Judge Dismisses ‘Deep Throat’ Copyright Lawsuit Against ‘Lovelace’

Lovelace Movie

A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit filed by the owner of the copyright of the classic porn film “Deep Throat” against The Weinstein Co., claiming that the biographical 2013 movie “Lovelace” infringed on copyright and trademark rights.

The Weinstein Co.’s “Lovelace” was a look at the life of Linda Lovelace, star of “Deep Throat,” released in 1972. But Arrow Prods., which owns “Deep Throat,” contended that the movie “Lovelace” copied three scenes “word for word, positioned the actors identically or nearly identically, recreated camera angles and lighting and reproduced costumes and settings.”

U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa, in a ruling issued on Monday, said that the movie was “entitled to a presumption of fair use,” concluding that its use of the three scenes from “Deep Throat” added a “new, critical perspective on the life of Linda Lovelace and the production of ‘Deep Throat.'”

In determining whether the use of copyrighted material is a fair use, courts have looked to the extent to which it is transformative, and Griesa noted that two of the recreated scenes depicted different actors and different contexts from the original.

In his opinion, he compared scenes from both movies in detail.

One of the recreated scenes was, as Griesa pointed out, “the most famous scene in the movie,” in which a doctor diagnoses Lovelace’s condition and tells her she can achieve sexual satisfaction by performing oral sex, starting with him.

In “Lovelace,” Griesa notes, the filmmakers focus on Lovelace’s inexperience rather than on the sexual encounter with the doctor. They “have removed the sexually explicit part of Dr. Young’s physical examination as well as the famous pornographic scene,” he wrote.

Griesa also found that the filmmakers “did not copy any more than necessary to achieve its creative purposes.” He also rejected claims that the movie infringed on Arrow Prods. trademarks to Linda Lovelace and “Deep Throat” and dismissed arguments that the biopic would create consumer confusion.

He did decline to award attorneys’ fees to the Weinstein Co., finding that Arrow’s copyright claims were still within reason.

 

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 2

Leave a Reply

2 Comments

Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. ThomT says:

    The law suit was little more than a publicity stunt to generate new interest in a 42 year old movie (“Deep Throat”) that the current copyright holders had nothing whatsoever to do with when it was originally produced. If Arrow Production is really interested in protecting their copyright material they would sue a couple dozen of the websites where their movie (“Deep Throat”) can be viewed in its entirety for free.

    • Avi Cohen says:

      Once you remove one website up another one pops up. Every studio in Hollywood is currently facing a losing battle against internet piracy. Look what just happened to Expendables. Karma maybe? — Lovelace was not a success either. — Griesa’s judgement does no one any favors.

More Film News from Variety

Loading