Currently used for the stampede sequence in The Lion King as well. I’m sure Spike’s estate could use a transfusion of Disney money.
That’s what I thought. I came in to find out whose Cheerios you’d peed in.
I have never been fun.
I was selected for my diction and penmanship.
Or as John Cleese said at Chapman’s memorial service, “Good riddence to the freeloading bastard, I hope he fries.” (That’s exactly the style of eulogy I want, incidentally.)
It was the obligatory Eric Idle Monty Python quote.
But, the Python troupe took the idea of coconuts for the sound of horse hooves from old radio shows/foley artists. They “might” have been the first to incorporate actually showing the coconuts being banged together in the skit itself, I am not sure on that point. I hope Mr. Idle has a change of heart, and realizes his “sour grapes” aren’t making him look so good.
(1) It’s far from established that Idle was doing anything other than joking.
(2) Copyright law protects expression, not ideas. The fact that radio foleying is the basis for the “Holy Grail” joke doesn’t make it unprotectable. That’s, after all, the joke. That, of course, means that Monty Python can’t prevent anyone from using the idea of making horse clop sounds with coconuts, but must show that their actual expression was copied. That goes for scrolling scenery as well; Spike Milligan doesn’t have exclusive ownership over the idea of scrolling scenery, so he can’t demand payment.
(3) I haven’t seen “Shrek 3,” but just because Idle might say he’s offended by it, doesn’t mean that they have infringed it. For example, parody is protected as fair use. However, in order to claim protection as parody, the Shrek people would have to show that the the audience would be expected to understand the reference to “Holy Grail.”
(4) Stealing jokes it quite common in the comedy world. Again, ideas are not protected; only expression. So telling the same basic joke in different words, for example, is not infringing.
Thank you for clarifying this. If I am reading this correctly though, probably the movie is safe if he does decide to sue, then? (I haven’t seen the movie.) I’d think though, that the scenes would be disimilar enough to be more of an homage than a ripoff. Those are allowed, aren’t they?
It’s not easy to say, especially since neither of us has seen Shrek 3. The question of substantial similarity is a big one in infringement litigation. But suffice it to say, Idle would have to show more than just the idea was taken – he would have to show that scenes from the movie were actually copied.
There’s also the scenes a faire and merger doctrines, which say that if a particular expression is a necessary means of expressing an idea, then that is not infringement.
I’ve always heard you have an enormous diction.
I have a fwiend in Wome named Enowmous Dictionus.
You lucky bastard!
I want to be called… Loretta.
I thought you were talking about Idle Thoughts for a second. If I found out that he was actually Eric Idle, I would poop myself.
Where’s the fetus gonna gestate? You gonna keep it in a box?
All the stories on this that I can find seem to be copies of one another and to be nothing more than tabloid level wittering. While (going by what I hear of Idle) I wouldn’t put it past him to get huffy about something like this, I’d put the chances at well above even that he either never said what he’s quoted as saying, or said it as a joke or deliberately but insincerely to get publicity, or said something innocuous that has been distorted and/or taken out of context, or (at the very highest) said what is attributed to him in a heated moment without for a microsecond actually seriously considering taking legal action.
How’s that for a sentence, eh?
You resurrected this thread for that?
Thread closed. Please don’t post to old threads in the Pit.