Brad Pitt’s new movie has him playing a tough WWII American sergeant fighting in Europe with a tank that has the word “Fury” plastered all over it. The movie itself is called Fury too.
Given that Marvel has a long-established character called Nick Fury, one of whom’s books shows him as a tough WWII American sergeant fighting in Europe (no doubt sometimes with a tank), hasn’t Marvel got a plausible case for some kind of passing-off action here?
I’m genuinely puzzled by this.
I can’t see how, unless Brad Pitt somehow plays a black dude missing one eye who ends up in charge of a secret agency. There were some thirty million soldiers involved in WW2, chances are high a few of them might share the same name and service.
Pitt plays a character with the last name Collier in the movie. As much as Marvel might like to have a trademark on the word fury they don’t. Nobody is going to get the movie Fury and the character of Don “Wardaddy” Collier with Nick Fury, Agent of Shield. Nobody other than comic book nerds even know about Nick Fury and the Howling Commandos.
Only if Marvel wants to risk a similar suit from this inanimate iron pole.
But yea, a lawsuit that claims a relatively realistic movie about a tank nicknamed after a common English word might be infringing on a comic book about a superhero with a surname that is the same word would go exactly nowhere.
I see where Jake Gyllenhall has a movie coming out this month, where he apparently plays a sneaky guy who investigates crimes; it’s called Nightcrawler.
Perhaps Gene Roddenberry should have sued George Lucas. Both properties had the word “star” in the title, and both were set in space!
The original Nick Fury was a white guy missing one eye who ended up in charge of a secret agency, actually.
Well, the original Nick Fury was a white guy with two eyes who led a World War II commando team that was stereotypically diverse (It was made up of an Irishman, an Italian, a German, a black, a Jew from Brooklyn, a southerner, and a WASP kid, if I remember correctly)
Because calling it Night Stalker would have trod directly on a very similar predecessor. That’s the key for infringement: it’s not just the same name or style, but has to overlap the same product, industry, genre or market.
Nothing is stopping anyone from creating “Night Stalker” brand nightvision gear, or sleeping tablets, or a book about a WWII Black Widow named thus. But an entertainment about a guy who is out at night investigating strange happenings… Mr. McGavin’s lawyers will be on the phone.
“As much as Marvel might like to have a trademark on the word fury they don’t.”
True, but my point was that this instance goes far beyond the word alone. When I first saw the movie Fury advertised and realised it starred an America sergeant in WWII, my first thought was to wonder if it was somehow connected to Marvel’s book Nick Fury & His Howling Commandos. The posters (http://www.movieweb.com/fury-movie-poster) do nothing to discourage the conclusion that Fury is the name of Pitt’s character here.
I can’t have been alone in making that initial assumption - particularly as Pitt’s movie doesn’t seem to have any aspect which makes Fury a uniquely appropriate title. As the film’s got nothing to do with Nick Fury, then why not pick a different word to paint on Pitt’s tank from the outset and avoid even the prospect of a lawsuit from Marvel?
“Well, the original Nick Fury was a white guy with two eyes who led a World War II commando team.”
My point precisely - and Pitt’s character in the new film fits exactly that description too. It’s as if Jake Gyllenhall’s movie was not only called Nightcrawler, but also happened to feature a blue furry mutant with teleportation powers.
The normal modus operandi for any corporation with a piece of intellectual property to defend in a situation like this would be to sic some lawyers on the other studio right away. That way, they immediately establish this is something they’re prepared to fight for (which helps to safeguard their character for any use they may wish to make of him in the future) and discourage other rivals from making cheeky IP raids of their own. At they very least, they may screw a little cash out of the rival studio just in return for shutting up and going away.
I’m not suggesting this is desirable behaviour, just that it’s what I would have expected to see happen in the Hollywood/corporate world. I’m curious why it doesn’t seem to have played out that way here.
That sounds like Blackhawk.
By law every WWII combat unit required that mix of ethnicities. One reason the war took so long was the sorting process and the efforts to enlist or draft people in those categories in equal numbers. As I understand it quite a few Jews from the Bronx tried to join those units but were immediately detected by their variant accents.
First of all, Marvel holds no trademark on “Fury,” just on “Nick Fury” and “Nick Fury Agent of Shield,” so they have no basis for infringement.
“Fury” is currently trademarked by:
A clothing manufacturer
Simonize, for products used in cleaning.
Fi Fan International, for the use in shower heads.
Grass and weed trimmer heads
Firearms.
Metal key chains
Flashlights
Billiard Equipment
So several other companies use “Fury” as a trademark and don’t sue because the movie does not compete with them, nor are they sued by Marvel.
The movie title, BTW, does not appear to be trademarked. I’m not surprised, since I doubt this will be a franchise. And the title of a work cannot be copyrighted, a good thing for Fury, since the title has been used.
I guess they could’ve gone with Nite Owl, or possibly Hawkeye, or maybe Manhunter.
It may not be an IP issue, but I think they chose the title to lure in Nick Fury fans. It’s too coincidental otherwise.
Ridiculous. The current well known Nick Fury does not resemble Brad Pitt in anyway. The current Nick Fury isn’t even old enough to be in WWII. The current movie Howling Commandos were not led by Nick Fury. The group of comic book fans that even think of Nick Fury as being in WWII are not big enough to base a movie audience on.
I have a hard time believing the writer was trying to make something out of a connection that consists of the use of a single word - and a common noun at that.
Last year there was a popular movie titled Gravity. Did you know there have been fifteen different albums with that same title, with musicians ranging from James Brown to Kenny G? But I’m pretty sure the studio wasn’t thinking about any of them when they titled their movie.
Certainly. They should have called it Nick Fury and he’s going commando to make it even clearer.
What, no one remembers watching reruns of Fury growing up in the 70s?
Jonathan “Junior” Juniper (the WASP kid) was killed in an early edition. He was replaced by Percival “Percy” Pinkerton, a Red Beret “on loan” from the British Army.