TheOneWithTheHair@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agoGroundhog Day IIlemmy.worldimagemessage-square26fedilinkarrow-up11.01Karrow-down136
arrow-up1976arrow-down1imageGroundhog Day IIlemmy.worldTheOneWithTheHair@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square26fedilink
minus-squaremoistclump@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5·1 year agoGenuinely, could they do that? Would there be any legal or logistical obstacles?
minus-squareH2207@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up8·1 year agoNot a lawyer but I don’t see any legal obstacles as long as they only use the footage and nothing else from the original film. Put a different name on it too. Morally though, it’s funny but also a complete cash-grab.
minus-squareWarmSoda@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up5·1 year agoEveryone that earned money from the first release would earn money on a new release.
minus-squareH2207@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 year agoBut wouldn’t the new release be a unique entity, so therefore it’d be no different than if it was another film?
minus-squareWarmSoda@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 year agoIf it’s the same movie, everyone that’s credited on it is still credited on it.
Genuinely, could they do that? Would there be any legal or logistical obstacles?
Not a lawyer but I don’t see any legal obstacles as long as they only use the footage and nothing else from the original film. Put a different name on it too.
Morally though, it’s funny but also a complete cash-grab.
Everyone that earned money from the first release would earn money on a new release.
But wouldn’t the new release be a unique entity, so therefore it’d be no different than if it was another film?
If it’s the same movie, everyone that’s credited on it is still credited on it.