« Anna Nicole | Main | Wipe out »
February 16, 2007
My Official Statement about the "Michael Lucas' La Dolce Vita" lawsuit
Hello Everyone,
Some time in December, I received a letter from the lawyers representing International Media Films asking me to cease and desist sales for "Michael Lucas' La Dolce Vita." My lawyers responded to them promptly, setting out clearly why the law does not prevent me from using the Fellini movie as inspiration and reinterpreting it in another time and place. My own movie features different characters, situations and a different title. Before even investing so much of my company in this movie, I had consulted with lawyers about it in order to avoid violating any laws.
Overall, I have mixed feelings about this whole thing. On one hand, I am very proud that my film is being taken so seriously by my opponent – although pornographic, I take great pride in creating high quality productions with realistic situations about the benefits of honestly enjoying your sexuality – something noticeably absent from Fellini’s film. On the other hand, I can see that their actions are incredibly homophobic. There is a straight pornographic movie that was produced in Italy in 2003 called "La Dolce Vita." It contains many of the same elements in the Fellini version, bears exactly the same title, and has been sold all over the world for the past 4 years. But International Media Films did nothing about it for years. International Media Films, apparently, feels that only my gay film, which sells for considerably more than DVDs of either Fellini’s film or the straight porn film of the same name, could tarnish the reputation of the Fellini classic. This is incredibly homophobic.
What else can I tell you? No one in their right mind could confuse my movie with the Fellini movie. My movie is clearly identified as "Michael Lucas' La Dolce Vita." Many movies share even identical titles and no one is confused. And the content of my film is very different — the plot, the theme, the artwork, the place, the time. It takes place in New York City in the year 2006. It has an all-gay cast, with the exception of Savanna Samson. My movie celebrates homosexuality. That's in contrast to Fellini's movie, where stereotypically feminine and vulgar gay characters appear for just a few seconds. Now how many times have we seen films, commercials, and photographs which recreate the well known fountain scene from Fellini's movie? It's what we call inspiration, and there’s nothing illegal about it.
Will someone confuse my version from Fellini's? Absolutely not. They are sold in different places. You will never see my movie at Barnes & Noble, and you will never see their movie at the adult video stores that sell mine. The prices are completely different, too. Mine is priced at $99 online and around $60 retail. Depending on the version, Fellini's costs significantly less. Even looking at the box covers side by side, you would hardly confuse me with Marcello Mastroianni, and the half-naked kissing guys around my image will also not confuse you to think that this is a mainstream production.
There is no denying that I have admired the filmmaking of artists like Federico Fellini, as I love movies produced in Europe in the 1960s and 1970s. I am inspired by them, and the First Amendment protects my right to comment on them by reinterpreting the themes in them for gay life in 21st Century New York. In no way is this a remake or a violation of any rights. I produced a new movie with a new script. The gay industry has a history of taking mainstream titles and making a parody of them. International Media Films clearly does not like to see the Fellini film being parodied by my commentary. But they should develop a thicker skin, rather than try to suppress my creative work.
I also believe that this also might be a publicity maneuver by International Media Films, which has proven to work on their behalf. Yesterday and today I was bombed with interview requests, from magazines to blogs. There are dozens of articles that have appeared in newspapers like the International Herald Tribune to the New York Post to Wall Street Journal, and beyond to a countless number of blogs. Fellini's "La Dolce Vita," which is not very well known to the average American, was released over 40 years ago in its original Italian language. Its director and most of the stars are long dead. And now, it is getting enormous free publicity... something I know something about.
— Michael
PS: Links to some of the articles I mention above:
The Associated Press (International Herald Tribune, CNN.com, Advocate.com)
Posted by Michael at February 16, 2007 07:22 PM
Comments
You may well have grounds for a counter suit, based on the frivolity of the one against you.
Firstly, La Dolce Vita, despite being the full title of Fellini's film, and part of yours, is a commonly used Italian phrase.
It was a commonly used phrase in Italian before Fellini made his movie and remained one afterwards. Italians . . . and others . . . who have never seen the Fellini, the straight porn, or Michael Lucas' La Dolce Vita, nonetheless use the phrase La Dolce Vita.
Think of other idiomatic phrases, whether in Italian or English. In English for example there is "Out of the blue" and "Selling like hotcakes." In Italian there is "Nudo como un verme" and "Andare a ramengo."
One can not trademark an idiomatic phrase and deny use of it to all others. Paris Hilton was being ironic in "trademarking" "That's Hot," for example.
The Plaintiff in this suit fails to provide one scrap of evidence that anybody that was planning to purchase or view a copy of Fellini's La Dolce Vita decided not to purchase or view the film because Michael Lucas' La Dolce Vita exists. The Plaintiffs also fail to show that anybody that holds the Fellini film in high regard would cease to hold it in high regard because Michael Lucas' La Dolce Vita exists.
Any on-line evidence of commentary to the contrary of what I've just said could be construed as being a "plant" by the Plaintiff, made after-the-fact and increasing the frivolous nature of their suit.
Indeed, one could question whether elements of the Plaintiffs' complaint . . such as the quote from IMDB on-line, were "plants." However that may be, there is nothing in the IMDB quote used in the Plaintiff's complaint that indicates the writer had his opinion of the Fellini movie changed by the existence of the Michael Lucas film. It's also worth noting that the IMDB commentator clearly indicated a distaste for all gay male erotic cinema, consistent with your observation that there is in this suit an element of anti-homosexual bigotry.
The Plaintiff's claim that its goods and services are "competitive" with yours is demonstrably false.
Of the infinitesimal percentage of heterosexual society that even knows the name Michael Lucas and that you direct and act in gay male erotic cinema, an infinitesimal percentage pay any attention to your productions and still fewer of that infinitesimal percentage of heterosexuals watch your films.
As an adult gay male fluent in Italian and with keen interests in world cinema . . . both heterosexual and not, and erotic and not . . . I can tell you that there is not one iota of confusion in my mind between Fellini's La Dolce Vita and Michael Lucas' La Dolce Vita.
Not only would my gay acquaintances not be confused by the existence of these two distinct films; none of the heterosexual people I know would be either.
Fellini's La Dolce Vita on its DVD release inherently appeals to worldly and cosmopolitan people. Those people are not going to protest Michael Lucas's La Dolce Vita in the way that a particular religious group, for instance, would protest a movie making a perceived insult to that particular religious group.
I think, furthermore for example of movie satires that run in such publications as Mad magazine. They might alter the title of the film being satirized but it is clear which film is being satirized.
Are we going to find out that satire is not protected by the first amendment?
And if a satirical treatment of a movie is protected by first amendment rights, why wouldn't an erotic gay treatment of a movie be protected by first amendment rights?
The magazine satire of any particular movie will no more prevent people from buying the DVD release of a movie than Michael Lucas's La Dolce Vita will prevent people from buying the DVD of Fellini's film.
If anything, there will be young gay men enthusiastic about the Lucas film who, never having seen or purchased Fellini's La Dolce Vita, will now be inspired to do so. But to say that the heterosexual public that overwhelmingly has no natural interest in any Michael Lucas film will, because of the Lucas film, not purchase or not hold in high esteem the Fellini film is not consistent with reality.
And so it is correct to say that the Plaintiff's case against you is frivolous.
Posted by: Scott Rose at February 22, 2007 08:42 PM