's ground. I don't understand where this misconception about copyright law comes from that if you don't make money from your infringement then it's somehow OK. It's not. Comic Con is a non-profit organization who's vicarious infringement would subject it to severe penalties. And any allegations that they were making money from the films could jeopardize their non-profit status. Of course they backed down, it was the smart thing to do. - iceman0113, on 11/01/2008, -0/+2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIWskgVx_v0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hjp0I_okX0w - Ratteler, on 11/03/2008, -0/+1"And despite their anti-monopoly views, they felt it was a necessary thing to grant monopoly rights to the creations to the authors in order for them to publish their works to enrich the public sphere of knowledge,"
And there is lies the total collapse of your argument.
Since the monopolistic "ownership" of these rights now actively prevents the enrichment of the public sphere of knowledge by extending the "limited time" of those rights to a point beyond which the live of the public that invests them, the Constitutional intent, as YOU have provided reference too, has been broken. In it's place exists a cast system where only those wealthy enough to buy information may enrich their lives effectively keeping it secret from the lower class.
We can make this even more simple. You con - iChopPryde, on 10/31/2008, -1/+2Anybody know where I can watch the Superman and Batman film he made did he put it on Youtube?
- Ratteler, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1"And despite their anti-monopoly views, they felt it was a necessary thing to grant monopoly rights to the creations to the authors in order for them to publish their works to enrich the public sphere of knowledge,"
And there is lies the total collapse of your argument.
Since the monopolistic "ownership" of these rights now actively prevents the enrichment of the public sphere of knowledge by extending the "limited time" of those rights to a point beyond which the live of the public that invests them, the Constitutional intent, as YOU have provided reference too, has been broken. In it's place exists a cast system where only those wealthy enough to buy information may enrich their lives effectively keeping it secret from the lower class.
We can make this even more simple. You continually have used your arguments to attack me personally with no logic or reason behind it. I've only raised questions about your personal motivation for you're opposing view which you've never answered in any form.
I want Copyright revoked because it's been abused to create a cast system, while no longer protecting the creating the creators work from predatory big media.
Can you honestly say denying access to the lowest income Americans doesn't create a cast system?
Can you honestly say that Big Media does NOT use predator litigation against creators who can not afford to defend their rights?
Of course not. If you do you'll be clearly denying evidence that the vast majority of the public knows about.
So the question is, why do YOU continually support a system where such abuses routinely take place, without even a grudging nod to the need for reform?
The only logical reason, is because you personally profit from the cast system and the predatory litigation against creators, which make all your arguments invalid due to your personal bias.
I get NOTHING personally if I get my way. - gameyharp, on 10/31/2008, -2/+3Great read, I'm glad he hasn't given up. Hope he catches the break he deserves.
- ScreenRant, on 11/02/2008, -0/+1Thanks for the update - I've been wondering what happened to Collora.
- Sayterra, on 11/01/2008, -0/+1If you learn ONE thing about Hollywood, it's this: NOTHING is EVER certain here.
- Vazel, on 11/01/2008, -0/+1LittleBigMovie
- Ratteler, on 11/03/2008, -0/+1Digg timed out.
"And despite their anti-monopoly views, they felt it was a necessary thing to grant monopoly rights to the creations to the authors in order for them to publish their works to enrich the public sphere of knowledge,"
And there is lies the total collapse of your argument.
Since the monopolistic "ownership" of these rights now actively prevents the enrichment of the public sphere of knowledge by extending the "limited time" of those rights to a point beyond which the live of the public that invests them, the Constitutional intent, as YOU have provided reference too, has been broken. In it's place exists a cast system where only those wealthy enough to buy information may enrich their lives effectively keeping it secret from the lower class.
We can make this even more simple. You continually have used your arguments to attack me personally with no logic or reason behind it. I've only raised questions about your personal motivation for you're opposing view which you've never answered in any form.
I want Copyright revoked because it's been abused to create a cast system, while no longer protecting the creating the creators work from predatory big media.
Can you honestly say denying access to the lowest income Americans doesn't create a cast system?
Can you honestly say that Big Media does NOT use predator litigation against creators who can not afford to defend their rights?
Of course not. If you do you'll be clearly denying evidence that the vast majority of the public knows about.
So the question is, why do YOU continually support a system where such abuses routinely take place, without even a grudging nod to the need for reform?
The only logical reason, is because you personally profit from the cast system and the predatory litigation against creators, which make all your arguments invalid due to your personal bias.
I get NOTHING personally if I get my way. - Blacksoth, on 11/01/2008, -0/+1Homemade or not, the material is subject to copyright and companies have proven to be downright draconian in enforcing it. They don't even seem to care if no one is making money off it.
Napolean Dynamite was an original. - jimek, on 10/31/2008, -5/+5sux
- Twohats, on 10/31/2008, -0/+0Isn't that basically the Sundance Film Festival? I'm sure plenty of people have heard about it, especially with the huge success of Napoleon Dynamite.
- skunkman62, on 10/31/2008, -1/+1"One has to decide, weather to be a fan or a pro;"
how can weather be a fan or a pro? if there is wind, can weather be called a fan? - Goldbricker, on 11/02/2008, -0/+0God forbid the company that owns those characters actually be able to decide how and when those characters are used. I'm no fan of corporate America, but right is right. He knew he wasn't going to be able to get away with this indefinitely and foolishly dumped money into it with the notion that he was going to be offered a job. I really don't get where that idea came from.
- sfacets, on 11/01/2008, -1/+1I went to a Comic-Con here in Austraia, cost me $20 to look at bad comics, terrible Australian Wrestling wannabies, and idiots dressed up like stormtroopers. Brilliant.
The highlight was a Q&A session with Jewel Staite, whch was cool, except she was only there because Joss Whedon canceled. Am I going to go next year? Nope. - Halsfield, on 10/31/2008, -2/+2see the part where DC comics did not make any cease and desist notices to collora the entire period of his film making because they were basically getting free press for their characters because fans loved his films so much. Then they give the go-ahead on the dark knight movie etc and fans that saw collora's films are now in a frenzy and willing to see both batman movies multiple times. He gave them free marketing and they allowed it, but they wouldnt allow him to show this picture at comic con and give them even more free advertising ? give me a break.
- Ratteler, on 11/01/2008, -1/+1No. COPYRIGHT LAW almost destroyed his life.
- Ratteler, on 11/01/2008, -1/+1Some day you're going to have to realize that you can't keep the right to control what I do with my property after you sold it to me anymore than I have the right to compete directly with you for your work.
The Constitution says nothing about the Exclusive Rights granted by congress to the Author and Inventor being transferable in any way shape or form. So the "assigned" and "Licensed" takes us out of Constitutionally protection.
The Congress are the legislative representatives of the People of the United States of America.
So for Congress to Grant any rights, The PEOPLE of the United States must first own what they grant the rights too. Congress cannot grant rights to property that is not owned by the people.
Since Congress HAS the power of "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries", The Absolute Right to the "their respective Writings and Discoveries" must belong to the People of the United States whom Congress represents, and NOT the Author or Inventor.
This argument is further validate by the fact that it can only secure these rights for a LIMITED time. The clear intent being that he Rights will revert to the people when that limited time is up.
It's Article 1 Section 8 line 7, and it is the root of all law that is being defined these days as "intellectual property".
The attempts by "big media" to steal those exclusive rights from the Author and Inventor through monopolistic and unfair trade agreements is criminal. To then prevent those works of the defrauded Authors or Inventors from ever returning to the public domain, is an ACT OF TREASON and WAR as much as invading park land owned by the people of the United States.
Further more, any group that seeks to undermine, through Bribery or other means, our elected representatives oath to serve the "Will of the People" is another ACT OF TREASON. I define anyone taking part in these tactics as a BAD GUY.
We haven't even touched on the propaganda campaign to convince the people they DON'T own their property, or terror campaign of attacking Citizens by abusing the legal process.
You clearly only want to represent one side of this issue. You ignore any legal OR MORALE claims that don't support your Draconian view that profit mongering is acceptable even to the point of piracy against both the Exclusive Rights granted to individuals who actually create, and the Nation that granted those rights.
In the clearest case of recent sedition, the recently passed PRO-IP bill, the Congress did not allow a single representative to speak on the behalf of consumers rights. Big media bought a enough of Congress to steal a billion dollars of Taxpayer money so they didn't even have to do their own illegal dirty work.
With Big Media acting as an Oligarchical Sedition group dedicated to eradication of individual free speech and fair use rights, in favor of a system economic censorship against the less fortunate AND those of dissenting opinion, by denying them the information essential to maintain a democracy, it is clear that mere legal activism is not enough. We need revolutionary action against these so called "rights holders".
Piracy is merely civil disobedience against undeniably unjust and one sided "legal" tyranny.
You have repeated failed to demonstrate that YOU have created anything "worth protecting" or otherwise, leaving me to speculate that your lively hood in entirely bound up in your ability to prey upon creators, and defraud the public by selling them what they already own. - inactive, on 10/31/2008, -1/+1My Otaku senses are tingling.
- locojones, on 11/01/2008, -1/+1Some day you're going to have to realize that the inquiry simply isn't how much the use promoted or damages the intellectual property at issue, but rather was it used without permission. And in this case, there's no way you can argue that it wasn't.
And it may be true that WB didn't create anything having to do with Batman, but that also doesn't change the fact that they still hold the copyright, which was lawfully assigned to them by the same statute that has been on the books for decades and decades allowing for the free alienation of IP by license or contract.
Again, I don't know where you get your skewed view of intellectual property law, but the people do not own the creation, quite the contrary. The fruits of the creation belong to the person who created it, or to the person or entity to whom they licensed or assigned it. And as part of the social compact for monopoly rights over the copyright, patent, etc., the creator agrees to not keep the creation under wraps, but rather to publish it, or build it, or otherwise enrich the public by putting it out there. Only after the expiration of that monopoly time does it become public domain. Until that time, the public only has whatever rights the holder chooses to grant them, not the other way around.
I don't expect you to understand it, but calling people the bad guys for enforcing their legal rights is just myopic and juvenile. Clearly you've never created anything worth protecting, otherwise you wouldn't be so off-base. - locojones, on 11/01/2008, -1/+1Did you see the part where Warner Brothers issued a cease & desist? Or did you not know that DC Comics has been a wholly-owned subsidiary of Warner Brothers Entertainment since 1969? That means the WB ultimately owns and controls the copyrights of the DC Universe, and can leverage them however they want.
- bacchante, on 11/01/2008, -0/+0Good point about the CGI, hadn't thought of that.
Making film definitely requires a skill, though much of it seems to be about management, social skills, schmoozing. But in terms of sympathy for those trying to start out - well, it's sort of like if someone tried to get their home made car into a Formula 1 (or Nascar?) race and then was shutout. - locojones, on 11/02/2008, -1/+1"Some day you're going to have to realize that you can't keep the right to control what I do with my property after you sold it to me anymore than I have the right to compete directly with you for your work."
Absolutely I can. I can avoid the first sale doctrine altogether by licensing the content to you and restricting the bundle of rights that you as a consumer are allowed to have to a bare minimum. That's the beauty of being the owner of the exclusive bundle of rights that come along with a copyright or patent!
"The Constitution says nothing about the Exclusive Rights granted by congress to the Author and Inventor being transferable in any way shape or form. So the "assigned" and "Licensed" takes us out of Constitutionally protection."
Given that you're not a constitutional scholar, let me explain this to you. Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 18 of the Constitution (the Necessary & Proper Clause) empowers Congress to pass whatever laws are necessary and proper to carrying out the basic functions laid out in the document. So yes, the transfer of copyright, as laid down in 17 USC 202-203, is a matter of constitutional AND statutory law. In fact, it's been that way since the Copyright Act was first written in 1790.
"The Congress are the legislative representatives of the People of the United States of America.
So for Congress to Grant any rights, The PEOPLE of the United States must first own what they grant the rights too. Congress cannot grant rights to property that is not owned by the people... blah blah blah."
Congress disagrees with you. 17 USC 201 is quite clear when it says: "Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work." Notice that they do not say that copyright initially vests in the people, who then grant protection to the author. And since you are so adamant that Congress represents the will of the people, then it is the people who also make this law clear. And because your argument diverges from the people's, then you have no choice but to be wrong.
As for the fact that the people get unfettered access to the works after the monopoly protection expires somehow legitimizing your claim that they belong to the people in the first place, that statement also couldn't be more wrong.
In Mazer v Stein, the Supreme Court laid out the rationale behind the law: "The philosophy behind the clause empowering Congress to grant patents and copyrights is the conviction that encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way to advance the public welfare through the talents of authors and inventors in science and the useful arts." The Founding Fathers, following the property theory of John Locke, clearly believed that it was a person's moral right to reap the fruits of his or her own labor, and that those fruits would provide an incentive to produce an optimal quantity of works that ultimately enhance the public welfare. And despite their anti-monopoly views, they felt it was a necessary thing to grant monopoly rights to the creations to the authors in order for them to publish their works to enrich the public sphere of knowledge, because the alternative was for all those developments to be kept secret. And in that alternative, if they were kept secret to the people who created them, then your argument that they inherently belong to the people really doesn't make much sense does it?
As for the rest of your statements, they are simply too irrational to justify a reasoned response. - merreborn, on 10/31/2008, -2/+1"Why isn't there a studio supported venue for homemade films like this?"
People like Collora make movies due to an affinity for the subject matter, and a love of film making.
Studios make films because they love making money.
"By hiring people that produce results in that medium, they can have a pool of talent to pull from that requires a fraction of the budget mainstream filmmakers require."
The only way to guarantee hundreds of millions of dollars in profit is to pay millions to big name talent, and blow hundreds of millions on effects. Joe sixpack just wants to see some explosions, and Angelina Jolie showing a little skin.
Small budget films rarely see major financial success. - Ratteler, on 11/01/2008, -2/+1Yes. Because his films caused SO much damage to the Warner's "Property".
This is yet another case why CensorRight's need to be revoked. Bob Kane is DEAD. No one at Warner created ANYTHING in relation to Batman.
"Dead End" Predates Hollywood's AVP franchise.
All this Copyright enforcement did was prevent competition of ideas as it relates to these characters.
But of course our favorite Digg Copyright Terrorist is on the side of the bad guys.
GET IS THROUGH YOUR HEAD!!!! WB OWNS NOTHING!!!! WE THE PEOPLE OWN IT AND LET THEM USE IT FOR A LIMITED TIME!
Like bad children who have abused their toys, COPYRIGHT needs to be revoked from Corporations completely, and the Public Domain needs to be restored by limiting the time an individual may control a work to within the time of the CONSUMERS who contribute to it. - Shiftyeyedgoat, on 10/31/2008, -3/+2First they cancel his big chance to make dark Batman and now his new movie is pretty much Dead Space, which is already being made into a movie.
This guy is just never going to get a break. - Ratteler, on 11/01/2008, -2/+1No... COPYRIGHT LAW almost DID.
- AlienMushroom, on 10/31/2008, -4/+2Pathetic
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is