Bradbury Blasts Moore Over 'Fahrenheit' Title

[Servo300]

Bradbury Blasts Moore Over 'Fahrenheit' Title

POSTED: 12:56 pm EDT June 7, 2004
UPDATED: 2:31 pm EDT June 7, 2004

He won the hearts and minds of critics and audiences at the Cannes Film Festival, but Michael Moore has upset a legendary science fiction author with the title his anti-Bush documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11."

More:

http://treets.thekansascitychannel.com/svc/lnk.cfm?l=36883422&t=1

[Justice]

1. Hey, Do you think Bradbury has a thing for Moore?

[Shredr]

2. He just wants money

He's just pissed that Michael Moore didn't pay him for rights to the title. I don't know why Moore didn't, I don't know the legalities of that kind of thing, but I'm sure if Bradbury got paid, he'd be pro-Moore.

[Justice]

6. I would think Moore Researched The Implications

of using the name before launching it.

What are Bradbury's politics? I searched newsmeat.com - and found a Raymond Bradbury in Kentucky - but didn't think Ray B. would be living there (nothing wrong with it, just not the obvious place).

[Shakespeare]

24. He doesn't live in Kentucky.

He lives in Los Angeles, and has since he was a child.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

85. It's changed enough

Bradbury has absolutely NO basis to do anything, nor should be upset. He SHOULD be thrilled, because it's caused people like me to go out and re-read his book!! What a dumb bastard!

[rfranklin]

8. You can't copyright a title

So Bradbury should shut his piehole.

[Beaker]

45. plus...

the title isn't the same, it just shares the word "Fahrenheit". lots of movies have similar titles to others, and some movies have the exact same title, be they remakes or just totally different films, that have nothing to do with each other, for instance the two movies called "Heat"- ditto with "Gladiator", and "Catch me if you can" to name a few recent examples.

Either Bradbury's a cranky Repuke,
OR-
Moore is paying him to make a fuss to keep the "controversy" brewing...

with MM's track record, it could go either way.

[Fight_n_back]

61. Yes

you can't

I mean I agree that you can't...

and Bradbury should shut up.

[wryter2000]

17. You can't copyright a title

Even if Moore had called it Fahrenheit 451, he would have been within his legal right to do so.

[Eloriel]

36. There ARE no rights to the title -- titles can't be copyrighted

Period.

I haven't read the article, but Bradbury is nuts IMO for making a case about it of any kind -- unless he's just wanting some additional publicity for his book, which would be fine with me.

[DoNotRefill]

48. Really?

Whew. In that case, I can't WAIT to publish my new book, "Gone with the Wind"...It's about a Southern woman named Harlot O'Sceara...

How long do ya think it'll take me to get sued?

[indigobusiness]

52. You could use the title...

and write that kind of parody and be within the law.

If you perpetrate a scam so that people might think they are buying the original...that is fraud.

[Eloriel]

55. Yes, really

The real questio is how long do you think it would take you to find a publisher? And if you self-published, what bookstore(s) would carry it? But of course you could sell it on the web and really get filthy rich (not).

You may (or may not) recall there was a rip-off parody on GWTW a few years ago. I don't recall who sued (I thought Margaret Mitchell didn't have any heirs), but someone did. It was around the time of the GWTW sequel (the one you've never heard of since). I think the title of the parody was "The Wind Done Gone" or something like that, and it was purportedly GWTW told from the viewpoint of the slaves. The parody won in court.

[DoNotRefill]

60. Is Moore's work a parody of F 451?

That strikes me as quite a stretch....

[thebigidea]

64. Fahrenheit 9/11 isn't a parody of Fahrenheit 451? Of course it is.

Though the documentary itself isn't, surely the title is!

[DoNotRefill]

68. Huh. And here I thought it was just a rip-off...

kind of like "Burger Queen" or "McDougal's" hamburger stand.

[thebigidea]

69. Which would be true if Moore's film used Bradbury's plot

seeing as it doesn't, where's the ripoff?

And copyright is NOT the same thing as trademark, so your burger stand comment is pretty meaningless.

Maybe they should sue Franken over "The O'Franken Factor" - what a RIPOFF!

And I will never be able to sleep soundly at night while those copyright-infringing THIEVES at Mad Magazine are able to go about their business...

[jdsmith]

82. "The Wind Done Gone" case

[jdsmith]

83. "The Wind Done Gone" case

[tom_paine]

3. Well, Michael Moore could have asked for permission

That does seem f*cked up.

[cestmoi]

15. I think you and Bradbury are wrong.

Does Bradbury own the word Farenheit? I don't think so. This reminds me of the Barbie flap when Mattel tried stopping artists using Barbie dolls in ways that Mattel doesn't sanction.

The title Farenheit 451 has a cultural meaning and Moore has every right to appropiate it for his own use.

When dogs piss on a tree, they may have marked their terriority but it doesn't mean they own the damn tree.

[tom_paine]

20. Also a good point. Has the copyright on the original novel run out?

If so, then you are correct.

If not, and given that Moore's movie can't claim the "satire" defense, maybe Bradbury has a right.

Ok, you got me. I don't know enough about copyright law and precedent to have an informed opinion on this.

So inform me.

[thebigidea]

42. what do you mean "given that Moore's movie can't claim satire"?

of course it can! It is!

[tom_paine]

46. Well, I haven't seen it personally, but given the subject matter

how can it?

He dredges up the unpleassant and shallowly-buried facts of Imperial Frauid and Collusion. he asks tough questions and puts forth stuff only seen on DU because the "Liberal Media" fears their Bushevik masters.

They could get Character Assassinated, or like the guys who published those Drunken Bush Daughter pictures, they might get the real thing.

And they know it, too.

But, anyway, how could a movie that advertises itself as such be a "satire"?

[thebigidea]

47. I'm speaking about the title. Parody WOULD be the more appropriate term

And you're telling me Moore doesn't use satire? Sarcasm? Bathos? Puns? Metaphor? Dramatic Irony?

(turns into Python skit)

[cestmoi]

50. Satire defined

sat·ire
A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.

The branch of literature constituting such works. See Synonyms at caricature.

Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.

[sendero]

41. I'm sick to death..

.... of absurd "intellectual property" rights that are so all-encompassing they restrict legitimate enterprise and expression.

If Bradbury has any legal standing in the argument whatsoever (I'm betting heavily he does not), then let him sue.

Otherwise he can bitch and moan like an old curmudgeon. Who cares?

And to think I read and liked a lot of Bradbury fiction in my younger days. Just goes to show that just because you like a book does not mean you will like the author. :)

[mike1963]

63. Did Bradbury ask Fahrenheit's heirs for permission? I don't think so...

sheesh
:eyes:

[frylock]

4. you gotta be kidding me!

Moore probably should have gave him a call about the title, but lighten up you old bitterman.

In the interview with the Swedish paper, Bradbury reportedly predicted a dim forecast for "9/11" at the box office. "Who cares? Nobody will see his movie," Bradbury told the paper. "It is almost dead already. Never mind, nobody cares."

[1monster]

5. Sorry, I like Bradbury's work, but no one owns the English Language...

Bradbury should just get over it.

Bradbury also called Moore a "horrible human being" in the interview, yet insisted that his anger had nothing to do with Moore's political views.

"He copied my title; that is what happened," Bradbury reportedly said in the interview. "That has nothing to do with my political opinions."


That's a little over the top in my opinion...

[lanparty]

71. Nope ...

If he copied the title, the movie would be called "Fahrenheit 451".

Perhaps Bradbury is just pissed because he was planning on writing 460 sequels to Fahrenheit 451. Shit, he can do 452 to 910, but 911 is not taken.

[lolly]

7. Here we go again

There was another thread on a similar article 2 days ago.

Summary:
Titles aren't copyright property (otherwise, porn producers with their cutesy parodies of legit film titles would all be out of business)

Bradbury is a far-right wingnut who did write some great books. He also called Clinton a s**thead and was thrilled when Shrub got elected because Shrub would fix education (i.e., bring it back to where it was in the good old days of . . . whenever).

Upshot--Bradbury is a bit of a crank who would criticize anything anti-Bush, money or no money.

[genius]

9. Bradbury's an ego.

He was mad at me for telling him he was ONE of my favorite science fiction writers as opposed to my favorite. He seems to think he's God's gift to the world.

[lanparty]

72. Is he the next Hubbard????

Maybe he should just start a cult if he wants everybody to worship him. In that regard, he'll always be runner up to Hubbard.

But, I'm looking forward to "Fahrentology".

[genius]

80. Good one

[Kid_A]

10. Because he stole a title he's a "horrible human being"?

That sounds a bit harsh. Someone ripped off a joke of mine once, but I don't think I reacted by judging their status as a homo sapien. Seems to me Mr. Bradbury is a little jealous.

[Lin]

11. "waaaaawaaaaWAAHHH" -O'Reilly meet Ray, Ray share a hanky

with O'Reilly, this has envy written all over it. :puke:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. If Moore is really lucky

, Bradbury will find a lawyer partisan enough to sue. Just ask Al Franken how much publicity a 'wholly without merit' lawsuit can generate.

[JDPriestly]

13. Wait a minute

Bradbury's title isn't very original. After all, isn't it the temperature at which paper burns? He borrowed it from science. He should get a life.

[russian33]

14. Was Bradbury's book called Fahrenheit 9/11? NO!

Did it have word Fahrenheit in it? Yes.
Does Ray Bradbury own the rights to the word Fahrenheit? NO!
Should Bradbury go pound sand? Yes!

[kcwayne]

16. Bradbury is in the right on this

He owns the copyright to Fahrenheit 451, and Moore's use of Fahrenheit in his title specifically plays off the fame of the Bradbury story.

Bradbury will win a settlement, whether it is in court or out of court.

Moore should have asked permission. It would have been cheaper to pay Bradbury before the movie had notoriety than now.

[thebigidea]

19. nonsense. Parody. Fair use.

[jdsmith]

22. Parody and allusion

Moore alludes to Bradbury's classic text as a way of adducing its meanings in short order rather than having to go about re-creating RB's structure for critiquing censorship.

Isn't Bradbury trying to silence Moore? And didn't somebody once write a famous science fiction novel about silencing free expression?

[lanparty]

75. They call that IRONY (n/m)

[kcwayne]

27. That would have to be decided by legal experts

I think the way you are interpreting parody, there would be no distinction between parody and copying, and there would be no use in having a copyright.

I view this as distinctly different than Fox's claim of a trademark on "Fair and Balanced" and Al Franken's take off of it, which clearly was a parody (as in mocking) of Fox. Moore is not mocking Bradbury at all. My take is that he is paying homage to Bradbury, not using parody.

Let the lawyers sort it out. Bradbury has a right to defend his property, even if it does piss off Moore supporters.

[thebigidea]

28. It already has been by the Supreme Court

and no, "Fahrenheit 9/11" is most certainly parody. There is no legal term for "homage"

This has nothing to do with supporting Moore, this is about the current state of fair use laws. Being prone to satire myself, I'm well aquainted with the laws involved.

"I think the way you are interpreting parody, there would be no distinction between parody and copying, and there would be no use in having a copyright."

Not at all. Its not the way I'm interpreting parody, its the way the Supreme Court is.

If Moore were "copying," the title of his film would be "Fahrenheit 451" and it would be an adaptation of Bradbury's book. A scathing indictment of the Bush administration using a title riffing on an anti-censorship book certainly does not add up to "copying"

It is a "transformative," to use the Supreme's word.

And this will not see any legal action. Bradbury is just grumbling, and will soon forget about it. Just don't bring the topic up at any sci-fi conventions, as I'm sure it'll be enough to trigger a tirade for the next few years.

[wryter2000]

21. He does not have a copyright

He has a copyright to the words in his book. He can't copyright Fahrenheit 451, and he sure as hell can't copyright Fahrenheit 9/11.

Or maybe the heirs to Fahrenheit should sue Bradbury for using the name.

Reminds me of when Warner Brothers threatened to sue the Marx Brothers for making a movie "A Night in Casablanca," Grouch wrote back that they were the Marx Brothers before Warner became Warner Brothers. IOW, wholly without merit.

[kcwayne]

25. I confess that I don't know specifically what copyrights Bradbury has

I am not a lawyer, but I have been called in as an expert witness on a similar type of dispute between AOL and AT&T over the use of the term "You have mail". (And I didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn Express)

AT&T claimed this expression as part of the copyright to the UNIX operating system, which had been in existence before AOL was even started.

AOL's defense was their use of "You have mail" was completely out of context of the the UNIX operating systems login prompt that used exactly the same words.

The parties settled out of court, so AOL must have finally conceded some merit to AT&T's position.

The title Fahrenheit 451 is just as much a part of the copyright on the book as page 1 is.

[thebigidea]

26. yes, but that has nothing to do with it.

They both argued for the rights to "You have mail" - Moore isn't calling his film "Fahrenheit 451," is he?

"Fahrenheit 9/11" is parody/satire/whateveryouwannacallit. Fair use.

Take a look at the Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music case, the one with 2 Live Crew doing a demented version of "Pretty Woman"

Or, to put it in barely comprehensible legalese straight from the Supremes:

" Parody, like other comment and criticism, may claim fair use. Under the first of the four §107 factors, "the purpose andcharacter of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature . . . ," the enquiry focuses on whether the new work merely supersedes the objects of the original creation, or whether and to what extent it is "transformative," altering the original with new expression, meaning, or message. The more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use. The heart of any parodist's claim to quote from existing material is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's work."

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZS.html

Fine reading on this topic can be had in Negativland's wonderful book, "The Letter U and the Numeral 2"

[kcwayne]

30. It does have something to do with it

People who use slight variations of a famous name for a business enterprise regular lose when sued by the company that made the name famous.

There was a recent case of a guy that had a porn store called Victor's Secret, and lost his case against Victoria's Secret. There are many others.

Again, it doesn't have to be a literal copy, it just has to use the prime image in a way that the court deems to be inappropriate use.

From the briefings I got when I served on the AOL/AT&T case, these matters don't seem cut and dried, there isn't an exact formula for what constitutes a violation, which keeps lawyers gainfully employed fighting these battles.

[thebigidea]

31. Ok, then how do you explain Mad Magazine?

Of course, if you have enough money and lawyers you can stretch this out endlessly...

but Bradbury doesn't have a leg to stand on here.

[sendero]

38. You can't compare...

.... a trademarked business name to a book or song title. Sorry, no relation in law or logic.

[wryter2000]

40. That's trademark

I suppose Bradbury could have trademarked Fahrenheit 451, but I don't think he did.

I write romance novels and know a teeny bit about copyrights. I could write a book and call it Gone with the Wind if I wanted to. It'd be a really stupid idea, though. Imagine all the people who'd buy my book and expect Scarlet and Rhett.

[Justice]

56. Trademark vs. Copyright

Victoria's Secret case was a trademark case.

I've not seen anything that suggests Bradbury trademarked the name of this book. so, he is making noise based on copyright.

[lanparty]

76. So you're saying there is no precedent ...

If there was no ruling, there is no precedent. So you're citing air.

Personally, I think the phrase "You've got mail" has prior art belonging to the US Postal Service.

[kcwayne]

78. Snail mail has no prior art for electronic presentation

at least nothing implemented. Someone at the postal service may have written a white paper proposing such a scheme, but I seriously doubt they would have art prior to 1982, which is the depth of AT&T's usage of the term on their email client. I'd be surprised that any formal recognition of the presence of email is documented prior to 1994 in the postal service.

[lanparty]

88. Prior art in notification ...

The mail man walks up and says ...

"Hey BillyBob, ya'll got mail today."

Hence the prior art.

[kcwayne]

89. Maybe you're a lawyer, I am not

but my understanding of prior art which comes from patents I have and my experience on the AOL/AT&T case suggests that prior art must be materially the same expression. The AOL/AT&T prior art dealt specifically with the use of "You've got mail" as attached to an electronic email program. This is a different expression than a mailman handing out a piece of mail and verbally saying "you have mail".

Likewise, there are limits on the breadth of the expression. For example, Apple sued Microsoft over the use of graphical windows in a user interface. Apple lost, even though the work they leveraged from Xerox that came out of the Park Place R&D clearly put them in the position of having the first graphically based user interface that used square windows as the key vehicle for interaction.

On a patent that I have, there was a company with prior art that claimed (and had a patent for) all rights to the idea of inserting ads into a radio program streamed over the internet. My patent was awarded for a system to insert ads into a radio program streamed over the internet. The prior art was too broad, and my patent was specific to a particular methodology for doing it. The other patent is still valid, but it is non-enforceable. It should never have been granted, but lawyers make mistakes too.

[lanparty]

90. Methodology

You would have to patent some clever piece of TECHNOLOGY for saying "You've got mail" in a new and improved way. Perhaps your system was integrated into a voice synthesis system that automatically created voice inflections.

Otherwise, the notion of "playing a recording" when an event is triggered is pretty fucking well covered. Ya wanna here what other geeks have to say about this???? Take it to Slashdot!!!!

[lolly]

37. Nope, nope, nope

Titles aren't copyright property.

Bradbury apparently hasn't even threatened to sue--he's just bitched and called Moore names over it. Wish he would. Moore would win, and get lots of publicity to boot. And Bradbury would be pretty much exposed as a right wing nutcase.

If Moore published a book containing large chunks of unattributed text from Bradbury's book, then he would be violating copyright.

As I said earlier, if one could copyright and thus forstall all use of ones' own title, don't you think filmakers would stop all those goofy take-offs of major movie title used in porn flicks?

[kcwayne]

44. You are probably right, as I said I am not a lawyer

and the distinctions between what is copyrightable/not copyrightable and trademarks are not my expertise. I am probably getting trademarks mixed into copyright inappropriately.


I would take exception to calling Bradbury a right wing nutcase. What right winger would ever right something like Fahrenheit 451. If they wrote it, the book burners would be the heroes, note the villians.

[lolly]

51. Seems odd, doesn't it?

But if you'll re-read it (I've been teaching it in my class for 2 semesters in a row now, with one more to go) you'll see that he places all the blame for the book burnings squarely on the "PC" crowd--even though the book was, of course, written before that term became popularized. The burnings begin as an attempt to avoid offending any minorities--and the result is the death of classical education.

He is on record calling Clinton a sh*thead. He gave an interview for the LATIMES for some recent anniversary of F451 in which he badmouthed Clinton extensively and gushed over how great Bush was going to be for the country, how he was going to fix education, etc.

I get the feeling he finds the idea of multi-culturalism revolting.

Someone else on the other thread (too lazy to get a link right now . .) recounted some public debate or forum in which he shouted down a woman who was disagreeing with his right-wing viewpoints, and felt very proud of himself for shutting her up.

I still teach his book; I think it's a good book. But it's not liberal--or at least, wasn't intended to be.

[kcwayne]

81. That's interesting

I last re-read "The Illustrated Man" about 20 years ago, and used to read alot of Bradbury when I was a kid. I never pictured him as a right wing wacko.

I never had the impression that he was a liberal, but the sense I got from his stories was that he was a deep thinker who had integrated technology and humanism into his stories, and I always detected a subdued but present distrust of institutions and totalitarian governments in his work.

But I only know Bradbury from his works, I have never seen or heard him speak.

[hippiegranny]

57. are you a lawyer?

just asking, because maybe you know something the rest of us don't. it seems to me that bradbury has about as much of a case against moore as o'reilly did against al franken. that is to say, none.

[lanparty]

74. He'll get a settlement ...

... right after Bill O'Reilly for "The O'Franken Factor". IT'S A PARODY!!!!!

But I DO hope he sues. That's free publicity. I can see Moore praying on his fat pudgy knees right now that Bradbury sues him.

In fact, one could even speculate that Moore picked the title knowing that Bradbury was a wing-nut. The Fox suit did wonders for Al Franken, Moore should make out just as well ;-)

[rocktivity]

18. If Bradbury has grounds on which to go after Moore

Then Farenheit's estate has grounds on which to go after Bradbury! Since Farenheit 911 has an additional theme of attempted government censorhip, I think it pays homage to Farenheit 451 rather than degrades it. If Bradbury had a case, he would have long since sued the band Bon Jovi for naming their second album 7800 Degrees Farenheit (the temperature at which rocks melt), and made a heck of a lot more money!!!



:headbang:
rocknation

[kcwayne]

23. In copyright law, context matters

The use of a word or phrase is copyrighted in context, not necessarily in literal interpretation.

Bradbury will argue that his title, which literally means the temperature at which books burn, was famous not because of Fahrenheit's temperature scale, and its application to books. His title is famous because of the story's connotation with government oppression and abuse. That is what Moore's story is about, and his use of the the title draws on the publics awareness of meaning of Fahrenheit 451 that was specifically made by Bradbury, not Fahrenheit.

[thebigidea]

32. Bradbury will argue nothing, he'll wind up with egg on his face

its incredibly embarassing!

[lanparty]

77. Moore's film is about ...

... The events of 9/11 in relation to the Bush and Bin Ladin families. Not book burning. If Moore had made a film called "Fahreneit 452" about book burning, then Bradbury might have a case.

Beyond this, you seem to assume that Bradbury now holds copyright to ANY film title containing 'Fahrenheit' and a number.

[rocktivity]

29. Is Fox News' lawsuit against Al Franken down our memory hole already?

He lifted their "Fair and balanced" slogan from them whole hog. If Fox's case was deemed as being without merit, how could Bradbury's possibly be?

:headbang:
rocknation

[kcwayne]

34. There are a couple of reasons

Fox claimed Trademark violation, not copyright violation which I presume that Bradbury will do. The laws are applied differently.

Franken was clearly doing a parody on Fox. The court's threw out Fox's case because their complaint that someone could confuse Franken's use of Fair and Balanced with their use, and cause Fox damage was deemed without merit.

If Bradbury claimed that Moore's use of Fahrenheit 9/11 would cause Fahrenheit 451 books sales to drop or some other similar harm, then my guess is that would be thrown out as well.

But if Bradbury claims that Moore use of Fahrenheit 9/11 leverages off the fame of Fahrenheit 451 because of the similarity of themes, he might have a case.

Its the same reasoning that would not allow you to come out with a brand of tissue called CleanEx.

[Misunderestimator]

33. So if I title a movie Pretty Lady...the producers of Pretty Woman will...

come after me? Or Lady and the Chimp... Hmm.... what about all those porno movies that clearly immitate widely released popular movies...? This is just stupid of Bradbury.

[donhakman]

35. A title can never be copyrighted.

fair and balanced ;)

[Misunderestimator]

54. Exactly.

[yellowcanine]

39. Even if titles could be copyrighted wouldn't it be too late? Wasn't the

book published in 1951? I believe that copyright would have run out by now, no?

[wryter2000]

43. Copyright still in effect

Works go into the public domain 75 years after the author's death. Casa Verdi, a house for retired singers in Italy, made its money off the royalties from Verdi's operas for years after his death. I think Gilbert and Sullivan became public domain only about 15 years ago.

[Octafish]

49. Why didn't Dr. Fahrenheit get mad at Bradbury? Hmmmm?

As a frustrated SF writer, with each passing day, I admire Ray Bradbury's work more and more.



C'mon Ray! We're ALL on the SAME SIDE! Mike Moore's trying to keep the world from becoming the nightmare you tried to keep it from becoming. The person to be mad at is named BUSH. He's the stooge for the Bush Organized Crime Empire.

[lolly]

53. Bradbury and Moore NOT on the same side

If Moore had produced a right-wing screed of the same title, I very much doubt if poor old Ray would be complaining. He is very, very right wing. Blames all the ills of our society on liberals.

[Octafish]

58. Thanks for the heads-up.

Must be an LA thing. I remember Bradbury said he got his real education at the LA Public Library. He must've skipped the humanities section.

[Still_Loves_John]

59. Correct me if I'm wrong, but

I don't think this is so much a legal issue as it is an ethics one. I don't think Bradbury really expects to file a lawsuit or anything, but it seems like Mike committed a bit of a faux pas by borrowing another artist's title like that without even asking permission. Regardless of Bradbury's politics, he's an accomplished author and his works deserve respect; it wouldn't have been hard for Moore to just make some show of asking his blessing, or something.

[lolly]

62. It Wouldn't Have Been Blessed

Of course, Moore isn't exactly known for being worried about committing a faux pas. He also doesn't seem to be the type to humble himself by going to another author, hat in hand, and saying "Do you mind if I borrow your title for my movie?"

And, anyway, Bradbury wouldn't have given his blessing. And Moore's point would've been lost. Well, he probably would have used it anyway, and that would be that.

FWIW, wasn't "All the President's Men" a play on another book title, "All the King's Men?"--which of course, came from Mother Goose's Humpty Dumpty? I'm sure we could start an entire thread on titles that have riffed off of earlier titles--movies, books, songs--so I don't think it's such a big deal. I still maintain Bradbury's ONLY problem was with Moore's politics.

OTOH, another poster mentioned Bradbury's ego--did somebody here actually meet him? I'd be interested to know how that went.

[Lisa]

65. sorry, Mr. Bradbury -- but this is a compliment to your work!

So calm down and accept it.

Seriously -- this is the kind of thing that distinguishes literature from pulp fiction. Orwell and Huxley -- Tolkien too -- are other speculative authors who have thus become immortal, even if it may not have been exactly what they intended. That's life!

[lolly]

67. Speaking of Huxley

"Brave New World" was borrowed from a line in Shakespeare's "The Tempest."

Too bad the Bard wasn't around to bitch and whine when Huxley stole his words!

[Bandit]

66. As long as he doesn't claim it to be "Fair and Balanced"

:shrug: Franken found out what makes them snivel and laughed in their face

[lanparty]

70. It's a satire, dumbo!!!!

Maybe there is no such thing as satire where he comes from.

I'm about tapped out on patent/copyright/trademark infringements from reading Slashdot. If Bradbury things feels so strongly, he should sue Moore.

[Democat]

73. Bradbury is a right winger - here is another thread on this subject

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1719636

[Generic Other]

79. Anyone ever heard of a literary allusion?

"A figure of speech that makes brief, often casual reference to a historical or literary figure, event, or object. Always indirect... attempts to tap into the knowledge and memory of the reader in order to secure a resonant emotional effect." Holman Handbook to Literature

F451 is about firemen setting books on fire forcing others to save the lost knowledge through memory.

F9/11 is about firemen losing their lives in a fire and having others try to suppress information about the event, so that all we have left to us is memory to try and piece together the truth.

Hmmm...the connection is pretty obvious to this English major. Moore's work pays homage to Bradbury's. The fact that Bradbury does not appreciate the gesture means nothing and has NO legal standing. Nothing has been taken from him. Another artist has chosen to reference his work for a legitimate literary reason.

[wtmusic]

84. Another pathetic RW ego basking in his former glory

Shut up...just shut up.

[Bread and Circus]

86. U know what, I think Ray can go suck a lemon...he stole

the phrase Fahrenheit 451 from scientists.....you didn't see them
complaining.

We all share and borrow ideas from each other and turn them
into something new.

It's the "human" thing to do.

Give me a break.

[goodhue]

87. kick for contrast n/t