Quentin Tarantino’s Strategy – The Hollywood Reporter

Miramaxsuit against Quentin Tarantino On plans to issue non-fungible tokens based on Pulp Fiction It opens a new front in the battle of NFTs. The studio says it’s a zero-sum game: Only one side should be allowed to take advantage of the new frontiers of TV and movie exploitation. But the case may require a more precise outcome in the form of a provision allowing both sides to sell NFTs based on ownership of certain copyrights.

The lawsuit asks whether it was Tarantino, who wrote and owns the copyright to the script Pulp Fictionhas the right to publish portions of the work by selling NFTs.

The case can swing in the interpretation of the contract. Tarantino says the publication of NFTs is within his rights reserved. According to his deal with Miramax, Tarantino has the right to “publish in print (including but not limited to publishing the script, and ‘making’ books, picture books and fiction, also in audio and electronic formats, as applicable)” as well as “the media.” “

Brian Friedman, representing Tarantino, wrote on June 21 a motion to rule on the pleadings. “There is no doubt that this constitutes an electronic publication – a distribution of one or more electronic copies – of the script.”

Meanwhile, Miramax claims that its rights are far-reaching and represent a technology that had yet to be created in 1996 when the deal was completed. The company, which owns the copyright to the film, puts forward and centers blanket language in its contract that states that it owns “all rights . . . now or hereafter known . . . in all media now known or hereafter”.

Tarantino is moving for an early victory in the case, urging the court to focus on copyright law. He argues that it does not infringe any of Miramax’s copyrights because the NFTs will exploit the script in order to Pulp Fiction And not the movie itself.

“The film’s script is an original copyrighted work preceding the motion picture, and exclusive copyrights to the script—including such elements as dialogue, characters, plot descriptions, and scenery—are with the screenwriter,” Friedman writes. “The motion picture created from the script is a derivative work of it.”

Miramax’s copyrights for the film extend only to new elements not directly derived from the script, such as the film’s presentation, the actors’ interpretations of the characters, and any music or sound effects added, according to Tarantino. However, the NFTs he plans to release are a derivative of the scenario. The primary content associated with the NFTs to be auctioned consists of electronic copies of the first handwritten scripts from Pulp FictionTarantino says.

A possible outcome of the case could be something that would allow both sides to sell NFTs based on their copyrights.

says Jeremy Goldman, partner at Frankfurt Cornet Klein and Sales, who focuses on entertainment law and technology.

But this result will trigger a command that detects that NFTs have not been considered copyrighted by either party. Miramax is based on contract language that states that it has “all rights . . . now or hereafter known . . . in all media now known or hereafter”, but NFTs are not traditionally considered media.

“NFTs are not a form of distribution or media – that’s a misunderstanding by Miramax,” Goldman says. “They look at NFT as a means of distribution, and part of how people view content. That’s not what it is. It’s just a record of ownership.”

Miramax’s grip on Tarantino’s plans could flow from the director including elements from the film in the NFTs. Early artwork, for example, featured images of Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta, which likely infringed Miramax’s copyright for the film. They have since been replaced by pictures of Tarantino.