@TheOneWithTheHair@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldEnglish • 8 months agoGroundhog Day IIlemmy.worldimagemessage-square26fedilinkarrow-up11Karrow-down133
arrow-up1969arrow-down1imageGroundhog Day IIlemmy.world@TheOneWithTheHair@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldEnglish • 8 months agomessage-square26fedilink
minus-square@moistclump@lemmy.worldcakelinkfedilinkEnglish5•8 months agoGenuinely, could they do that? Would there be any legal or logistical obstacles?
minus-square@H2207@lemmy.worldlinkfedilink7•8 months 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-square@WarmSoda@lemm.eelinkfedilink5•8 months agoEveryone that earned money from the first release would earn money on a new release.
minus-square@H2207@lemmy.worldlinkfedilink1•8 months agoBut wouldn’t the new release be a unique entity, so therefore it’d be no different than if it was another film?
minus-square@WarmSoda@lemm.eelinkfedilink1•8 months 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.