The Game Show Forum > The Big Board
Luckiest Man in America release set (PYL movie)
tyshaun1:
--- Quote from: ITSBRY on February 19, 2025, 09:04:39 PM ---This might be a silly question, but I don’t know much about how IP rights work. I presume since they are making a decent attempt to replicate the actual show and not creating a parody show as a vehicle to tell the story, that Fremantle would have to approve the use of the name, logo and format, correct? Assuming they use the actual music and/or cues, those rights would need to be procured also (if they’re separate from the other stuff), but what about the actual story? Since many of the people portrayed in this have passed away, who owns the rights to their story, portrayal and likeness? If they were alive, would they get a say or do contestants basically hand over their rights when they agree to appear on a game show?
I would imagine telling true stories in movies would be very complicated if you have to get everyone’s permission to do it. If so, it’s kind of a miracle niche projects like this even get made.
--- End quote ---
Fremantle would indeed have had to agree on licensing the show's elements for this. And based on what I know, the actual people who were apart of the episode that are in the movie are Bill Carruthers, Peter Tomarken, Michael, Janie, and Ed. Everyone else is a concoction of the writers. I am surprised that Rick Stern is not a part of this since he's one of the few people still alive and well who worked on this show and, in fact, has the master copy of the full episode.
I get the sense that this movie revolves as much around Bill Carruthers' perspective as Michael Larson's.
clemon79:
Right. IANAL, but the events of the show as captured on tape and broadcast over the public airwaves are a matter of public record. As Tyshaun said, you would probably have to get clearance from Fremantle to use any of the trademarked elements of Press Your Luck or any of the copyrighted elements of the actual episode (if you decided to pull a quote word for word for the script), but beyond that, I'm sure the contesti signed their rights away to any of that.
But they DIDN'T sign their rights away to having their NIL used as movie characters otherwise, so they (or their estates) would probably have to be renumerated for that usage as soon as those characters do anything outside of the scope of the broadcasted episode, and outside of Carruthers NOBODY else who was present that day is going to be referenced by anything CLOSE to their real name or likeness.
Again, though, IANAL.
Kevin Prather:
--- Quote from: clemon79 on February 20, 2025, 03:05:52 PM ---But they DIDN'T sign their rights away to having their NIL used as movie characters otherwise, so they (or their estates) would probably have to be renumerated for that usage as soon as those characters do anything outside of the scope of the broadcasted episode, and outside of Carruthers NOBODY else who was present that day is going to be referenced by anything CLOSE to their real name or likeness.
Again, though, IANAL.
--- End quote ---
I wonder how much freedom they have with creative license. Like if they added a scene where Michael robbed a 7-11 at gunpoint, could the Larsen family sue for defamation?
I wondered the same thing about the biopic they did on Stu Unger. His daughter said most of the movie was made up, and a lot of his depiction is not very flattering. But to my knowledge, no legal action was ever taken.
TLEberle:
Given what Michael did the 7-11 might be too believable, but I think you’re on to something. If the actual game show element is the jumping off point, there has to be something fantastical to carry the second and third acts.
ITSBRY:
--- Quote from: Kevin Prather on February 20, 2025, 03:43:33 PM ---
I wonder how much freedom they have with creative license. Like if they added a scene where Michael robbed a 7-11 at gunpoint, could the Larsen family sue for defamation?
--- End quote ---
That’s what got me thinking about this. I imagine the lines can get fairly gray here. Nobody would have ever considered 40 years ago that an incident on a short lived game show would be fictionalized in a movie. I also wondered how a small independent film deals with a mega corporation like Fremantle to get whatever rights they need. Does Fremantle get a cut? Do they have any say in how their property is portrayed? I can’t imagine that allowing this film to be made benefits Fremantle in any way. The show has already been rerun to death so I can’t imagine that a small independent film that probably only we care about would produce any ratings bumps for Buzzr.
It fascinates me to no end that niche stuff like this even gets made.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version