Yes, a lot clearly. They were hired to work on an ER reboot, which means that any work they did for that project is derivative of the rights held by the Crichton estate, which therefore has ownership stake and under their contract, any use of that material had to be approved by Crichton or his estate.
If The Pitt is proven to be the ER reboot reskinned, the Crichton estate are owed ownership stake, and a payout for violation of their contractual rights and for copyright infringement.
It is derivative, in the sense used by the film/TV industry. You may not be aware but US TV is written work-for-hire, meaning that the writer gives up their rights. In this case, anything written or developed for the ER Pilot would be assigned to WBTV and be subject to their contractual arrangements with Crichton. Anything derived further from that material would also come under the same arrangement.
The Crichton position is that WBTV on the sly tried to shift work product from under the auspices of their arrangement and into a “new” production, to the loss of Crichton.
Two issues, first, as noted above, copyright law in the US uses a substantial incorporation standard, not an “any work done under a heading is poisoned” heading.
Second- you’re assuming some substantial contractual rights here to wbtv’s work on the project. It sounds like they were in talks. So their contract is probably either minimal or the contract was their agreement for the IP on the original run and has some relevant terms.
Yes, a lot clearly. They were hired to work on an ER reboot, which means that any work they did for that project is derivative of the rights held by the Crichton estate, which therefore has ownership stake and under their contract, any use of that material had to be approved by Crichton or his estate.
If The Pitt is proven to be the ER reboot reskinned, the Crichton estate are owed ownership stake, and a payout for violation of their contractual rights and for copyright infringement.
Why would “any work” done for the project be derivative of the underlying IP? Keep in mind we are under a substantial incorporation standard.
Looking at the two substantial incorporation doesn’t appear present.
Because thats how copyright law works.
I see your problem there. It’s not. The word derivative isn’t as broadly defined as in common use.
Haven’t you ever noticed tmnt and biker mice from mars are similar? Or Star Trek and Orville?
You realize 50 shades of grey started as a twighlight fanfic?
It is derivative, in the sense used by the film/TV industry. You may not be aware but US TV is written work-for-hire, meaning that the writer gives up their rights. In this case, anything written or developed for the ER Pilot would be assigned to WBTV and be subject to their contractual arrangements with Crichton. Anything derived further from that material would also come under the same arrangement.
The Crichton position is that WBTV on the sly tried to shift work product from under the auspices of their arrangement and into a “new” production, to the loss of Crichton.
Two issues, first, as noted above, copyright law in the US uses a substantial incorporation standard, not an “any work done under a heading is poisoned” heading.
Second- you’re assuming some substantial contractual rights here to wbtv’s work on the project. It sounds like they were in talks. So their contract is probably either minimal or the contract was their agreement for the IP on the original run and has some relevant terms.